The Situation
Having referred to the implications
of Rudolf Steiner’s far-reaching indications on Mesoamerica
throughout the preceding sections, it is now time to look a little more
closely
at those indications themselves (the full texts of which are quoted
herein).
Introducing the reader to those disturbing indications regarding the
inner
nature and spiritual destiny of America
might seem straightforward in one respect; they are sparse. Many of them - and the majority of the most
penetrating ones - are bundled up within a pair of similar lectures
given in
1916. The lecture of Sept.
18, 1916
had to be repeated on Sept. 24, as there seemed to be general
befuddlement on
the part of too many in the audience. It is not known if things fared
any
better at that latter date, since that lecture is essentially a repeat
of the
former one. There is no record of any follow-up lectures dealing with
the
topics raised, nor of any immediate activity provoked in listeners by
the
material.
Also included in this Chapter are
treatments of
closely-related subjects by modern informed specialists. They are
included to
illustrate and expand upon certain aspects of Steiner’s comments and
attitude,
but ones which are not unique to his system – ones that are accentuated
in this
area but which I feel illustrate trends more widely, if more diffusely
spread
elsewhere in the more speculative fringes of modern spirituality.
In-depth
discussion of Steiner’s more provocative implications takes place
elsewhere.
Some ink has been spilled by various later
commentators who have drawn various conclusions form Steiner’s remarks
on the
“Mexican Mysteries”.[1]
Few reveal any conscientious examination of the source material,
familiarity
with the relevant cultures, or research into the contemporary
literature or
scholarship. Most offer observations which are simply paraphrases of
Steiner’s
own remarks. Whatever the faults of my analysis, I will not be
repeating those mistakes: I break through the
imaginal logjam that has piled up around this subject.
Intriguingly,
what Steiner does not say about America
is just as fascinating as what he does have to say about it – and it is
this
absent portion which is profoundly perplexing. In this area of
investigation,
as in no other, he demands the inner participation of the reader, and
leads him
or her beyond his or her previous limits of understanding. Deep
implications
are folded inbetween what he does say and what he does not say, and
even if one
reads between the lines, it is riddles that emerge! To do more than
search for
factoids or justification of previous (mis)conceptions demands intense
inner
work – original work – on the part of the one whose curiosity is
provoked by
Steiner’s indications.
Provoked
is a
good word for it. In 1916, the time from which these core lectures
date,
America was still a savage backwater for one who stood upon the tall
shoulders
of European culture, and the USA had not yet entered to tilt the
balance in the
Great War. Steiner never shrunk from a harsh evaluation of our
historical
record and of the future perils which it indicates, and his complex
intuition
of our ancient foundations was not well served by the rudimentary state
of the
archeological and anthropological sciences of his day (although there
were
resources which he did not make full use of, as we shall see).
Temperamentally, he was not sympathetic to the
nuances of boisterous life in the Far West, and
this
tends to make appreciation of his insights difficult. For instance, he
decried
the coarse influences of jazz, the only truly American
art form.
The
benefits of
inter-culturalism and inter-disciplinary scientific archeology were
still to
come. Some of his statements have not withstood the test of time, and
this in
itself is confounding for those who take his word as holy writ. His
personal
attitudes have frequently been taken as a given by novice acolytes. But
these
need not concern us overmuch, for few who have ventured opinions on the
nature
of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica have survived
unscathed and
the modern scholars maintain by adhering to an exceedingly cautious
empiricism,
or by eschewing eccentricity. For example, only recently has the Mayan
hieroglyphic script begun to be deciphered; many a textbook has had to
be
rewritten as a result, many a popular theory relegated to crackpot
status, many
a famous authority proved wrong - yesterday‘s science can easily end up
on
tomorrow’s scrap heap. For decades, the dogma was that the Mayan
temple-cities
were arenas set aside for strictly ceremonial use, tended only by
peaceful
astronomer-kings, the surrounding populace admitted only during special
events.
We now know that they were thriving urban centers and that celebrating
or
planning war with neighboring feudal lords was a major and more-or-less
constant preoccupation.
Steiner
fares
well as measured against such precedents. In addition, he never claimed
to be
continually in the state of clairvoyant seership, and he easily allowed
as how
errors were possible even then. Whether he was correct on all counts
and in
every respect is not of central concern in this; what is the focus here
is the
manner in which his indications can be grounded in contemporary
scholarship
and, reciprocally, how his indications can bring additional meaning to
the
cloud of disassociated details within that extensive body of knowledge.
In
spite of a great deal of entirely probably theories about the
ground-level
organization of Mesoamerican societies, few venture to envision an
overarching
picture of how their motivating world-views operated, competed, and
changed
with time and conditions.
What
is most
provocative in his observations is that which he sees as the core event
in America’s[2]
destiny,
the aftereffects of which are duly noted by scholars but whose causes
are
searched for within a cripplingly limited field of view. The
consequences of
the typical modern syndromes of over-specialization and
compartmentalization
are evident. Steiner, in these lectures, speaks to the meaning
of history. He approaches the subject from the direction of
its significance; from the whole to the parts: he tells the story,
he is not content to remain with
the details. His sense of the deep cycles and hidden currents of
history allows
him to go where the facts themselves are mute. His ability to talk,
walk, and
act with the gods themselves grants him a singular and broad
perspective. His
method may not be able to tell us everything we might wish to know, but
it is
at least a flexible addition to the inquirer’s toolbag.
We shall see where using it may take us. Out
of his firm grounding in the Middle-European Esoteric Tradition (in
this
section, I try and reserve the term “West” for what is local to the
Americas)
and as applied to the events in Mesoamerica at the time of Christ, he
makes
some astounding assertions: assertions which are totally unprecedented
– even
for him. Deeply positive at heart, they
are never referred to again in the course of his furiously busy and
extensive
lecturing – another puzzle which begs for attention.
A
large portion
of his work is still not published in English, and there are no doubt
midden-piles of uncollated notes, letters, reminiscences, and what-not
that is
extant in around and about Europe. Even though
searches
in the index of his Gesamtausgabe – the Index of Complete Collected
Works - for
major keywords related to the topics at hand reveal no unturned stones,
it
remains possible and hopeful that something of value may still turn up
– an
effort in cultural archeology for some enterprising soul!
For
those
familiar with Steiner’s legacy, it is this point about the singular
nature of
his Mexican Mystery comments which is
most perplexing, for RS is famous not only for the allusive style of
his
statements, but also for the way in which he usually persists in
circling back
upon them from different vantage points throughout his career, in
different
places and to different audiences, at different times. As most of his
public
utterances have been recorded and published, it is possible for one so
inclined
to collate his varied observations on a given subject and generate a
rather
well-rounded impression of his perspectives on just about any given
topic. This
is a great benefit: oftentimes, an isolated observation may seem to be
offensive to common sense or to the conventional wisdom, or several
statements
from different sources may seem to bluntly contradict each other. Only
later
might they reveal a higher reconciliation after some sustained
reflection and
recourse to yet other diverse references. In this way, a more mobile,
well-rounded, and lifelike perspective is gained for complex topics not
easily
reducible to a check-list of attributes or a capsule definition.
Steiner, like
any good old-world taskmaster, makes one work for one’s supper; he
honors the
plastic nature of living reality, and this demand that the listener or
reader
do more than simply listen or read is an integral part of his teaching
method.
With
regards to
Steiner’s essential comments about Spiritual America, we have no
recourse to a
fund of nuanced references, and his requirement that the reader
participate in
the process of constructing his or her own cognition of the subject is
thus given
little assistance. They stand alone with little direct corroboration
from
either himself or accepted academic scholarship, although scrupulous
and
unbiased examination of the existing data does allow of alternate
interpretations which are congruent with Steiner’s statements, and if
Steiner’s
statements are treated in similarly generous, “Imaginative” according
to the
technical lexicon of his anthroposophy - fashion.
Steiner
himself
was adamant that no one accept his statements as authoritative: each
listener
or reader was under the obligation to test and try them out for
themselves in
the crucible of discrimination, conscience, and experience - especially
since
his transcribed lectures were published unreviewed and uncorrected by
him (such
disclaimers are frequently included in the forwards to their printed
editions; that
includes the ones here under discussion). Yet what is one to do when
confronted
by his assertion that in the years 30 – 33 AD, in Mexico,
a conflict was waged over the process of the sacrificial death of
Christ, and
that the successful results of this encounter were decisive for
the
future of earth-evolution? One cannot easily co-opt this datum into
whatever
conceptual framework one may have already formulated; one must either
confront
it and its corollaries with a decisive intent, or find a way to dismiss
it out
of hand. Examination of this statement using a variety of perspectives
indicates that this core insight is of the highest value and accuracy,
standing
out from the rest of the contextual material in which it is embedded,
much of
which it must be admitted is of a very different quality.
Not
only is this
an inherently complicating and confusing element, but the extent to
which later
followers and commentators have neglected to make this essential
discrimination
has muddied the waters considerably for the conscientious researcher.
In
this
installment we shall concentrate upon examining Steiner’s text and
matters
closely related to it. Following sections will address broader and
deeper
issues involving inner perspectives of local American
Traditions.
Steiner’s Context
Steiner was a European, and while he lived
and
worked for the entire future of Earthly evolution, he worked for this
from
inside his own European culture. Although he had a cosmic Vision second
to none
and a job description that was staggering in its scope, he was not all
things
to all people. His mission was firmly contexted within the Traditions
of
Central Europe. Most of his many, if brief mentions of America
are brutally critical and deplore its materialistic tendencies, and are
made
with respect to the USA’s
corrosive influence upon European culture. On any subject he stretched
the
envelope of his Inspiration to its limits, bringing in the most
wide-ranging
influences. He also set up a crafty system of koan-like trip-wires
within his
legacy so that those who came afterwards would find themselves
committed to
expanding the scope and application of that Inspiration. This writer
has gotten
himself involved in one such web, at the center of which is the
Spider-Woman of
the American initiation-pathway – but more on that later.
The concerns of people in distant parts of the
world had little relevance for the ordinary Central-European of 1916,
although
this was beginning to change. It is different nowadays. Our net of
relationships and influences is much wider than it was then. Activated
by the
dynamic of profound respect for Dr. Steiner on the one hand, and “What
in the
$^#*& is he talking about, anyway”, on the other, I have worked the
dialectic and, as a result of decades of inner work, research in the
scholarly
literature, traditional lore of Western spiritualities, and the rubbing
of
shoulders with Native Americans, their culture, and their Ancestors,
all the
while pervaded by the living Being of the American Land, certain
understandings
have developed, seeded in part by Steiner’s indications. Some of this
is my
own, dredged from some buried cranny of remembrance. Hence this
work-in-progress. I hope that those who read it will be encouraged to
do their
own work, correct me on any item of fact, and offer their own
observations.
Future editions of this piece will incorporate and acknowledge any such
contributions.
Conscientious
students of Mesoamerica should not ignore
Rudolf
Steiner’s insights on the subject. While he certainly did not cover all
the
bases, he was sober and competent, and he may well have discovered the
“missing
link” which many have been looking for.
Christ-Activity in the Pre-Columbian
Far West
This
struggle in
America
over
the Deed of Christ - what considerations must we bring to bear in order
to be
able to understand it? Here we are not totally hamstrung by an
admittedly
unsatisfactory fund of information about the exact details of Mexican
life two
thousand years ago, for just as the scientific professionals have
generated an
impressive amount of information about that life on the ground, we are
able to
know quite a bit about the larger and deeper nature and mission of
Christ,
thanks to an immense amount of very consistent material left to us by
Rudolf
Steiner and other significant individuals of our age who have opened
the vaults
of esotericism, releasing a fund of information every bit as
significant as
that contained in the Nag Hammadi and Qumran deposits. Revealing and
enabling
the mission of Christ was front and center for Steiner, and above all
he
dedicated his life to this cause, as it found expression in a myriad of
avenues
integral to the mass-culture of modern life. As a result of sifting
through his
indications and of doing the work of bringing them into relation with
modern
developments, it is possible to see where he was going with this, and
what some
of the implications might be for any particular set of
circumstances…including
the Mesoamerican ones. I have derived additional perspectives from the
modern
magical UnderWorld work of R. J. Stewart; it has been invaluable in
facilitating my entry into the inner worlds of the Mesoamerican shaman,
by
correlating it with parallel practice inherent in the western-European
one of
my own ancestry. Although these latter vectors come from an entirely
different
direction than the “scientific” one, one can direct them to converge
upon the
same point. It’s all about how the world works, after all….
First
of all, a
review of Steiner’s overall indications regarding the activity of this
being.
We are told in the Bible that the Birth of Jesus was attended by a
concerted
effort to thwart it: Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents and the Holy
Family’s
flight into Egypt
are well known stories. Christ is said to have later descended from the
realm
of the Father and to have conjoined with the person of Jesus, there to
have
lived for the three years of public life before passing into the bowels
of the
Earth. Steiner brings a wealth of detail to bear on all this, but in
doing so
the main structure and outlines of simple devotional faith hold steady
and are
brought into even clearer relief as a result, a benefit to those who
seek to
penetrate beyond the frequently superstitious public face of such
things. We
also are told from the Mythos that Christ died on the Cross, descended
into the
UnderWorld, and rose again on the third day. If, as Steiner indicates,
a
titanic struggle took place in Mexico around these events, this means
that it
was not the Birth of Christ but the purpose of his sacrificial Death
that was
under attack in the Western Hemisphere – and matters surrounding the
Mystery-Fact of Death in general are known to have been central to
Mesoamerican
spiritual pathways. And what was this, that was so important about this
deepest
portion of his arc of incarnation, that aroused such furious
opposition? What
was it that happened in UnderWorld in that timeless Dreamtime of Easter
Saturday? The Bible does not go into detail on this – it is not even
deemed
Taboo, it is simply glossed over except for a cryptic reference to the
Harrowing of Hell (significant enough, if one pursues it) – and Steiner
does
not pursue it, either. Yet this is of the utmost importance, for out of
what
transpired during the decisive activity of the Easter Saturday
“intermission”
as he passed into the Earth, Easter Sunday and the Resurrection
unfolded! The
latter develops out of the former, inevitably. Even Jesaiah Ben-Aharon,
an
excellent representative of Steiner’s system of anthroposophy, in his
discussion of this matter in his highly significant Spiritual
Event of the Twentieth Century, admits of no access to
this process.[3]
Indeed, the anthroposophical method in general simply does not go there
(note
Querido’s diagram[4],
Fig. 41). The Steinerian map is bounded by warning signs consisting
mainly of
quotations from Steiner and parroted citations by others regarding the
baleful
lower-Threshold realm of “subnature.” The possible reasons for this are
a
matter for another discussion[5]
but
reveal a serious dysfunction within anthroposophical doctrine, one
latent
within its early and incomplete phases, but one which has become with
the
passage of time the elephant in the room which goes unnoted.
Regardless, these
realities are inescapable for modern Americans, and hence, due to the USA’s
geopolitics, for the rest of the world, although everyone and every
region
needs to find their relationship to them from out of their own legacy.
Here
we enter
into deep mysteries – American Mysteries. Not the Cosmic mysteries, but
into
the Earthly mysteries. They are different,
and go far deeper than their turbulent boundary regions would suggest
and
dissuade. All around us they are revealing themselves as people from
the most
diverse backgrounds responding to the resurgence of powers from within
the body
of the planet. They are not exactly the same as what the Old Religions
once
dealt with, nor are they in opposition to what has been acquired since.
The
gist of this is implied by Steiner, but the times did not allow him to
speak
forthrightly about it. Observed with 20-20 hindsight, his
circumlocutions are
remarkably revealing. Christ came from the Father and died from the
Father: “My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and was then laid in the Earth
with
women attending him going and coming speaks for itself. Although it is
said as
plainly as can be that his connection with the Father-God was severed,
what is
not spoken is that he fell, was received,
into the arms of the Earth-Mother. This is left to us to derive for
ourselves.
From Her he received his regeneration; his rebirth. We have significant
hints
of this if we follow, in the traces of our own culture, the
metamorphosis of Michelangelo’s
Pieta into Raphael’s Madonna and
Child – yes, I have the order correct.
There
are many
ways to arrive at this perspective. For example: a conscientious
practice with
the Our Father prayer leads inexorably to the same understanding; the
downward
drive of its verses leads beyond the confines of the prayer itself and
elicits
the response of the Mother from below into the radiating horizontal
Directions.
Amerika – America
Dschingis-Khan –
Genghis Khan
Taotl – Teotl
Tezkatlipoka –
Tezcatlipoca
Jahve – Jehovah
Mexiko – Mexico
Quetsalkoatl –
Quetzalcoatl.
For
any of these, there is no loss in the translation, only the elimination
of a
mild and charming quaintness. All are
recognizable as what they are. Yet when we come to the following:
Vitzliputzli – ?
we note that the term has not
been translated, but left in its original and unfamiliar
form (Google “Vitzliputzli” or go to: http://search.netscape.com/ns/search?query=vitzliputzli
for evidence to this effect).
It
is no mystery
that Huitzilopochtli is and has always been standardized modern English
and
Spanish usage for the original Nahuatl form of the name – one which is
transliterated by loose convention into German as “Vitzliputzli” (Seler
used
“Uitzilopochtli” since the letters “U” and “V” were interchangeable,
even in
archaic English) - yet the editors did not follow that practice. Why not?
Perhaps because Huitzilopochtli was the
demon-god
and culture-hero of the Aztecs to whom multitudes were sacrificed in
ritual
murder, before whose temple the famously immense skull-rack with its
countless
trophies was displayed, and whose cult fueled an ideology of permanent
war? How
could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the ally
and
rescuer of our own, and the planet’s (by whatever name), culture-hero?
The
editors may have thought that it was better to retain the unfamiliar
form of
the name, one which entails it no unpleasant associations or difficult
questions and which sidesteps the polluted popular conceptions of lurid
and
preposterous fantasy.
Fig. 1 Huitzilopochtli
as a Caesar in Roman Fig. 2
Huitzilopochtli as a satanic
demon, 1686
regalia,
1735 (note legionnaire’s camp stool).
(note
the spellings of his name).
I am told by Prof. Peter Furst that a
naughty German
boy was frequently called a “Vitzliputzli” - without any comprehension
of the
meaning of the term - by scolding mothers, even up into the 20th
C.
This probably derives from Goethe’s use of the term in his Faust
epic, when he is referring to devilish entities.
Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, in his Alti
Publishing
edition of Treasures of the Great Temple,
cites Sahagun's Florentine Codex
references to "Vitzilopochtli."
Prof. Boone notes: “With this clear focus
on
Huitzilopochtli at the Templo Mayor and the god’s importance elsewhere
in Aztec
Mexico, it comes as a surprise to realize that the god’s physical form
and
visual image are largely unknown. Few sculptures of the deity have
survived,
and the paintings of him in the pictorial codices are relatively sparse
and
iconographically varied; the shortcomings in the artistic record
perhaps
explains why the god’s physical manifestation has remained so
enigmatic.” (Incarnations,
p. 2. All Boone quotations by kind permission.)
Yet
sidestepping
of the problem of nomenclature does not help to solve any others and
establishes a thwarting pattern of avoidance, while tackling the
question
head-on provokes some interesting insights, as we shall see.
For many of 1916 the default presumption was
that
that Mesoamerican cultures stretched back uninterruptedly from the
Aztec times
of the 16th C. back into pre-Classic cultures of the 1st
C. and beyond, and that the gods and deities which were worshipped by
those
whom the Spanish met and chronicled were the same who occupied the
pantheon
during all earlier eras. In the absence of contrary indications, this
was a
perfectly normal presumption, one proven since to be mostly wrong, but
the one
to which Steiner’s age subscribed with little caution. The problem here
arose
because there were few if any
indications of any sort; the map here was almost as blank as the heart
of
darkest Africa, and the meager information that was available was
frequently
distorted beyond recognition by sheer ineptitude, aggressive religious
antipathy, and utterly uncurious projection. Hence, in lieu of any
other
convenient options (but for reasons which will become clear, and which
don’t
seem all that bad since we still have no better alternatives!) Steiner
subscribes
to convention and selects the name of the Aztec’s unchallenged culture
hero and
war-god – Huitzilopochtli – and applies it to our mysterious avatar.
Regardless
of which were his sources, any of them would have informed him straight
off
that Huitzilopochtli was a demonic entity of the first order. Why,
then, would
he have used that baleful name without any caveats to his listeners?
His window
of opportunity to speak of such things must have been narrow, indeed,
and he
must have trusted in those who came after to do the necessary work of
contributing the missing details. That’s us.
Using the name of
“Huitzilopochtli”/”Vitzliputzli”
may have been an inevitable choice for him, but one which we, a century
later,
should be very cautious about employing unless we understand what it
signifies.
Under the circumstances, and without a better option, those of us in
the
English-speaking world could do worse than to use the German form of
the name
as used by Steiner, since it does separate the early from the late
aspect
rather decisively. Later on, we will consider another parallel option,
one that
comes from the Maya.
One good reason for Steiner to have used it
is that
the Aztec lore of Huitzilopochtli dates his exploits to a distant era
long
before the Aztecs’ own history. In the fashion of the day, a person’s
exploits
attained reverence and permanence in memory only in so far as they were
overlaid with the resonance of prior, vaster, and more divine
progenitors.
Hence there were many “Montezumas”, just as there are many “Popes”. If
the
Aztecs revered a Huitzilopochtli, it is more than probable that this
was so
because there were other “Huitzilopochtli’s” before him. The most
probable
first Huitzilopochtli would have been the one who would have been
present at
the destruction of their last world-age and the creation of the present
one -
this was the same exact era in which, in Palestine, Jesus was the
vehicle for
Christ, and which, in the formative era of 1st C A.D.
Teotihuacan,
the gods of the old age immolated themselves so that ours could emerge
from the
pyre in its present form.
Additionally,
there are some significant insights that can be developed by pondering
the
factors which played into the possible metamorphoses of our 1st
C.
initiate as Steiner describes him into that of the terminal culture
which
appropriated his legacy for its own legitimization. Was Steiner aware
of this
possibility? Most probably, but he does not mention this entirely
typical
dynamic. One can only observe the uses to which “Jesus” is put
nowadays. One can
assume Steiner allowed for the syndrome here since he certainly did
elsewhere
when he discussed the dynamics of other cultures and religions. But
little has
been done to consider the implications of this metamorphosis –
implications
that are avoided by “Vitzliputzli”; but use of which isolates that
individual
from any illuminating associations, pedigree, or context.
Furthermore, since Steiner was unable to be
specific
as to exactly where in Mexico or in which of its many cultures this
remarkable
deed of Christ’s advocate took place, we are unable to infer directly
from him
whether this person was Olmec, Zapotec, Mayan, Huichol or other. Mexico was – and is – a big place
with more opportunities for cultural diversity than most. (In a later
section
we will consider an Izapan hypothesis). A prominent Mexican scholar has
this to
say about the convention of “Mesoamerica” (this would have been
Steiner’s “Mexico”:
The Boundaries of Mesoamerica
I. What we call Mesoamerica was a historical reality. It was a sequence,
spanning a thousand
years, of strongly linked societies.
2. Obviously the complexity of the
interrelated
societies was heterogeneous, as much in the succession of events across
a
thousand years as in the simultaneous existence of societies developing
in
different ways.
3. The ties established among these societies
were
diverse and changeable. The social relationships that gave rise to Mesoamerica are not limited to one, permanent, universal
type.
4. Although during certain epochs and some
regions of Mesoamerica some kinds of relationships prevailed over
others, the essence of Mesoamerica derives from the whole complex of
relationships, their combinations,
relative strengths, and not merely from the dominant type.
5. Therefore what is Mesoamerica cannot be discovered by the presence of
characteristic relationships
or traits at all times and places. The totality of relationships is not
an
average of constants but a historical succession.
6. The dominance of some relationships over
others was
not a matter of chance. It obeyed the above-mentioned common course of
history.
7. Relationships among the various
Mesoamerican
societies gave rise not only to similarities among them, but also to
differences and limitations due to asymmetrical interdependencies.
8. There was no obligatory coincidence in the
extent
or duration of the common elements in different areas of social
behavior. For
instance similarities in the field of politics that might have existed
among
various Mesoamerican peoples in a given epoch did not necessarily imply
that
there were similarities in the artistic field over the same period. Nor
did
political relationships last the same length of time as artistic ones.
If we
block out on maps of Mesoamerica the various common elements, the colors for
the
different elements would not overlap in a uniform way. This would also
be true
if we drew them on chronological scales. This is due to the fact that
between
one social area and another there was no mandatory reciprocal
correspondence,
because this coordination, although firm, could involve multiple, rich
variables.
These are some
of the understandings necessary for the study of Mesoamerican myth and
its
continuity. Let us take up briefly some of the points mentioned. In the
age-old history of Mesoamerica, the ties among the various peoples living
there are
particularly noticeable from the beginning of the sedentary period.
This
enables us to identify the origin of Mesoamerica with
sedentary agriculture, even though the connections began in even
remoter times.
The decisive step in the formation of Mesoamerica was the
domestication of corn between 6000 and 5000 B.C. The slow process of
settling
down would come later and, with it, the development of agricultural
techniques,
which made advanced farmers of the Mesoamericans.
Relations among the ethnic groups who
occupied the area between 25 degrees and 10 degrees north latitude had
to be
varied and changeable. Through history the Mesoamericans formed
societies
differing widely in complexity, from primitive farming villages to
populations
of high density made possible by intensive agricultural technology;
from simply
structured groups to stratified societies forming centralized states.
Their
ties were economic, political, religious, and cultural in the broadest
sense of
the word. Geographical diversity and specialization in production
originally
brought about a simple exchange of goods, foreshadowing later
commercial routes
and, later still, the establishment of markets and even suprastate
organizations
for production. Politically Mesoamerican ethnic groups associated
through
alliances, often strengthened by kinship or marriage, and also through
wars,
conquest, and consolidation (in epochs of major development) of
tributary
systems. Political complexity reached its peak with the founding of
governments
based not exclusively on blood ties but on territorial domination over
populations differing in ethnicity and language. From the conflicts
arising
among neighboring nations, resulted regulatory norms that culminated in
tribunals formed by several dominant nations. Ethnic and linguistic
ties were
important in all of these alliances, sometimes as conditions favorable
to
harmonious relationships, at other times to justify political
consolidations
through hidden or outright conquests.
The intensity of links of either kind
created a joint cultural creation in which ideology in its widest forms
of
expression served to defend interests in agreement or in conflict. In
this way
a common Mesoamerican culture was built, of which the Olmec,
Teotihuacan, Maya,
Zapotec, Mixtec, Toltec, Mexica, Huastec, Totonac, Tarasca, and many
other
cultures are merely variants created by particular traditions in
different
regions and historical periods. A common history and local histories
interacted
dialectically o form a Mesoamerican world vision in which the variants
acquired
extraordinary individual peculiarities.
Institutions such as markets, war, or
courts produced and were regulated by norms, traditions, and
organizations,
including societies at various stages of development. In time these
norms and
institutions crossed state boundaries. Institutions overlapped in
multiple,
reciprocal dependencies and mingled to form several complexes. Among
the
functions of some political organization was the regulation of
internal
and external exchange; others permitted the existence of organized
merchants;
others placed them under their aegis. Conquests could be justified as
means of
guaranteeing the existence of politico legal institutions. At times
tribute was
disguised as offerings to the gods of allied peoples. Trade routes
served as
paths for military penetration.
It is not possible to conceive of Mesoamerica as the product of uniform and permanent
types of cohesive structures.
Within its territory the influence of different relationships varied,
sometimes
simultaneous, sometimes successive, the profound dominating ones, as
well as
therefore apparent ones that overlaid them. The shifting existence of
one and
another made Mesoamerica an area of evanescent horizons, above all in
the
northern regions. What is “Mesoamerican" vanishes, evaporates, along
the
northern and southern boundaries and what might be considered typical
in some
regions is lacking in others, in which different cultural elements mark
the
"Mesoamericanism." They do not spread like colors of continuous and
uniform intensity, nor characterized the same hues. Mesoamerica was a continuum of a historical character
which neither in time nor in
space owed its unity to the same factors.
- Alfredo Lopez Austin, The
Myths of the Opossum, pp. 12 – 14.
Another
problem
of language is reflected in the matter of “Taotl” whom Steiner
describes as the
supreme and most ancient god of the Mexican pantheon, the bearer of the
Atlantean legacy (from another citation: “Taotl is a Being who as a
cosmic,
universal spirit weaves in the clouds, lives in the lightning and the
thunder.[8]) While we concur with the commentator Dr.
Koslik in his observation that this is very similar to the generic
“teotl” suffix
in the Nahuatl language[9],
this
does not assist us much, for the question remains: “Who was the deity
to whom
Steiner refers – as it appeared in the 1st
C. A.D.?” Could this be the significant “Storm God” of Teotihuacan
(the name pulled out of a hat by modern researchers) who persisted as
the most
ancient god Tlaloc of the Aztecs, who shared shrines at the top of Tenochtitlan’s
much-later 16th C. Templo Mayor pyramid together with
Huitzilopochtli? At any rate, it is a leap to capitalize the “T” in
“Taotl”,
for “teotl” not a proper noun, but a qualifying suffix signifying a god
aspect
of any other supersensible being (e.g.: Ometeoltl, Huehueteotl,
Tlazolteotl,
Cinteotl, etc.). To derive anything more than the most general
speculations
from this single similarity is unwarranted, just as increasing the
resolution
on a halftone photograph past a certain point does not yield any
additional
information; it only increases the grain. One might just as easily draw
conclusions from an apparent similarity of “teotl” to the “turtle” of
Turtle
Island, or compare the rather loosely-tethered speculations regarding
the
generic “Tonantzin” entity of Guadalupana lore based upon phonetic
similarity
between the Spanish name and those of various Aztec goddesses (the
Spaniards
knew Guadalupe by that name long before the New World was discovered).
Yet
the
intuition may have been responding to something by these associations.
Steiner’s attempt to indicate something significant by pointing to such
features should be taken seriously, although a fundamentalist
literalism should
be avoided. “Teotl” does have implications of exceedingly ancient
roots, since
the first two deities mentioned belong to the most ancient rank of
world-forming beings.
Furthermore,
to
associate “teotl” with the “Great Spirit” of Native American lore is
probably
not too far from the mark, as far as it goes, but we should be leery of
thinking that we really know anything specific or substantial as a
result:
there were hundreds of cultures who believed in a Great Spirit of one
sort or
another, each emphasized one individualistic and revealing set of
characteristics. The only thing we can be very sure of is that those
conceptions varied widely.
Boone
notes: “After the Conquest, teotl was universally translated
by the Spanish as “god”, “saint”, or sometimes “demon,” but as Arild Hvildfeldt
has admirably demonstrated[10] ,
its actual meaning is something close to the Polynesian idea of mana,
a sacred and impersonal force or a concentration of power.” (Incarnations,
p. 4)
Onward
into the
fog…which begins to dispel under the effect of our persistent attention.
Second, as we have alluded, there is
the almost inevitable if subtle conflation of the time-periods
involved; a situation that continues to bedevil modern
researchers. Let us note the back jacket cover statement that appeared
in the
first English edition of Steiner’s lecture-cycle, as it nicely
illustrates the
problem:
This statement is completely garbled and
reflects an
abject confusion of two entirely different sets of circumstances.
Steiner
clearly states that the events of the crisis and its successful
resolution took
place in the first part of the 1st C. AD. He further states
that all
succeeding crises, whatever their scope or danger, were nothing
compared to
what they would have been if the prototypical 1st C. crisis
had not
been successfully dealt with. According to him, the negative aspect of
the
much-later Aztec phenomenon was merely an echo, a feeble afterthought
of
certain ancient retrograde Mesoamerican tendencies. Yet in this
editorial summary
the inverted Aztec phenomenon is substituted for the essential one
which took
place a millennia-and-a-half before! The simple historical fact that
the Azteca
entered the Valley of Central Mexico in the 14th Century -
circa
1332 A.D., from out of unidentified northern wastelands, but did not
attain to
regional hegemony until a century later (much like the Inca, who also
only
enjoyed ascendance for a mere score of decades) has difficulty
registering for
those who prefer to think that the history of people in the Americas
only began
for real in 1492.
The problem here – and it is a problem of
which
academics and scholars are keenly aware – is: to what extent can we
understand
the seminal early-CE Olmec-related cultures by what we think
we know about the late-CE cultures of the Aztec and
Maya? I say “think” we know because of
the paucity of original sources of information: the Spaniards were
excellent
and voluminous chroniclers, but all of it was in the service of
conquest and
Inquisition, when it was not outright genocide. Lopez Austin’s
cautions, cited
earlier, are equally relevant in this context.
So: Huitzilopochtli/Vitzliputzli. What are we
to
make of this? We shall have to tease at this knot from multiple
directions. We
have indicated one of them: the direction of time, where aspects of a
highly-charged matter seem to change and invert, given opportunity.
The texture of this tendency can be
illustrated by
the parallel example of the Spaniards’ conquering Jesus…who was this?
Would the
Jesus Christ of c. 30 A.D. recognize himself in the imperial
apocalyptic Jesus
encountered by the heretics and pagans caught up in the meat-grinder of
European conversion-by-conquest? “Kill them all, God will know his
own!” was
one rallying cry of a papal commander – and this was against fellow
Christians!
I suggest that similar processes of perversion were at work on both
sides of
the Atlantic. The question of exactly
what these might have been and how they might have operated in specific
circumstances will have to be postponed for the time being.
Third,
there is the matter of sources. Where did Steiner get
his
historical information, upon which his Imaginations are based? One may
grant
that Steiner had privileged sources of information not available to the
non-initiate while also maintaining that he did not always speak as one
or draw
exclusively on those resources. In any particular instance, as he
explained, an
initiate may be no better informed than any other contemporary,
well-educated
or not. In others, an initiate may be without even a simple opinion,
preserving
his/her credibility by wisely remaining silent. Even on the same
subject, one
such may mix sources, as do we all on occasion, being solid on the
essentials
but fuzzy on the details, good in the core intuition but not drawing
upon the
best of available supporting documentation.
In the case of Steiner’s remarks about
ancient
American spirituality, one can feel that Steiner was under a difficult
obligation to speak distinctly about certain crucial features –
difficult also because
of being acutely aware of his own personal unsuitability for this task.
Obstructive forces were present then as they were at other points in
his
career, not least the obtuseness of many of his followers. Also, as we
have
noted, the supportive context of historical science and archeological
detective
work was rudimentary. For every mystic, visionary or crackpot who may
have been
lucky enough to hit a nail or two on the head with their free
speculations
about “Lost Worlds”, there are scores who have struck out. Facts are
stubborn
things for those who invest in grandiose visions, and that tail
frequently wags
the dog. The astral and popular-mind residue of such fantasies would
have been
a major stumbling block for one who had to contend with them in the
course of
trying to apprehend with subtle senses the “truth” of such affairs.
Rudolf
Steiner had a difficult row to hoe!
The store of facts at Steiner’s disposal was
meagre,
and he cannot be seriously faulted for accepting, in part, the
authority of the
few who wrote about such things in his day. Furthermore, there was
little
consensus as to who were the professionals; all the authorities were
self-educated and self-appointed. Hardly any bothered to consult with
indigenous Wisdom-Keepers, and fewer still found avenues for expression
of what
they might have thereby learned. Seler himself never set foot on the
ground
that he studied. The compartmentalization and specialization process
was well
on the way to sequestering behind almost insurmountable barriers what
real
cross-culturalizing knowledge there was.
Steiner’s
Sources Examined
On the subject of pre-Colombian Mexico, it is known that Rudolf
Steiner had several sources of exoteric information available to him:
Ernst
Forstemann, Eduard Georg Seler,[11]
Bernardino
de Sahagun, and Charles William Heckethorn.[12]
The
first two were giants in their field of Mesoamerican studies (primarily
regarding the Aztecs) and contemporaries of Rudolf Steiner’s; the
former based
in Dresden, the latter, like Steiner in those same years, a Berliner.
Although
modern scholars have carried their work forward, refuting some of it in
the
process, there is no one who is not glad to acknowledge a great debt of
gratitude to them and their influence in the field. (They were perhaps
the
first to develop their ideas from a dispassionate scientific
examination of the
source material, instead of starting by looking for evidence which
might used
to support speculative agendas.) Many of the surviving Mexican codices
were
first examined and commented on by them; their work product was very
large,
well-documented, and published.[13]
The
third, Sahagun, was a Spanish chronicler who may or may not have been
translated into German in Steiner’s day, although it is likely since
Seler and
Forstemann would have arranged for it in their researches.
Unfortunately,
Steiner seems to have made a poor choice in his selection of whom to
rely upon
as an authority. While probably correct in his fine-detail criticism of
contemporary scientific trends (his criticism of the then-infant field
of
psychology and psychotherapy was based in part upon his prescient
intuition
that it would soon tend to degenerate into a manipulated technology for
behavior-modification and mind-control accommodation to increasingly
inhuman
conditions, a prediction largely born out by society’s dependence upon
pharmaceutical accommodation to of depression, anxiety, and other
situation-induced disorders, extending even into childhood), this seems
to have
led him to avoid engagement with the founders of these developing
fields. In
that vein, there is a reference in which he states:
There was a personality who lived in the
later period
of Mexican civilisation and was connected with the utterly decadent,
pseudo-magical Mystery cults of Mexico; with an intense thirst for knowledge he
studied
everything with close and meticulous exactitude. My attention was
attracted to
him through having made the acquaintance some years ago of a curious
man who is
still engaged in a primitive form of study of the decadent
superstitions of the
Mexican Mysteries. Such lore is of negligible importance, because
anyone who
studies these things at the present time is studying pure superstition;
it has
all become decadent today….[14]
It seems likely, from the textual and
societal
context, that this “curious individual” would have been either
Forstemann or
Seler, although evidence of any such encounter is lacking. It would be
consistent for Steiner if it was, for he also declined personal
encounter with
Freud, Jung, and Krishnamurti, not to mention the great assortment of
first-generation atomic scientists, who were all very active in Central Europe during this time. Generous
to a fault with other figures in other fields, here he seems to have
rejected the
possibility that mighty oaks might one day grow from tiny acorns. The
mentors
whom he does laud are not the ones whom history has made popular or who
stand
at the head of significant modern cultural trends. What it seems he did
do in
our present instance, however, is take the bulk of his information
about the
outer aspects of Mexican life and spiritual practice from the very
dubious
Heckethorn.
Heckethorn is referenced in a footnote for
the
German edition of the relevant lectures as a source for Steiner’s
information,
upon the evidence that he had a copy of a book by the man in his
library.
Although this alone would not be proof that he relied on it, the
peculiar tone
and selected strange details of Mexican religious practice are too
similar to
be simple coincidence. Most of what Steiner had to say on the subject
could be
paraphrased from Heckethorn’s brief descriptions and much of that finds
its way
into Steiner’s text almost verbatim. For some strange reason Heckethorn
has
credibility in anthroposophical circles - he is cited as a
corroborating
authority elsewhere by anthroposophic editors, for instance he is
footnoted
over fifteen times and quoted for over fifteen pages by Hella
Weisberger in her
edition of Steiner’s significant The
Temple Legend series of lectures.[15]
Unfortunately, by those who respect him, with
Steiner there is a tendency to uncritically accept anything associated
with
name, and this tendency is most vexing in matters concerning his
remarks
concerning America – especially since this goes
against his own explicit instructions to his listeners and readers.
Hence it is
baffling to this writer that such a crank, even one as broadly versed
as
Heckethorn, could be cited as support for one such as Steiner, and most
improbable that Steiner himself could have relied upon him for
information. Yet
it appears that he did, as a close comparison of Steiner’s and
Heckethorn’s
texts reveal.
Perhaps the simplest explanation is the most
likely:
Steiner made a poor choice, due to overlapping prejudices which made
him
careless also as to other issues such as enter into this affair. In
other
words, he was predisposed to accept the coarsest and most critical
interpretation of things Mexican, and only allowed for exception under
conclusive weight of contrary indications. We shall look into this
matter at
some length, for the reader should not be expected to take this
writer’s word
for it.
Explanations for Heckethorn’s credibility in
Anthroposophic circles range from the likelihood that modern readers
have simply
not read him, to the fact that few have looked outside of meager,
barren, and
self-referential anthroposophic commentary to examine alternative
sources and
theories. In the meantime, this is one of those difficulties that
should not,
but nevertheless do exist, and it is better to simply live with it,
sustaining
and not denying the tension, until such time as new information or new
insights
arise. The circumstances, as far as I have been able to determine, are
as
follows:
It
need not be
disputed that this book did actually exist as part of Steiner's
library; it is
quite reasonable and possible that it did: it enjoyed a huge vogue when
first
published in 1875, and again when it was revised and enlarged for an
1897
second edition. By 1904, when it appeared in a German edition, it would
have
been hard to ignore. A serious researcher would not have wanted to be
without
it, for whatever reason, even if only as a curious specimen of its
type: an
encyclopedic compendium of secret lore (note the full title of the book
as
cited in endnote 12) that would have sat well on shelves alongside the
wide
variety of Theosophical Society-related offerings which many of
Steiner’s
followers would not have been without.
The
cautions against Heckethorn stem both from internal fault and from
philosophical bias. That warning flags from one or the other would have
failed
to have alerted Steiner's attention is most improbable. Even the modern
publisher calls it "entertaining", "opinionated",
"slipshod", and states that: “It very well may be that Heckethorn had
sources for all his weird suggestions, but their conspicuous absence
raises the
eyebrows of all but the most credulous.” (pp. 1-2). In the minor and
brief
section devoted to Mesoamerican lore his style is particularly lurid,
well
suited to the macabre nature of the subject - ritual human sacrifice.
Little is
said about anything else. Here it is as if the Middle-European culture
was
noted solely for the excesses of the Nazi concentration camps, while
ignoring
the legacy of Tauler, Erasmus, St. Francis, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,
Goethe -
and Steiner. Surely the Mexicans had their equivalents, since it was
birthplace
to one of the world’s five independently developed great civilizations
(along
with Egypt,
Mesopotamia, China,
and Peru),
but to take this into account would not serve Heckethorn’s intent of
titillating the prejudices of his readers.
Regarding
factual veracity, Heckethorn claims that the "religious system of the
Mexicans" designated Viracocha as the creator. Notwithstanding the fact
that there is no one "religious system of the Mexicans" (again note
Lopez Austin) - Viracocha is a deity exclusive to the South American
Andean
cultures.
One
must give credit where credit is due, however, and it must be admitted
that
Heckethorn is right on the money in many of his tabloid-style
speculations –
which may be accurate only because of wide-ranging plagiarizing of
other, more
reputable, sources combined with a fervent and sensitive, if erratic,
imagination. He certainly had no on-the-ground experience in this area.
He was
a strange talent and curiosity.
At
any rate, 4+
pages of text devoted to the subject out of a total of 356 pages of
sensationalism devoted to other matters mainly concerned with Masonic
conspiracy theory can hardly be considered serious source material,
especially
as there is no documentation or references given for any of what he has
to say
on the subject. But that is not germane to the issue of whether or not
Steiner
may have used it for a possible source for his
comments.
It
is in the area of bias that evidence appears which renders it
especially
mind-boggling that Steiner might have taken Heckethorn's ideas at face
value.
Note Heckethorn’s weird ideas on other subjects, subjects on which he
claims to
be an authority, but ones on which Steiner himself was an authentic
authority:
When
the story of the Egyptian Horus had...been elaborated into the myth of
Christ,
the latter was at once fitted out with mysteries and initiations
thereunto....
But the story of the Transfiguration on the Mount is an imperfect
description
of the holding of a quasi-masonic lodge.... (p. 103)
In
all the ancient mysteries we have seen a representation of the death of
the
sun; according to some writers, this ceremony was imitated in the
Christian
Mysteries by the symbolical slaying of a child, which, in the lower
degrees, of
course meant the death of Christ….
Then
the real mystery was unveiled, and the astronomical meaning of
Christianity...was
laid bare.... Thus to them the Seven Churches in Asia
were the seven months from March to September.... Christ represented
the sun,
and His first miracle is turning water into wine, which the sun does
every
year; His agony in Gethsemane was the juice of the grape put in the
wine-press;
His descent into hell was the sun in the winter season; His crucifixion
on
Calvary (calvus = bald = shorn of His rays) His crossing of the equator
in the
autumn; and his crucifixion in Egypt (Rev. xi. 8) His crossing it in
the
Spring. The beheading of John the Baptist was shown to them to be John,
Janus,
or Aquarius, having his head cut off by the line of the horizon on the
29th
August, wherefore his festival occurs on that day.... (p. 104-106)
Such
is Heckethorn's comprehension of the Christian Mythos, which one as
educated
and initiated as Steiner could hardly have read even as entertainment,
the
caricature descending past farce and tragedy into utter banality; one
which
could not have served to lend credibility to Heckethorn’s judgments
about
matters so alien to all as those about ancient Mexico. One must also
consider
Steiner's harsh attitude concerning contemporary things Masonic in
considering
whether he would have been predisposed to give this author's other
speculations
any benefit of the doubt. Steiner knew enough about Masonic history and
agendas
- typical differences of opinion notwithstanding - to be able to have a
completely well-formed judgment about Heckethorn's quasi-lunatic
appreciation
of them, which form the consistent
theme in his monomaniacal world-view, as presented in his book.
Heckethorn
was also a bald-faced racist in the old-fashioned hypertrophied
imperialistic
mode:
The true comprehension of Nature [for
Heckethorn,
Nature = the only and ultimate Reality = the astronomical facts
pertaining to
the Course of the Seasons] was the prerogative of the most highly
developed of
all races of men...the Aryan races....
"So highly favored, precisely because Nature
in
so highly favored a spot could only develop in course of time a
superior type;
which being, as it were, the quintessence of that copious Nature, was
one with
it, and therefore able to apprehend it and its fulness. For as the
powers of
Nature have brought forth plants and animals of different degrees of
development and perfection, so they have produced various types of men
in
various stages of development; the most perfect being, as already
mentioned,
the Aryan or Caucasian type, the only one that has a history, and the
one that
deserves our attention when inquiring into the mental history of
mankind. For
even where the Caucasian comes into contact and intermingles with a
dark race,
as in India and Egypt, it is the white man with whom the higher
and
historical development begins. (pp.
5-6).
What
can one
say, except that similar biases were pervasive throughout the milieu of
the
time – including the smaller circles of that age’s occultism, whose
agents were
all-too-often in explicit service to agendas ranging from simple
national
imperialism what was later delicately put as “the white man’s burden”
(Dee and
Kipling are examples, respectively)? To what extent was Steiner
influenced by
winds from that quarter in his pronouncements concerning happenings in
ancient Mexico?
Rudolf Steiner, a turn-of-the-century Middle European of humble, rural,
and
conservative origins, but initiated into rarified mental realms of
philosophical and metaphysical inquiry, does seem to have been without
the
temperamental sympathy for the more shall we say dramatic
Mexican sensibilities that engage the Will (elsewhere we
will discuss the peculiar fact that for all his vast amount of material
generated concerning angelic orders, he only on one set of occasions
mentions
the Archangel who is above all the presiding being of the Will in the
Far West
– Uriel, and even then, brings in some very unusual associations). Was
he
perhaps insufficiently careful, even careless, in speaking of them
without
sufficient preparation? Was he perhaps incapable or unwilling to do so
because
that would have brought him into a closer - and uncomfortable -
encounter with
uncomfortable aspects of his own personality, his Anthroposophical
Society’s
and Europe’s social dynamic; issues that would have involved direct
confrontation with all kinds of Doubles and psychological complexes,
elements
so entwined with matters intimately American?
Much
energy has been expended trying to uncover root causes for the weak
role played
by the Anthroposophical Society in the world and in America
especially, between the lack of congruence between the Anthroposophical
Society
and the sources of its Inspiration, and its generally enervating
internal
atmosphere. An immersion with the root issues involved in the "Mexican
Mysteries" can shed a bright light on the subject. But pursuing this
topic
would lead us too far afield (see Section IV of this series, Short Circuit for this), although most
of our discussion will prove to be relevant for one who wishes to
consider the
implications.
Returning
to our
discussion of sources, we can summarize by saying that Steiner had less
backup
than he – or anyone else in his position – would have liked. It was an
unsatisfactory situation.
But
Steiner had
access to sources of information about ancient cultures other than
physical
remains. He, like the adepts, initiates, magi, wizards, and shamans of
yore,
could walk and talk with the gods. When he accessed Mesoamerica
on this level, he really plucked the plum from the pudding. To have
located a
civilization-shifting Christ-event in Mexico,
contemporaneous with the Bible-referenced one in Palestine,
is more than a flash of insight. It is a solid communication from a
full adept
in the Tradition. Sustained reflection upon this item reveals an
entirely
different level of insight than is apparent in the other, more
peripheral
indications that surround it.
There
are
several ways of “proving” a proposition. One is by internal consistency
and by
consistency of correlates. One is by the support of factual evidence.
One is by
manifest elegance. And one is by the fertile and illuminating spin-offs
that it
may provoke; the new vistas of inquiry which it may open up and new
questions
the answers to which reflect well or ill on the original premise.
Utility
value, in other words. For the latter, the immediate issue is more a
matter of
“is the theory useful” rather than
“is it correct” – or, as Wittgenstein
once responded, “Is it true enough?”
On all counts, Steiner’s basic thesis qualifies for serious
consideration.
For
instance,
the conundrum of singular Teotihuacan’s
simple existence, inscrutable to all more orthodox authorities,
suddenly snaps
into focus – and it requires no absurdities other than the
relinquishment of
the materialist superstition that the gods and spiritual forces of the
world
are unreal human projections, or beliefs manufactured for social
engineering by
an elite. If one assumes, as we have noted Dr. Pasztory as doing (American Chapters I): “If one considers
that gods and religion are human creations”, she herself, from
intellectual
honesty, has to continue in the very same sentence to deny the
sufficiency of
that proposition without offering replacement: “this explanation of the
phenomenon [of Teotihuacan]
is
inadequate both psychologically and sociologically.”[16]
Her
admittedly weak explanation (the compelling power of ritual in the
employ of a
showman) is unsatisfactory, but she, like all other researchers who
have
conscientiously grounded themselves in the material evidence, and hence
are
unwilling to indulge in seeming fancy, has nothing better to offer to
explain
the fact of Teotihuacan. And our thesis is that, to an extent, she is
perfectly
correct - only for us the showman was for real.
A Possible Answer
to a Vexing Riddle
The
vexing
matter of Steiner’s sources looms especially large in one particular
detail of
ritual human sacrifice as it was practiced in pre-Colombian Mexico
– and even into the transitional early post-Invasion era. As Dr. Koslik
observes in his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a
contradiction
between Steiner’s statement that it was the stomach that was removed,
and all
other sources, both Spanish records and Aztec codices, which testify
and
indicate that it was the heart that was the object of excision. While
not of
great significance to non-Steinerites, it is a stumbling-block to those
of them
who are familiar only with the anthroposophic material and who attempt
to reference
it in other contexts. This small, but to some occultly significant,
contradiction has not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more
complicated by the fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any
practice of heart-removal, while Heckethorn, Steiner’s most
evident source for his more circumstantial details, only refers to the
accepted
heart-removal. To all other commentators it remains completely unknown
how
Steiner arrived at his conclusion that it was the stomach that was
excised,
unless it is due to the exercise of esoteric faculties, something that,
unfairly for the uncommitted, renders it immune to examination. Dr.
Koslik’s
theory remains the least unsatisfactory, especially since he brings to
our
attention the very interesting statuette of Xolotl (the nahualli,
or double, of Quetzalcoatl) that
first came to the
public’s attention in 1904. Interestingly enough, this was due to the
agency of
Dr. Seler.[17]
Dr. Steiner might easily have seen it, since it may then have been
exhibited in
Stuttgart, Germany,
which is where Seler examined it and where it is still on display.
Statements
by
Steiner conjoined with knowledge of Aztec practice allow for a possible
link
between the alleged rituals of human sacrifice allied with stomach
excision and
the presiding deity Quetzalcoatl when and if one takes into account the
possible effects of manipulating the astral and etheric components of
the organ
of the stomach as mooted by anthroposophical theory. Without Steiner
having any
obvious opportunity of knowing that Xolotl and Quetzalcoatl were joined
together at the hip, so to speak (more accurately, at the spine), the
configuration of the figurine tends to vouch for the possibility of
this idea.
Furthermore, it would be exceedingly unlikely that ritual
stomach-excision was
not practiced at some time in some place, since the inhabitants of that
part of
the continent were second-to-none in their sophisticated repertoire of
torturing skills and were known to have ritually excised or mutilated
just
about everything else at one time or another, including the entire
garment of
the skin. On the other hand, the greenstone object is of late Aztec
provenance,
while Dr. Koslik’s suggestion of additional and deeply secret
stomach-excision
rituals would have to apply retroactively to the late-B.C.
“Vitzliputzli” era -
practices for which no such evidence
exists and which involves an assumption that we have invalidated.
Heart-sacrifice, on the other hand, has been a documented fixture of
Mesoamerican ritual life since Day One. The problem has thus remained.
Additional
investigation reveals the following:
The footnote #58 in the German edition of the
lecture cycle in which Steiner’s difficult statement about
stomach-excision
takes place says, in part:
