Valentin Tomberg and Anthroposophy

James Morgante

In his recent book Valentin Tomberg and Anthroposophy, Sergei O. Prokofieff cites a letter written by Tomberg towards the end of his life that supposedly proves his final, negative assessment of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy (this same letter is also reproduced in the 2005/3 issue of News for Members).

The recently published second volume of Tomberg’s biography1 takes up this letter in detail (written to the anthroposophist Willi Seiss2 but never sent) and provides a comprehensive biographical picture that is helpful for evaluating Prokofieff’s claims. What becomes evident is the need to distinguish between Valentin Tomberg’s positive assessment of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy on the one hand, and his critique of “spiritual science” on the other, which is closely linked to criticism of anthroposophists. The critique of “spiritual science,” however, occurs against a background of Tomberg’s transition from a scientific framework to the form and content of his masterwork Meditations on the Tarot. In this work Tomberg’s Platonic identity comes to full expression. His identity as a Platonist is an important key (among others) to understanding his criticisms, as well as the significance of the controversy surrounding him within the history of the anthroposophical movement.

But first a brief summary of the criticisms in the Seiss letter: There is no “spiritual science” because of an intellectual and deadening tendency [that is antithetical to the life of the spirit]; there can never be such a spiritual science because of the lack of verifiability and universal or general validity; spiritual science can only be convincing on the basis of faith and trust in the so-called spiritual researcher. To these criticisms can be added another, namely an implicit criticism of Rudolf Steiner as the founder of Anthroposophy and primary representative of spiritual science. In the course of his treatment of the Seiss letter, Prokofieff goes so far as to say that Tomberg “condemns” Rudolf Steiner, and that Tomberg “no longer wished to have anything to do with Rudolf Steiner.”3 Prokofieff needs to defend these claims. Such sentiments are nowhere found in the Seiss letter, and they could not be further from the truth.

Valentin Tomberg and Rudolf SteinerThe claim of a final, negative assessment of Rudolf Steiner is fairly simple to refute.

His biographers point to the conclusion of the Ten Commandments essay (in Covenant of the Heart4), completed a full year later than the Seiss letter.5 Virtually at the end of the essay, Tomberg introduces an extensive paean to Rudolf Steiner for reviving and deepening knowledge about the heavenly hierarchies throughout his various works.6

Tomberg’s biographers also note that in his opus magnum Meditations on the Tarot (completed several years before the Covenant of the Heart essays and the Seiss letter), he refers to Rudolf Steiner many times,7 an indication of the high esteem in which he held Steiner. They also point to a passage in the Lazarus Miracle essay (written concurrently with the Seiss letter and also found in Covenant of the Heart) where Tomberg praises

Rudolf Steiner as one of three thinkers presenting world history as the path to a goal (in Steiner’s case as the path to incarnating the Christ impulse).8

One can add that in the introduction to Lazarus, Tomberg devotes an entire, lengthy paragraph to “Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the Anthroposophical Movement” as a prime representative of knowledge based on intuition (the stream represented by the essay).9 These remarks show Tomberg in complete solidarity with Rudolf Steiner, as mutual representatives of intuitive spiritual knowledge.

Thus at literally both the beginning and end of his last major writings (the introduction to Lazarus and the final remarks of the Ten Commandments), Tomberg has nothing but praise and affirmation for Rudolf Steiner and his legacy Anthroposophy.

Critique of “Spiritual Science”How, then, to understand his criticism of “spiritual science?” On the one hand this is linked to criticism leveled against anthroposophists, a concern going back to the first chapter of his Anthroposophical Studies of the Old Testament:

When grown-up children of anthroposophist parents turn their backs on anthroposophical teaching—which not infrequently occurs ... we should ask ... was the Anthroposophy of the parents sufficiently convincing for the children? If the question is put thus, we shall realise that only so much anthroposophical teaching as has been apprehended by the hearts of one generation can pass over to the next. Anthroposophy of the head has no place in the current of anthroposophical life which must flow on through the generations—for this, the Anthroposophy of the heart alone avails.10

Words such as these contributed to unleashing the Tomberg controversy some 70 years ago.

Another criticism attributes the preoccupation of German anthroposophists with two-fold or three-fold evil as having “clipped the wings of the anthroposophical movement.”11 As his biographers note, he appears to hold them in particular responsible for the failure of the movement.12

This last criticism, which involves a kind of intellectualized “misuse” of the contents of spiritual science, relates more clearly to the Seiss letter. This same train of thought, however, is expressed in much more detail in a letter written by Tomberg to Bernhard Martin in 1956.13 Key points in the letter are: Anthroposophy is only “scientific” to the extent that it expresses supersensible

experience in clear and unambiguous—i.e. intellectualized—concepts. It differs from religion by making salvational truths into objects of knowledge (at the

same time providing knowledge inaccessible to science, which science relegates to faith or superstition).

One effect is that knowledge is encouraged at the expense of faith. Another effect: faith is invested in the teacher (unless one has direct access to

supersensible knowledge oneself) who can appear as an infallible “anti-pope” in competition with church and religion (the usual repository of faith); authority is thereby not cast off but merely replaced.

2

Intellect (normally reflective and “moon-like) replaces the normally sun-like role of faith, leading to impudence and lack of restraint (facile characterizations like: the West—Ahrimanic, the East—Luciferic, Middle Europe—Christian; thus Americanism—Ahrimanic, Bolshevism—Luciferic, and Germanism—Christian).

Intellectualization of the supersensible becomes an obstacle to direct spiritual experience and can lead to a conceptual or “occult imprisonment;” this is true for Hegelians and Marxists—and even anthroposophists.

At this point Tomberg introduces an important caveat missing from the Seiss letter, namely that spiritual science leads to such harmful effects unless “the concepts themselves are viewed and treated as symbols”14 [my italics]. He then begins to speak about the relative merits of “ambiguous symbols” for imparting spiritual knowledge compared to the “unambiguous concepts” of spiritual science.

Before outlining these merits, it is important to emphasize that the critique of spiritual science indicated above is qualified and not absolute. Nor could it be for someone who had dedicated his early life to Anthroposophy and who retained a life-long respect for Rudolf Steiner and his works.

In contrast to the “unambiguous” concepts of spiritual science, symbols (such as those found in the Tabula Smaragdina, the Apocalypse, Cabbala and the Tarot) are: Directional stimuli leading to direct experience of the supersensible reality toward

which they point. Inexhaustible—concepts can be developed from them, but the potential for

developing concepts is never exhausted. Liberating—they leave people free because they are ambiguous and open to

interpretation; they can only be utilized in a manner and measure corresponding to the individual, and actually make people more free, i.e. more creative.

The speech of the unconscious—an important scientific discovery of C. G. Jung; symbols such as the mandala have an important therapeutic and healing effect.

Pathways leading to the threshold of the mysteries themselves, and to an attitude of learning and humility.

Tomberg concludes this section of his letter to Bernhard Martin by returning to the potentially negative effects of spiritual science:

This is the exact opposite of how anthroposophists proceed. First they have a world of formulated concepts and then try to arrive at experience. But the concepts hold them shut within their world: the spiritual world remains silent, because they are the ones talking about the spiritual world; they don’t let it speak. It’s otherwise with people [like Jung]; in silence they let the spiritual world speak. And the spiritual world speaks in symbols—i.e. in mystery speech—today just like before.15

Note that the primary concern—despite the criticisms—is allowing the spiritual world to speak. All of Tomberg’s criticisms unfold within this context—a concern for personal, direct experience of the spiritual world and the enlivening effects of such a primal experience.

3

His biographers cite a passage in the Lazarus essay that adds another important clarification to his critique of spiritual science. Reflecting on historical attempts “to allow the ‘logic of the Logos’ to hold sway in human consciousness” (as expressed by the saying: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”), Tomberg indicates that Hegel was only able to reflect the dimension of truth. Rudolf Steiner had more success by creating not just a “thought system” but also a “path of spiritual and soul-development ... the way and the truth.” Tomberg continues:

Alas it happened, however, for reasons which we need not go into here, that Rudolf Steiner gave his work the form of a science, so-called “spiritual science”. Thereby the third aspect of the indivisible threefoldness of the Way, the Truth,

1 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, Valentin Tomberg, Leben, Werk, Wirkung Band 1/2: Leben 1944-1973, Schaffhausen: Novalis Verlag, October 2005.2 Willi Seiss, the founder of Achamoth Verlag in Germany, is the publisher of present-day editions of Tomberg’s anthroposophical works. The letter was found among Tomberg’s papers after his death by his son and made available to friends. Tomberg’s biographers speculate that it may not have sent it due to illegibility (Tomberg was not well at the time), but that the more likely reason is that the contents were not considered “ripe” enough. The letter’s topics are treated in more detail elsewhere — in his works and in particular in a long letter to Bernhard Martin written in 1956, both of which will be discussed.3 Prokofieff speaks of “condemnation” in his book (Sergei O. Prokofieff, Valentin Tomberg and Anthroposophy, Temple Lodge, 2005, p. 4). The second allegation is quoted from a question and answer session that took place after a lecture in August of 2005 (News for Members, 2005, Number 3, p. 32). Fortunately News for Members reprinted the Tomberg letter in its entirety, so that perceptive readers could draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately Prokofieff’s mischaracterization was not pointed out, allowing the unwary to be misled.4 Valentin Tomberg, Covenant of the Heart, Rockport, MA: Element, 1992. This edition is presently out of print, but a new edition published by Lantern Books is due to appear in 2006.5 Prokofieff dates the Seiss letter to March 9, 1970. The Ten Commandments essay was completed in July of 1971 (Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op.cit., p. 534)6 “The teaching on the heavenly hierarchies was renewed in the first quarter of this century through the life work of the great Austrian seer and thinker Rudolf Steiner. The depth and profundity of Rudolf Steiner’s contribution to a new understanding of the spiritual hierarchies is such that this theme cannot be seriously taken up today without taking into account his remarkable accomplishment. For his achievement in the domain of the teaching concerning the angelic hierarchies — as far as the wealth of stimulation, the depth and multiplicity of viewpoints, the inner lack of contradictions, the consistency and organic cohesiveness is concerned — cannot be compared with the accomplishment of any seer or thinker of the present, or from the Middle Ages or antiquity. It towers way above them. Rudolf Steiner viewed the spiritual hierarchies as holding sway in all of evolution and world history.

“In his writings and lecture cycles — for example, Occult Science: An Outline and The Spiritual beings in the Heavenly Bodies and in the Kingdoms of Nature (lecture cycles held in Helsingfors, 1912) — he gave a comprehensive description of the nature and the role of the spiritual hierarchies in cosmic evolution and in the cosmic order. Indeed, it can be said that during his entire literary and lecturing activity he constantly had the heavenly hierarchies in view and always made the effort to do justice to their reality. He erected a “cathedral” (on the level of thought) to the celestial hierarchies — and this in the twentieth century, when knowledge concerning the hierarchies has virtually disappeared from humanity’s consciousness. You can take whatever position you want with regard to the various theses and viewpoints of Rudolf Steiner’s teaching concerning the hierarchical world-order. Nevertheless, whatever view you take, his decisive service is and remains the fact that the beings and the role of Angels, Archangels, Archai, Exusiai, Dynameis, Kyriotetes, Thones, Cherubim, and Seraphim again became conceivable and comprehensible — renewed and revitalized in the consciousness of human beings. They have been retrieved from the realm of forgetting, sleep, and death — remembered, awakened, and resurrected in and through Rudolf Steiner’s life’s work. Before anyone tries to explain or “psychologize” away the reality of the spiritual hierarchies, it would be his duty first of all to grapple with the teaching of Rudolf Steiner.

4

and the Life—namely Life—was not given enough attention. For the scientific form into which the logic of the Logos had to be cast, and by which it was limited, left little room for pure mysticism and spiritual magic, that is, for Life. So there is in Anthroposophy a magnificent achievement of thought and will—which is, however, unmystical and unmagical, i.e. in want of Life. Rudolf Steiner himself was conscious of this essential lack. Therefore it was with a certain amount of hope that he indicated the necessary appearance of a successor (the Bodhisattva)16 who would remedy this lack and would bring the trinity of the Way, the Truth, and the Life to full fruition.17

“Rudolf Steiner’s teaching about the hierarchies is a powerful confirmation of the Church’s teaching concerning angelic beings — a teaching which is, for Catholic and Orthodox Christians, an indispensable part of their belief. Should one criticize Rudolf Steiner on account of the fact that his belief in the angelic hierarchies proved to be so fruitful and intellectually enriching? Should he be criticized because his belief became “seeing” (spiritual vision)? If we wanted to criticize him on this account, we would be proclaiming that sterility and poverty in knowledge and the life of thought are the qualities and attributes of belief. At all events, the question as to which rank of the spiritual hierarchies Yahveh-Elohim belongs, obliges us to take account of Rudolf Steiner’s teaching concerning the hierarchies.

“Rudolf Steiner named the orders of the second hierarchy, i.e., the Powers, Virtues, and Dominions, also as the Spirits of Form, Spirits of Movement, and the Spirits of Wisdom. Further, he named the orders of the highest hierarchy — Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim, also as the Spirits of Will, Spirits of Harmony, and Spirits of Love. These designations are just as meaningful as the traditional names which go back to Dionysius the Areopagite” (Valentin Tomberg, Covenant of the Heart, Rockport, MA: Element Books, 1992, pgs. 205-06).7 Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002, pgs. 19, 244, 402-403, 474, 568, 614, 634).8 “Our century has bestowed on us three thinkers and seers who were able to describe world history as a path toward a goal: they are Rudolf Steiner, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Arnold Toynbee. The picture of the world history given us by Rudolf Steiner is that of a world directed by providence through the spiritual hierarchies which lead mankind from stage to stage of consciousness, first preparing them for the reception of the Christ-impulse, and afterward reserving and fostering the ripening, growth, and final victory of the Christ-impulse in mankind, until man shall have reached the stage which the apostle Paul describes in the words: “Not I, but Christ in me” (Valentin Tomberg, Covenant of the Heart, op. cit., pgs. 82-83).9 “Intuition, the highest-ranking and surest kind of knowledge of the nature of being — i.e. material knowledge, or knowledge of the “what” (in contrast to knowledge of the “how” and of the mere interrelation ships of things) — is spoken of also by Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the Anthroposophical Movement. For Rudolf Steiner intuition is the aim and the result of the process of a stepwise convergence between the subject and the object of knowledge — it is their blending into a unity. Intuition is the knowledge which results from the unifying of subject and object after having passed through the stages of objective consciousness, imaginative consciousness, and inspired consciousness. In the first place subject and object stand at a distance from one another; this is the stage of objective consciousness. In imaginative consciousness the object of knowledge approaches nearer to the subject in so far as it makes itself known to the subject in its “speech”, i.e. it reaches out into the subject in the form of non-arbitrarily-arising symbolic pictures. In inspired consciousness the object draws still nearer to the subject in that it “speaks itself out”, as it were, in the subject, i.e. it no longer makes itself known to him as a symbolic picture, but as a “word” (or “words”) full of content and meaning. Intuition then follows the stage of inspired consciousness. Here object and subject become one, i.e. the most direct know ledge of the being of the object takes place through the being of the subject” (Valentin Tomberg, Covenant of the Heart, op. cit., p. 5).10 Valentin Tomberg, Anthroposophical Studies of the Old Testament, Spring Valley, NY: Candeur Manuscripts, 1985, p. 13. Long out of print, a new single-volume edition of the Old and New Testament Studies, along with the extant chapters of the Studies of the Apocalypse of St. John, and the seven lectures

5

What particularly comes to expression in this passage is an emphasis on the dimension of “life.” Spiritual science is criticized to the extent that it is deficient of life, as related to the fullness of “Logos logic.” His biographers point out that Tomberg does not say that life is totally absent from spiritual science, only that it is deficient in a mystical and magical sense.18

All of the above indications may be no less controversial. But they put the remarks of the Seiss letter into a much broader context. They especially highlight Tomberg’s concern for life and living spiritual experience, concerns that he consistently represented throughout his life.

A final point is that Tomberg ultimately came to distinguish spiritual knowledge from “scientific” knowledge in a categorical sense. In the introduction to the Lazarus essay he states that what he writes has validity for neither theology nor history. One important reason (among several) is that his conception of truth is based on “intuition [which] is not attained through practical knowledge or intellectual consideration (reflection), but through direct experience of reality ... ‘an evolving revelation from the inner being of man’ ... and ‘a direct grasping of the being of things ....’”19 He continues:The Four Sacrifices of Christ and the Appearance of Christ in the Etheric, is due to be published by Anthroposophic Press in 2006.11 “Another example of an excessive accentuation of the knowledge of evil — and therefore of an occupation of consciousness with evil — is the preoccupation with the problem of the twofold (even threefold) evil amongst German Anthroposophists. Lucifer and Ahriman (and even Adzura), the two principles of evil … have so taken possession of the consciousness of Anthroposophists that there is hardly a single thing which would not fall under the category of being Ahrimanic or Luciferic. …. Anthroposophists are led to classify thousands of facts from the point of view of the category of evil which is revealed through them — which suffices to occupy them for the whole day. And to so occupy oneself amounts to contact with evil and a corresponding reduction of living and inspiring contact with good. The result is a lame wisdom without wings, deprived of creative élan, which only repeats and comments to satiety what the master, Rudolf Steiner, said. And yet Rudolf Steiner has certainly said things of a nature to awaken the greatest creative élan! His series of lectures on the four Gospels, his lectures at Helsingfors and Düsseldorf on the celestial hierarchies — without mentioning his book on the inner work leading to initiation (Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. How is it achieved?) — would alone suffice to inflame a deep and mature creative enthusiasm in every soul who aspires to authentic experience of the spiritual world. But it is the preoccupation with evil which has clipped the wings of the Anthroposophical Movement and which rendered it such as it is since the death of its founder: a movement for cultural reform (art, education, medicine, agriculture) deprived of living esotericism, i.e. without mysticism, without gnosis and without magic, which have been replaced by lectures, study and intellectual work aiming at establishing a concordance between the writings and stenographed lectures of the master” (Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, pgs. 402-03).12 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, Valentin Tomberg, Leben, Werk, Wirkung Band 1/2, p. 136.13 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., pgs. 272-83. This lengthy letter is written over a period of days beginning on July 24, 1956.14 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 281.15 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 283.16 For a comprehensive treatment of the Bodhisattva question see Thomas Meyer’s The Bodhisattva Question (Temple Lodge, 1989). Meyer also takes up Tomberg’s relationship to the Bodhisattva question, but doesn’t take him seriously as a candidate.17 Valentin Tomberg, Covenant of the Heart, op. cit., p. 70.18 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 523.19 Valentin Tomberg, Covenant of the Heart, op. cit., p. 6.

6

For those who experience it, this form of knowledge counts as the highest because it is experienced ... as the result of the most profound contemplation and the greatest concentration, in comparison with which that of intellectual consideration and the practical knowledge gained by way of observation appears superficial. However, it does not count in the slightest way as knowledge (let alone as the highest form of knowledge) for the scientific disciplines—which, as such, lay claim to being of general validity. For the scientific approach is not to strive simply for the truth, but rather to strive for that brand of truth which is of general validity, i.e. that which can be comprehended fundamentally by everyone bestowed with healthy understanding and faculties of perception, and which should thus be concurred with. A scientific discipline—whether a spiritual-scientific or a natural-scientific discipline—does not want to, and is not able to, address itself only to those people who are capable of the concentration and inner deepening necessary for intuition. Were it to do so, it would then not be scientific, i.e. generally comprehensible and provable. Rather, it would be “esoteric”, i.e. a matter for an elite group of special people. In this sense theology is also “science” since, assuming the authority of Scripture and the Church are acknowledged, it can be comprehended and tested by all believers.20

Not having any claim to scientific or general validity, his book “is written—and could be written only—for those who have the capacity and disposition to make use of the faculty of intuition as the direct sense for truth. Thus , it is addressed to those ‘who have ears to hear and eyes to see.’”21

Tomberg’s biographers note that the struggle with the contents in the Seiss letter may have stimulated the evaluation of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy found in the Covenant essays. Similarly, the Seiss letter may have stimulated further reflection on the relationship between spiritual and scientific knowledge—as two distinct and mutually exclusive categories. The distinction applies not just to “spiritual science,” but to spiritual knowledge in general, in particular direct spiritual knowledge. Direct spiritual knowledge achieved through intuition is personal—never general or universal, i.e. scientific.

On the one hand is a differentiation between scientific and spiritual knowledge; and on the other is the affirmation that intellectualized spiritual knowledge does not and cannot replace—and is in danger of inhibiting—direct, spiritual knowledge. Such considerations are an important part of the wider context in which to understand his critique of spiritual science.

20 Ibid, p. 6.21 Ibid, p. 7.

7

The Transition to Meditations on the Tarot During Advent toward the end of the year 1957, several events occur which lead Tomberg, in the words of his biographers, to “a deeply moving awakening.”22 The result is his abandonment of a scientific framework as a modus operandi.23 This applies not just to leaving behind Anthroposophy and spiritual science, which had largely occurred by the early 1940s. During the war years and on into the late 1940s and early 1950s Tomberg wrote several law works, also in an academic and scientific style. And his first attempts at a “last work” are also described as evincing a scientific style and form. In a manuscript entitled The Seed, Seed Power, and the Tree he had begun to write about science and mystery knowledge and wanted to expose the dangers of a systematized theology and spirituality. But he found that “his manuscript about growth ... was becoming more and more scientific and systematized ... and that he had less and less touched upon what he really wanted to write about: life.”24

The awakening he experiences leads him to abandon The Seed manuscript and to embrace the form and content of what becomes the book Meditations on the Tarot. In addition to the use of symbols, it is to be a collection of “life remembrances” or a kind of biography focusing on mystery wisdom. His biographers write:

Such a content requires a special language. In Tomberg’s experience a systematic and scientific presentation excludes itself from the inner being of mystery as much as a society that wants to cultivate and administer such a science. Those who talk about the mysteries can do this in a conceptual system borrowed from science. But those who want to speak out of mystery wisdom speak as intimately, individually, and personally as possible. For the mysteries, according to Tomberg, happen in the sphere of personal experience; they are the treasure of personal certainly, to which deep meditation on spoken or visual symbols can lead.25

22 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 314. He describes these events in a letter to Ernst von Hippel (pgs, 309-14), mentioning three things: a letter from a friend, a subsequent dream, and a conversation with a colleague. The friend living in North Africa writes to Tomberg about his experience of the desert as conscience and a state of being, and of recognizing in the desert something of the inner being of the Tombergs. On the same day as receiving this letter, Tomberg takes a nap and dreams of walking on sand. In the dream he tells his wife they won’t make it; but she replies that the important thing is to leave tracks in the sand so that the others will know the way. In the conversation with a colleague at the BBC (like Tomberg a displaced person), the colleague tells him that they represent a new, invisible nation. Their path is unmarked because no one has preceded them. Their true law is not the law of their host countries but the law of their inner unity. He then says: “Listen, Tom, if anyone knows, it’s you, that we are the vanguard. Let’s keep on till the end….” Tomberg sums up the effect of these events by writing to Ernst von Hippel: “Now I feel completely free at last and bound only out of this sense of freedom: not Pharisees and Scribes. Now I know that my last book will consist of travel sketches made while journeying on the right path” (concerning the reference to Pharisees and Scribes, see note 24).23 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., pgs. 331-34.24 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 314. They write that Tomberg breaks off The Seed manuscript at a point describing the contrast between true gnosis and theology trapped in an intellectual system. Scribes and Pharisees (see note 22) signify imprisonment within an intellectual system. True gnosis, which facilitates depth-knowledge and serves the living religion of love, lives in the world of symbols. Subsequently he begins to take up the symbolism of the Cabbala. But realizing that his treatment has strayed too far from the intent, he breaks off the entire endeavor.25 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 332.

8

They continue that this language requires an appropriate form. Because the focus is individual experience (and not what is universal or scientific); and because in his experience letters are the most appropriate form for sharing personal experience as well as “questions, thoughts, and deeper insights,” the form becomes letters addressed to friends. Friendship is the bond, which is particularly significant in light of the Gospel words: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them.” For of central importance to Tomberg is the “‘mystery of the great initiation’ ... a complete transformation of consciousness, whereby head and heart work together and become one” brought about by a living encounter with Jesus Christ—invoked as the master in the book’s very first letter.26

Direct and living spiritual experience has been the focus of all of his critiques of spiritual science, and that is what becomes the motivation for turning away from a scientific form. While it is valid to say that this process occurs within the context of negative experiences within the anthroposophical movement, there is a deeper impetus also at work—involving Tomberg’s own unique individuality and identity.

Tomberg the Platonist—and MoreThe characteristics cited above distinguish Meditations on the Tarot from a “scientific” framework for presenting spiritual knowledge. It should come as no surprise, then, that the book also reveals its author as a Platonist. Subtitled A Journey into Christian Hermeticism, the links in the tradition going back to Hermes are given as: “Hermes Trismegistos—Orpheus—Pythagorus—Philolaus (Divi Platonis nostri praeceptor)—Plato –the Neopythagoreans (Apollonius)—the Neoplatonists (Plotinus).”27

The relevance of both Tomberg’s relationship to the Platonic stream and the cooperation question (between Platonists and Aristotelians) to the events leading to schism in the Society in 1935 are treated in depth in the first volume of Tomberg’s biography.28 Briefly, the tensions between the two streams first surfaced during Rudolf Steiner’s lifetime in the form of dissatisfaction among younger members who yearned for a different expression of anthroposophy. To deal with this tension, Steiner created “Free Groups” within the Society itself. After his death, tensions became exacerbated and eventually led to the schism of 1935. The members and groups who were excluded from the Society were largely supporters and adherents of the “Free Groups” movement. By this time conflict was attributed to a Platonic (“Free Groups” members) vs. an Aristotelian (mainstream Society) orientation. After the split the “Free Groups” movement became reconstituted—but now outside of the Society—and became in effect a parallel Society until its demise due to the war and the death of prominent members.

The so-called “Tomberg controversy,” when it first unfolded in 1934, happened within this context. As Tomberg became aware of the larger framework of unrest within the Society, he gravitated to the “Free Groups” movement and arguably became its most prominent member. The history of the 1935 schism along Platonic/Aristotelian lines and Tomberg’s association with the Free Groups movement are important for several reasons.

26 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 333.27 Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, op. cit., p.26.28 Liesel Heckmann, Valentin Tomberg, Leben, Werk, Wirkung Band 1/1: Leben 1900-1944, Schaffhausen: Novalis Verlag, October 2001.

9

The most immediate is that despite his rejection from the mainstream Society, he was embraced and actually esteemed by his fellow Platonists.

Tomberg’s Platonic identity is an additional consideration to be kept in mind regarding his critique of spiritual science. For his calling, first and foremost, was to represent a Platonic orientation and not the scientific orientation of an Aristotelian frame of mind.

Of course this does not mean that the two orientations do not or should not work together. After becoming aware of the issues surrounding the cooperation question, Tomberg devoted much attention to it. His elucidations on the subject are revealing and relevant. Key elements summarized by Elisabeth Heckmann are:29

(Lecture held in Estonia in 1934)There are two streams in the anthroposophical movement—a Michael and a Nathan Jesus stream. Michael fights for truth and opposes the lie. Nathan Jesus does not fight with force but is the spirit of love working in the heart. Next to Michael’s sword that works on thinking and willing, there is a weapon working on feeling that doesn’t strike or cut but ameliorates, heals, and illuminates through love. Anthroposophical consciousness must comprise a whole—a union of Michaelic consciousness, Nathanic Jesus and Christ.

Elisabeth Heckmann adds that the two streams are not mentioned directly but that the tendency seems to be clear. She points to the challenge of the last sentence and mentions that Rudolf Steiner repeatedly admonished this as well. (Chapters III and X of the Old Testament Studies—texts from 1934)

Knowledge and revelation are two forms of contact with the spiritual world. The prophets receive revelation; their task is no less important than the spiritual researcher and sometimes of greater significance. In the Babylonian captivity the Jahve (revelation) stream encounters the Zarathustra school—a momentous event foreshadowing the covenant between revelation and knowledge through the union of the Nathan Jesus with the Solomon Jesus.

(1935 article “The Spiritual Foundations of the Eastern European Tragedy,” published in the Correspondence of the Communities for Anthroposophical Work—the first direct mention of the two streams)The streams problem is evident: In thought-oriented knowledge—as cooperation between inductive and deductive

knowledge, conclusions from revelation and experience. In the social and human sphere—as cooperation between Aristotelians and

Platonists in the anthroposophical movement. In spirit knowledge—in recognizing the relationship between two streams of

esoteric Christianity as represented by two spiritual beings, Michael and Sophia. In the relationship between the consciousness soul and the spirit-self within the

entirety of the Christ impulse, involving the relationship between the Michael and Sophia impulses.

29 These indications come from a talk given by Elisabeth Heckmann in 2003 for the Ramsteiner Kreis in Trier entitled: “Platoniker und Aristoteliker in der Sicht des “frühen” Valentin Tomberg.” (“Tomberg’s early thought on Platonists and Aristotelians”). It is available on-line at: http://www.novalis.ch/zeitschrift/03maijun/forum.htm

10

With the Michael impulse, thinking is saturated with willing; one strives to understand the Cosmic Christ by means of the great world relationships; the Sophia impulse involves a listening, perceptive thought-life oriented to the divine humanity of Christ Jesus.

The Michael impulse is the spirit of the times; any form of present-day spiritual striving not taking it into account is retarded or premature, i.e. unhealthy.

Those undergoing the trial of the ripening Manas organization without having unfolded the Michael impulse experience this trial as misfortune and malady; the suffering they experience cannot be born courageously and calmly [he is referring to the Eastern Europeans and the task of the sixth cultural epoch]. The resulting spiritual abundance does not have an enriching effect. They remain impoverished because the spirit is active but silent. They lack the language of the spiritual concepts attained through unfolding the Michaelic impulse in the consciousness soul.

Western Europeans tend to Aristotelianism, oriented towards observation and experience of the objective environment; Eastern Europeans have more of a revelation organization, or a decided emphasis for the vertical dimension; Rudolf Steiner spoke of their future task which first had to ripen.

To these indications cited by Elisabeth Heckmann can be added those found in first lecture of the Inner Development course given in Amsterdam in 1938. In this lecture Tomberg speaks of the relationship between Michael and Sophia and the corresponding tasks between Platonists and Aristotelians in the Michael School. Platonists “the men and women of Sophia, of revelation” receive the “the principle of the spirit-self” in order to develop clairvoyance into karma; Aristotelians “the men and women of knowledge” develop the consciousness soul and achieve clairvoyance into the secrets of nature.30

The obvious point of all of these indications is that the two streams must work together. Of the many cited above, the following Platonic characteristics are keys to understanding Tomberg as a unique individuality: The Nathan Jesus stream as a spirit of love working in the heart, whose focus is

amelioration and healing. The Sophia stream as a revelatory stream, oriented to spirit-self development and the

divine humanity of Christ Jesus. The orientation of East Europeans to the ripening Manas or spirit-self organization.In addition to providing deeper insight into Tomberg’s dissatisfaction with a knowledge-oriented spiritual science, they also provide insight into criticisms against him as well as other issues too. Think, for example, of his generous embrace of Ignatius, the Jesuits, Papus, Eliphas Levi, and various others—portraying them only in the best possible light—in order to ally them with his Christian Hermeticism (roundly criticized by Prokofieff). Or Prokofieff’s criticism of his lack of attention to the Michael impulse and his undue emphasis on Jesus (not Christ) in Meditations on Tarot.31 Or think of Emil Bock’s purported retort when Tomberg attempted to work with the Christian Community by

30 Valentin Tomberg, Inner Development, New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1992, p. 31.

11

introducing a cult of Mary-Sophia: “We have Michael, that’s enough! We don’t need Mary-Sophia.”32

As a Platonist and a Russian, Tomberg clearly represented a Sophian-heart-revelation-Manas orientation. And yet he suffused himself for most of his life with the spiritual scientific-consciousness soul orientation of the West. In light of the above considerations one can ask whether his abrupt transition in later life from a scientific to a deliberate, Platonic, revelatory framework represents the ripened manifestation within him of the Manas organization peculiar to his individuality.

Valentin Tomberg as Three-fold SymbolLike the symbolism he came to champion, Valentin Tomberg is himself destined to remain an inexhaustible and yet ambiguous source of stimulation about important anthroposophical issues.

A first issue relates to the cooperation question (which relates to cognitive orientation). As a representative of the Platonic stream, one can ask how the Christian Hermeticism of his later years relates to an Aristotelian-oriented spiritual science. The following distinctions can be made: Christian Hermeticism is an “art”33 (in contrast to a “science”); it focuses on “soul-life”34 (in contrast to “spirit”); and it displays an inclusive character35 (versus an exclusive focus on spiritual research—if not Rudolf Steiner alone as spiritual scientist). One could add other distinctions as well, such as the focus in Meditations on the Tarot on Mary-Sophia to the exclusion of Michael (as pointed out by Prokofieff). But the point is that the character of Christian Hermeticism is not antagonistic but complementary to spiritual science.

As previously indicated, Rudolf Steiner is mentioned many times in Meditations on the Tarot. Due to the breadth of its inclusiveness, Christian Hermeticism embraces him and Anthroposophy too—as representing genuine spiritual experience and knowledge

31 Sergei O. Prokofieff, Valentin Tomberg and Anthroposophy, Temple Lodge, 2005, pgs. 16-17, 35-36.32 Liesel Heckmann, op. cit., p. 372.33 The conduct that the Christian Hermeticist applies to knowledge and science “amounts to learning the art of learning;” “the Major Arcana of the Tarot are a complete, entire, invaluable school of meditation, study and spiritual effort — a masterly school in the art of learning” (Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, op. cit., p. 5).34 “Hermeticists listen to — and now and then hear — the beating of the heart of the spiritual life of humanity. They … live as guardians of the life and the communal soul of religion, science and art … they live for the mystery of the communal heart which beats within all religions, all philosophies, all arts and all science — past, present and future … they are constantly attentive … to serve religion, philosophy, science, art, the social and political life of humanity, and to this to infuse the breath of life of their communal soul” (Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, op. cit., p. 6-7). 35 “It is this immutable reality of spiritual experience which is the foundation and essence of Hermeticism, i.e. of knowledge founded on first-hand experience of spiritual reality across the ages. Hermeticism is therefore not limited to the spokesman for so-called Hermetic orders, brotherhoods or societies, but it also includes all those who have had something to say with real knowledge of spiritual reality and of the path towards this reality — all those, in other words, who bear witness to the mysticism, gnosis and magic whose unity is Hermeticism. For this reason we have many more masters from whom we are able to learn — and, in fact, from whom we should learn — than are contained in the lists of authors of so-called authorities: Cabbalists, Rosicrucians, esotericists, Theosophists, occultists, etc.” (Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, op. cit., p. 417).

12

(endnote 35). For Christian Hermeticism, Steiner’s spiritual science is an important manifestation of “the beating of the heart of the spiritual life of humanity” (endnote 34).

Until the end of his life the Platonist Valentin Tomberg understood himself as a collaborator of the Aristotelian Rudolf Steiner, as is fitting for someone who took seriously the importance of the cooperation question. The question that arises is whether anthroposophists today can recognize in Tomberg—even in the Catholic Tomberg—a collaborator of Anthroposophy or even an anthroposophist.36 These are important questions, for there cannot be any resolution of the cooperation question without a more balanced re-evaluation of Tomberg than Prokofieff seems able or willing to provide.

These questions also raise the additional—and surprising—question of whether Anthroposophy should only be understood as synonymous with spiritual science. It would seem obvious that if the Society was meant to embrace both streams, and the domain of the Platonic stream is revelation, then this should not necessarily be the case. The indications about the need for the Manas organization to be grounded in the conceptual schooling provided by the consciousness soul may be a key for considering such a question, and in fact for understanding tensions between the two streams.

A second issue symbolized by Tomberg is the Bodhisattva question. This is a question associated from an anthroposophical point of view with the etheric reappearance of Christ, but it also relates to compassion and the heart.37 Prokofieff has cited a report indicating that Tomberg denied being the Bodhisattva.38 The incident, however, is not repeated in his biography, which scarcely mentions the Bodhisattva issue at all.39 And yet Tomberg himself makes direct and provocative references to the Bodhisattva in his later works. Next to the Lazarus passage cited previously—that the task of the Bodhisattva successor to Rudolf Steiner was to bring the logic of the Logos to full expression by infusing the element of life—there is the following passage from Meditations on the Tarot:

It was more discreetly, and without putting a particular person in the limelight as candidate, that Dr. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophical Society, predicted the manifestation ... of the Bodhisattva, i.e. of the individuality in the process of becoming the next Buddha, whose field of activity he hoped the Anthroposophical Society would serve. A new disappointment! This time the disappointment was not due to an error in regard to the awaited individuality, nor even with regard to the time of the beginning of his activity, but rather to an

36 The Society web site in America contains the following description: “The Anthroposophical Society in America is a nonsectarian, nonpolitical organization open to everyone regardless of religion, race, nationality, social standing, scientific or artistic conviction. It was founded as ‘an association of people who would foster the life of the soul, both in the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world’” — http://www.anthroposophy.org/Membership/membinfo.php.37 Bodhi – wisdom; sattva – essence; The Bodhisattva is someone who “has attained the very essence of wisdom which is Love for All,” whose purpose is “striving for the enlightenment of all sentient beings” (Judith M. Tyborg, The Language of the Gods, East-West Cultural Center, Los Angeles: 1976, p. 257).38 Sergei O. Prokofieff, The Case of Valentin Tomberg, Temple Lodge, 1997, pgs. 159-60.39 The only indication about the Bodhisattva found in the biography is the following incident related by Martin Kriele: “Another time he related that two anthroposophists came unannounced and wanted to visit. ‘They asked whether I was the Bodhisattva. Without further ado I complemented them out the door’” (Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 558).

13

overestimation of the Anthroposophical Society on the part of its founder—thus nothing came of it.40

Beyond the provocation of these passages, they indicate that Tomberg’s relationship to the Bodhisattva question remains enigmatic. Ultimately the failure to identify the Bodhisattva remains a nagging problem within the history of the Society.

Finally, Tomberg symbolizes the question of “living esotericism”—whether the Anthroposophical Society understands its primary task as cultivating and preserving esoteric life or the legacy of Rudolf Steiner (a question relating to the will). As indicated above, life is theme that Tomberg emphasized again and again. It is expressed in the Seiss letter as a concern for deadening forces associated with an intellectualized spiritual science. Tomberg voices this same concern in another letter to Willi Seiss written a few years earlier in 1967. In this letter he expresses regret about writing and publishing anthroposophical works which only provided more fodder for a Society already “overburdened” with more than it could possibly assimilate. He continues:

The Society is no longer an esoteric unity or entity, but merely a “society” like the Kant Society that cultivates the legacy of Immanuel Kant. It is naturally good that Rudolf Steiner’s legacy not be neglected, because it deserves to be preserved and cultivated. But I think it deserves more than merely to be preserved and cultivated: it deserves to be infused with life, i.e. to live as esoteric schooling. I write this to express my regret at having made the attempt, similar to Julian Apostate, at injecting life into something dying.

But I’m not going to content myself with sounding funeral bells. For nothing dies, everything resurrects. Yet resurrection is not repetition but transformation, transfigured transformation. If there are some serious spiritual seekers and students who can make good use of Rudolf Steiner’s legacy, something new will arise containing everything that is really positive (worthy of resurrection) with Anthroposophy, after having discarded everything that is temporally conditioned, relative and imperfect.41

Next to the Seiss letter (that was never sent), these much more nuanced words (which were sent) also need to be considered.

Again, the theme here is life, and death—and the resurrection of new life. Tomberg clearly wanted this dimension of life, as he understood it, to take root and to flourish within the anthroposophical movement. We are left to wonder how this might have manifested had his destiny remained united with it.

It may seem appropriate, or even necessary in the interest of clarity and closure, to stigmatize Tomberg as an enemy of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. In the end, however, ambiguity remains and will continue to remain.

James Morgante

40 Anonymous, Meditations on the Tarot, op. cit., p. 614.41 Michael Frensch and Elisabeth Heckmann, op. cit., p. 475.

14