posted April 27, 2013 12:41 PM            

I am powerfully drawn to the teachings of Valentin Tomberg, who strikes me as a distinctively Chironic figure; a maverick who has woven and wound his own unique path between "heavenly" Uranian insights and "earthly" Saturnian substance.

His masterwork, "Meditations On The Tarot: A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism", is a tour de force of spiritual scholarship and modern revelation. While adhering tenaciously to long-respected structures -- in his case, within the Hermetic and Catholic traditions -- he has produced something which seems equally at home and out of place within both those worlds. Though he concerns himself consistently with a method of synthesis, whereby he annunciates certain traditional dialectics (thesis-antithesis) and proceeds to reconcile them, chastening yet showing deference to both "extreme" positions, he insists that he is not proposing a distinct third approach, but only providing a bridge or door to facilitate communication between the existing extremes. At least, this is how I understand his meaning, which is often more erudite and precise than it is clear and simple. The Christian Hermeticism he teaches appears to be an alchemical process of transmuting disparate paths into one path, yet he seems reluctant to characterize it as anything more than a by-way between them. Still, he concerns himself, time and again, with synthesis.

He provides the noteworthy example of Monsieur Gerard Encasse (Papus), the noted nineteeth-century Christian Cabbalist, and a tremendous prodigy in his youth, who did not live quite long enough to show the real conclusions of his spiritual researches. Papus, he says, was divided between two mentors; men who could not see eye-to-eye, but to whom he owed an equally profound respect. One was more of an intellectual mentor, a Christian theologian whose theories reflected and largely contributed to the growing trend of interest in "The Cosmic Christ". This method appears to stress the symbolic nature of Christ, and to point toward more universal, yet abstract, revelations of a Christ Consciousness, a World Christ, and Christian Logos, as indicated through the teachings of Jesus. The second mentor was more of a magical than an intellectual figure; a healer who called upon the name of Jesus Christ, and who was considerably more indebted to the personal Christ; less to the teaching, and more to the life and incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth.

Tomberg tells us that, like himself, Papus, while honoring both men and developing theories and practices informed by the work of both men, leaned noticeably in the direction of the latter, reflecting that the concrete personhood of Jesus indicates a deeper experience of the truth, which is not abstract. The idea of the Logos, he rightly says, was nothing new to Christianity. It had been thoroughly developed in Hellenistic philosophy. The gospel, the "good news", of John was precisely that the Logos had become flesh; had incarnated in human form. According to Tomberg, the testimony of the saints and many successful healers (who "walk their talk") points firmly in the direction of this personal incarnation, and not toward some more abstract gnosis.

I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into this problem, which seems perfectly Chironic in nature. I am definitely feeling the pull in both directions at once, and trying to reconcile my devotion to the personal incarnation of Jesus with my understanding of Christ as a symbol for some more universal awareness or experience. I have a profound desire not to alienate other traditions, and to formulate my conceptions in a way which will serve as an open channel for communication between faiths, yet I feel myself strongly drawn to this particular way.

posted April 27, 2013 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

Can one love an invisible world of impersonal "first causes", a world populated by laws and principles?... Christian Hermeticism itself can only be knowledge of the universal which is revealed in the particular. For Hermeticism there are no "principles", "laws" and "ideas" which exist outside of individual beings, not as structural traits of their nature, but as entities separated and independent from it. For Hermeticism, there is neither a "law of gravitation" nor a "law of reincarnation"; there is only the attraction and repulsion of beings (atoms are beings also) in so far as gravitation is concerned, and only the attraction of beings to earthly life, with its joys and sorrows, in so far as reincarnation is concerned. But on the other hand, if there were no such entities in the world as the laws of gravitation and reincarnation, there is certainly the universal desire of beings -- great and small -- to associate with one another, to form together molecules, organisms, families, communities, nations. It is a desire or universal structural need which manifests itself as "law". "Laws" are immanent in beings, as logic is immanent in thought, being part of the very nature of thought. And true progress, true evolution, is the advance of beings from life under one law to life under another law, i.e. the structural change of beings. It is thus that the law "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is in the process of being gradually replaced by the law of forgiveness. It is thus again that the law "the weak serve the strong, the people serve the king, the disciple serves the master" will one day give way to the law shown by the Master in the Washing of the Feet. According to this higher law, it is the strong who serve the weak, the king who serves his people, the master who serves the disciple -- just as it is in heaven, where Angels serve human beings, Archangels serve Angels and men, Principalities serve Archangels, Angels and human beings, and so on. And God? He serves all beings without exception....
[The] new "law" -- i.e. a profound change in the psychic and physical structure of beings -- will replace the old "law", firstly in consciousness, then in desires and affections, then lastly in the organic structure of beings. "Laws" succeed one another and change. They are not immutable metaphysical entities. It is the same with respect to "principles" and "ideas".

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath" -- here is the relationship between beings, on the one side, and laws, principles, and ideas on the other... The spiritual world is not a world of laws, principles and ideas; it is a world of spiritual beings -- human souls, Angels, Archangels, [etc.]... Realism* is right when it affirms the reality of universals, for they are the structural features of the archetype for all particular beings. Also, nominalism is right when it teaches that there are no other realities in the world than individual beings... Hermeticism regards the Logos who became man as the archetypal universal become the perfect particular being. The controversy between realism and nominalism does not exist for Christian Hermeticism.

~ Valentin Tomberg

---

posted April 27, 2013 08:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
Is it really arrogant to believe that Jesus may have been, or may be, the ultimate prototype of humanity, and the one true incarnation of the Logos? Is this disrespectful toward The Buddha, and others? Or is it simply my opinion?

---

Disrespectful only if we believe the Buddha was given the same mission as Jesus. But that would be extraordinarily silly, wouldn't it? If I say Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets is that disrespectful to Jesus?

Fun fact: Tomberg believed himself to be the reincarnation of William of Orange.

posted April 28, 2013 09:51 AM            

quote:

---

Jesus the man is of comparatively little consequence to me. Jesus is dead. Christ lives.

---

posted April 28, 2013 11:45 AM            

Any other day, I would agree with you almost without thinking, -- but, presently, the immanence of Jesus is gaining on the transcendence of the Christ.

What do you mean by "King Jesus". I've only heard Tomberg speak, so far, of the King as servant to his subjects, but I could see how the term "King Jesus" could be misconstrued if interpreted according to the old law, whereby the subjects serve the king.

What I had gathered of the Jesuits, so far, suggested a more legalistic, Old Testament approach. Perhaps a disservice done to Ignatius, in the promotion of more formalized, but less mystical prayer. And perhaps that they are viewed as a "strong arm" of the Church, but his writings suggest a deeper appreciation of love. He seems more Dominican, with his emphasis on the intellect, on understanding and persuasion as opposed to "brute love". I cannot yet see this typical Jesuit tendency in Tomberg. I didn't even know he was a Jesuit. Is that your only grounds for questioning his character? I think there can be no question of his brilliance, and his tone is one of a man of profound integrity, but that could mask something I've yet to observe. I do tend to look indulgently on people of genius. At this point in my appraisal, Ezra Pound and Heidegger have considerably more to answer for than Tomberg.

I like what you said about the different missions of Buddha and Christ, but it begs as much as it answers the question. Is the mission, if not the man, of greater eminence, and does the greater eminence of a mission perhaps suggest the higher development of the man, or soul, who undertakes and is assigned to it?

I'm not familiar with William of Orange. Wikipedia gives several possibilities. Which William are we talking about, and does Tomberg speak with unequivocal approval of this past life?

posted May 01, 2013 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Who among us has not -- at least in his youth -- applauded the maxim boldly stated by Papus: "Neither Voltaire, nor Loyola!"... which means to say: neither doubt nor faith?

Well, the result is that we doubt a little and we believe a little... In practice, "neither Voltaire, nor Loyola" means to say "a little Voltaire and a little Loyola", because one cannot do entirely without doubt and faith. And there is one -- I still have Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in mind -- who had the courage to say "both Voltaire and Loyola" and to be a true scientist at the same time as being a Jesuit. He heroically accepted the cross of "Voltairian" doubt and "Ignatian" faith...

Let us also not fear, therefore, to become like the Hermit of the Tarot, who is clothed in the habit of faith and whose doubt fathoms the ground -- with his staff! The light of the lamp which he holds is that which is emitted from the opposition of faith and doubt!

~ Valentin Tomberg
Meditations On the Tarot:
A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism

---

posted May 02, 2013 04:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArJEe5p5FoY

---

posted May 11, 2013 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
Thank you.

Any other day, I would agree with you almost without thinking, -- but, presently, the immanence of Jesus is gaining on the transcendence of the Christ.

---

Sure. You're feeling the power of Tomberg, and through him the Jesuit/Hermetic Occult stream. The more you dig around this garden the more living streams you'll uncover. This is real. You'll feel its powerful influence; it can effect your thoughts, feelings, even actions. You may feel it less intensely without direct access to a representive of that stream, but you'll feel it alright. I don't know that there's anything inherently wrong with this provided you're fully aware of the phenomenon as it occurs. You don't want to become a mindless puppet. I can't remember who said a Jesuit can influence your mind without being in the same room.
Also, bear in mind that some streams are more polluted than others.

quote:

---

What do you mean by "King Jesus". I've only heard Tomberg speak, so far, of the King as servant to his subjects, but I could see how the term "King Jesus" could be misconstrued if interpreted according to the old law, whereby the subjects serve the king.

---

It looks like you've begun to describe it yourself.

quote:

---

What I had gathered of the Jesuits, so far, suggested a more legalistic, Old Testament approach. Perhaps a disservice done to Ignatius, in the promotion of more formalized, but less mystical prayer. And perhaps that they are viewed as a "strong arm" of the Church, but his writings suggest a deeper appreciation of love. He seems more Dominican, with his emphasis on the intellect, on understanding and persuasion as opposed to "brute love". I cannot yet see this typical Jesuit tendency in Tomberg. I didn't even know he was a Jesuit. Is that your only grounds for questioning his character? I think there can be no question of his brilliance, and his tone is one of a man of profound integrity, but that could mask something I've yet to observe.

---

The Jesuits are hardcore. It's a rigid, militaristic spiritual group. That Old testament-like scent you've picked up on could maybe be attributed to this hardcore quality? They're highly disciplined spiritual practices work on the will force. They're a powerful lot.

Should go without saying but ... when I say 'Jesuit' I'm referring to initiated souls, not the rank and file.

"This current which is the polar opposite of Jesuitism is Goetheanism. The aim of Goetheanism is the exact opposite of that of Jesuitism. And you will understand Goetheanism from a different angle if you consider it as by nature diametrically opposed to Jesuitism. That is why Jesuitism is, and ever will be the sworn foe of Goetheanism. They cannot coexist; they know each other too well and Jesuitism is well informed on Goethe." Steiner

Steiner worked from the Rosicrucian-Goethean stream, with Anthroposhy being a continuation of this.

quote:

---

I do tend to look indulgently on people of genius.

---

You do. That's interesting, isn't it?

quote:

---

I like what you said about the different missions of Buddha and Christ, but it begs as much as it answers the question. Is the mission, if not the man, of greater eminence, and does the greater eminence of a mission perhaps suggest the higher development of the man, or soul, who undertakes and is assigned to it?

---

hmmm No, I don't think that's the case at all. I can't draw a correlation there. What's more, can you or I grasp the totality of Buddha's mission, past, present, and (emphasis here ) future?

quote:

---

I'm not familiar with William of Orange. Wikipedia gives several possibilities. Which William are we talking about, and does Tomberg speak with unequivocal approval of this past life?

---

this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Silent

I don't know how he felt about the supposed incarnation.

posted May 11, 2013 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

"The icon reminds us that Christianity is a religion of faces."
~ Clement

---

This is wondereful! You've posted this before, yes? I like the quote, too.

posted May 13, 2013 11:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

Who among us has not -- at least in his youth -- applauded the maxim boldly stated by Papus: "Neither Voltaire, nor Loyola!"... which means to say: neither doubt nor faith?

Well, the result is that we doubt a little and we believe a little... In practice, "neither Voltaire, nor Loyola" means to say "a little Voltaire and a little Loyola", because one cannot do entirely without doubt and faith. And there is one -- I still have Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in mind -- who had the courage to say "both Voltaire and Loyola" and to be a true scientist at the same time as being a Jesuit. He heroically accepted the cross of "Voltairian" doubt and "Ignatian" faith...

Let us also not fear, therefore, to become like the Hermit of the Tarot, who is clothed in the habit of faith and whose doubt fathoms the ground -- with his staff! The light of the lamp which he holds is that which is emitted from the opposition of faith and doubt!

~ Valentin Tomberg
Meditations On the Tarot:
A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism

---

posted May 13, 2013 11:21 PM            

((according to Steiner, the reincarnation of Raphael,
Swedenborg, Eliphas Levi, Elijah, and John The Baptist))

posted May 16, 2013 12:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
"Goethe is an altogether practical Poet... Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship may be called throughout prosaic and modern... The Book treats merely of common worldly things: Nature and Mysticism are altogether forgotten... Artistic Atheism is the spirit of the Book... It is properly a Candide, directed against Poetry: the Book is highly unpoetical in respect of spirit, poetical as the dress and body of it are."
~ Novalis

((according to Steiner, the reincarnation of Raphael,
Swedenborg, Eliphas Levi, Elijah, and John The Baptist))

---

I like that you quoted this. I was just this hour reading of Goethe's visit to Sophie von Kuhn.

Elijah, Raphael, and Lazerus/John, yes. Also, Adam Cadmon and Phinehas. Levi and Swedenborg were not part of Novalis' direct spiritual lineage though.

"And we see further how what he thus had at the foundation of his life penetrates, wisdom-filled, the sphere of Jupiter. In this sphere he is able in wisdom to enter into a relation of understanding with such spirits as Goethe — the spirit, that is, that afterwards became Goethe — as well as also with spirits who had gone astray on other paths, but who nevertheless led over World Being and World Thought into the realm of the magical. The foundation is laid for his magic idealism in the experience he had of the evolution of the later Eliphas Levi. And we behold too how he partakes in all that was living there in Swedenborg." http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19240928p01.html
My understanding (from Steiner and others) is that we may commune with other souls after death, gaining insight through their collected experiences. In fact, lives lived by others may be experienced by proxy so fully that memories of them might later be mistaken for our own incarnations.

Incidentally, Steiner claimed Goethe was the reincarnated Giordano Bruno, Leornardo di Vinci, and Empedocles.

Have you come across Prokofieff's Eternal Individuality: Towards a Karmic Biography of Novalis? Might be worth a look. Prokofieff also wrote two books on Tomberg.

posted May 16, 2013 12:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
[QUOTE]
Who among us has not -- at least in his youth -- applauded the maxim boldly stated by Papus: "Neither Voltaire, nor Loyola!"... which means to say: neither doubt nor faith?

Well, the result is that we doubt a little and we believe a little... In practice, "neither Voltaire, nor Loyola" means to say "a little Voltaire and a little Loyola", because one cannot do entirely without doubt and faith. And there is one -- I still have Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in mind -- who had the courage to say "both Voltaire and Loyola" and to be a true scientist at the same time as being a Jesuit. He heroically accepted the cross of "Voltairian" doubt and "Ignatian" faith...

Let us also not fear, therefore, to become like the Hermit of the Tarot, who is clothed in the habit of faith and whose doubt fathoms the ground -- with his staff! The light of the lamp which he holds is that which is emitted from the opposition of faith and doubt!

~ Valentin Tomberg
Meditations On the Tarot:
A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism

---

Oh, I didn't catch this the first time around! Apologies.

Are you simply in agreement with the quote or are you arguing against Tomberg's Jesuitism?

Voltaire and Loyola ... intersting poles. Says a lot, doesn't it?

posted May 16, 2013 08:14 AM            

quote:

---

Have you come across Prokofieff's Eternal Individuality: Towards a Karmic Biography of Novalis? Might be worth a look. Prokofieff also wrote two books on Tomberg./

---

posted May 16, 2013 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

The individuality who worked in his last earthly incarnation under the name of Novalis is the key to the mysteries of both the most distant past and the furthest future.
- from the Foreword

There is, he suggests, no other figure in our modern age who manifests so many of the characteristic traits of the future sixth cultural epoch.
]http://www.skylarkbooks.co.uk/Shop/media/Eternal_Individuality.htm

---

Pretty cool.

Without hearing anyone else's views,
I zeroed-in on Novalis some years ago
as the historical figure I felt the greatest affinity with.

I'll definitely have to read this book.

posted May 16, 2013 08:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
I found it interesting... food for reflection.

Looking into it a little, I see that, within the last several decades, there seems to have been something of a coup d'etat within the Jesuit order, so that some of them appear to have a rather sinister character, while others are simply devout and honest practitioners of the faith. I would not wish to smear them all with one tar brush, as so many have done to the Church as a whole.

---

Absolutely! I don't appreciate the order's spiritual practices, but I wouldn't condemn any one member.

posted May 16, 2013 08:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

I've always thought the visions of "past-life recall" may be suggestions of a less-than-literal nature; something suggesting an affinity of sorts, or an acquired imprint, but not necessarily an actual former incarnation.

Not familiar with Prokofieff at all. Thank you for the tip.

---

I owed you one.

Prokofieff is an interesting read, though polarizing within the Anthro community. I think there might be an old thread laying about where Nosis comments on the Prokofieff/Tomberg issue.

posted May 16, 2013 08:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:
[QUOTE]The individuality who worked in his last earthly incarnation under the name of Novalis is the key to the mysteries of both the most distant past and the furthest future.
- from the Foreword

There is, he suggests, no other figure in our modern age who manifests so many of the characteristic traits of the future sixth cultural epoch.
]http://www.skylarkbooks.co.uk/Shop/media/Eternal_Individuality.htm

---

[/QUOTE]

Yes. I remembered your affection for him. I liked him before reading a word of his work. Just hearing the name "Novalis' and my heart skipped a beat.

This is short but sweet http://www.rsarchive.org/RelAuthors/PlinckeViolet/Novalis.php

posted May 17, 2013 01:02 AM            

Situations happen in life, to everyone, by seeing them as inherently good or bad in the moment will rob happiness or even peace.

An example of this is the number of lottery winners who wind up destitute in less than 5 yrs, most of the time they wind up broke in less than 2 yrs.

When they won, they were quite happy, when the money is gone, they become quite sad.

posted May 17, 2013 02:52 AM            

Maybe getting rich through the lottery once, made some people richer....briefly. I'm sure not all of them became "sad" once the money was gone.

Most people who started out poor, already know the richness in that and can swing back into that lifestyle no problem. They don't even flinch about it.

posted May 17, 2013 07:24 AM            

Anything we seem to possess in abundance,
or to accumulate as a monument to our ego,
which ultimately drags us down.

For me,
there have been a few periods of concentrated inspiration,
which, looking back, were something like winning the lottery.

And the insights, the "coins", I've accumulated
have served as a form of spiritual currency,
which was valuable only when given away,
but, when held, only purchased pride.

I've tried to learn that this wealth is not mine.

Ecclesiastes says,
"He who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
I always imagined there was something depressing
about the knowledge itself, or what it indicated, rather.
But, really, the increasing of the knowledge,
the holding onto it, is what causes suffering.

I know why it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven.

Far from being able to "take it with us",
these moneybags act like sandbags,
weighing us down; preventing our ascent.

It is only through the poverty of unknowing
that we become light enough to receive true wisdom,
which must come as charity from on high.