American Chapters - Section II

This section cross-links to the text ofInner Impulses of Evolution, GA 161; the relevant portion is quoted entire at the end of this section

Having covered theimplications of Rudolf Steiner’s far-reaching indications on Mesoamerica in the preceding section, it is now time to look a little more closely at those indications themselves. Introducing the general reader to those catalytic indications regarding the inner nature and spiritual destiny of America might seem straightforward in one respect; they are very, very sparse. Many of them – and what I consider to be the most significant ones - are bundled up within a pair of 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.

A lot of ink has been spilled by various commentators who have drawn various conclusions form Steiner’s remarks on the “Mexican Mysteries”. Few, if any, of them reveal any conscientious examination of the source material or familiarity with the relevant cultures or contemporary research or literature about them. None offer observations which are not paraphrases of Steiner’s own remarks. Whatever the faults of this piece, I believe I will not be repeating those mistakes. I hope to break 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, does he demand 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. Even if one can read 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 civilization. The USA had not yet emerged from its isolationism 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, but his complex appreciation of our ancient foundations was not assisted much by the rudimentary state of the archeological and anthropological sciences in his day (although there were resources which he did not make full use of, as we shall see).

The benefits of cross-culturalism and 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. But this need not concern us overmuch: no one who has ventured opinions on the nature of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica has survived unscathed. 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 today’s scrap heap. 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 RS was correct on all counts and in every respect is not of central concern to me; what is the focus in this piece is the extent to which his indications can be grounded in contemporary scholarship and, reciprocally, how his indications can bring additional meaning to the myriad details within that extensive body of knowledge.

What is most provocative in his observations is that which he sees as the core event in America’s 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 over-specialization provoked one wag to remark: “If all you have is a hammer, soon everything starts looking like a nail.” 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 understanding 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 its use may take us. Out of his firm grounding in the European Esoteric Tradition (please not “Western”, especially in the context of this investigation!) 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, they are made only this once – another puzzle which begs for attention.

For those familiar with Steiner’s legacy, it is this latter point which is most frustrating, for RS is famous not only for the allusive style of his statements, but also for the way in which he continually circles back upon them from different vantage points throughout his career. As a great mass of his public utterances has been recorded and published, it is possible, for one so inclined, to collate his observations on a given subject and piece together a rather well-rounded impression of his perspectives on just about any given topic. 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 list of attributes or a single definition. Steiner, like any good old-world taskmaster or musical artist, makes one work for one’s supper; he honors the plastic nature of living reality.

With regards to Steiner’s essential comments about Spiritual America, we have no recourse to a fund of nuanced references. They stand alone with little corroboration from either himself or accepted academic scholarship, although a scrupulous and unbiased examination of the existing data do allow of alternate interpretations which are fully congruent with Steiner’s statements. We shall indicate some of them here. 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 (that includes the ones being discussed here). 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 successfulresults of this encounter were decisive for the future of earth-evolution? One cannot easily coopt 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.

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 utilizing inside perspectives of American Traditions.

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 Commission 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 West’s 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 is one who has gotten himself involved in one such a web.

The concerns of people in Australia or South America had little relevance for the ordinary European of 1916. 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 from Steiner’s indications. Hence this work-in-progress. I hope that those who read it will be encouraged to do their own work, correct me on any mistakes, and dare to offer their own unique observations. Future editions of this piece will incorporate and acknowledge any such contributions.

This struggle in America over the Deed of Christ – circumstances surrounding the pivotal event in, not just human, but planetary history, according to Steiner - what considerations must we bring to bear in order to be able to understand it? Here we are not totally hamstrung by our meagre knowledge about the exact details in Mexico two thousand years ago, for we are able to know quite a bit about the macrocosmic nature and mission of Christ, thanks to an immense amount of very consistent material left to us by Rudolf Steiner. Revealing the mission of Christ was front and center for him, and above all he dedicated his life to this cause. 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 have been for any particular set of circumstances in different cultures…including the Mesoamerican ones. I have derived additional perspectives from the magical-Celtic UnderWorld work of R. J. Stewart; they have been invaluable in facilitating my entry into the inner worlds of the Mesoamerican shaman.

First of all, a review of his indications. We know from the Bible that the Birth of Jesus was attended by a concerted effort to thwart it. Herod’s massacre of the Innocents and the flight into Egypt are well known. 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. Steiner brings a wealth of detail to bear on all this, but the outlines of devotional faith hold steady and are brought into even clearer relief as a result. We also know from the Mythos that Christ died on the Cross, descended into Hell, and rose again on the third day. If, as Steiner indicates, a titanic struggle in Mexico took place during the years 30 – 33 AD, 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 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 hell on Easter Saturday? The Bible does not go into detail on this, and neither does Steiner. Yet this is of the utmost importance, for it is out of what transpired during the decisive activity of the Easter Saturday “pralaya” as he passed into the Earth that Easter Sunday and the Resurrection unfolded! Even Jesaiah Ben-Aharon, in his discussion of this matter in his highly significant Spiritual Event of the Twentieth Century, admits of no access to this process.^¹Indeed, the anthroposophical method in general simply does not go there. The Steinerian map is bounded by warning signs consisting mainly of parroted quotations from Steiner regarding the baleful lower-Threshold realm of “subnature” (Eastern-derived systems simply ignored it). Whether this is all for the best or if it reflects RS’s long-term intentions is a matter for another discussion. Regardless, these realities are inescapable for Americans, and hence, by extension, for the rest of the world, although everyone and every region needs to find their relationship to them from out of their own situation.

Here we enter into deep mysteries – American Mysteries. Not the Cosmic mysteries of the Father, but into the Chthonic Earthly mysteries. They are different, and go far deeper than the turbulent interface regions. All around us they are revealing themselves as people from the most diverse backgrounds responding to the resurgence of powers from within the Earth. This is 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 Steiner implies, but the times did not allow him to speak forthrightly about it. Christ came from the Father and died from the Father: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” speaks for itself. He left the connection with the Father-God behind and fell into the arms of the Earth-Mother. From Her he received his regeneration; his rebirth. We have significant hints of this if we juxtapose our own culture’s Pieta sculpture with Christmastime’s Madonna and Child imagery.

All of this the American races knew, and it was not a hidden mystery, except for the technical details of their initiatory shamanic pathways. They knew the upsides and the downsides, the ins and the outs of the ways of the Earth. They were neither Edenic noble savages or doomed atavistic races. They were human beings, subject to all the confusions of the Fall, but their circumstances were different, their wisdom was different, and their orientation was different than in Europe. They knew about how things happen when you go “down.”

Steiner knew that Christ’s ally in Mexico was an initiate experienced in UnderWorld realities and that the transformative encounter with Shadow and Double which every shaman undergoes was undergone on the most transpersonal, archetypal, and planetary fashion by Christ in his descent into the plutonian depths (a European analogue of this is the ancient Rite of the Sacrificial King as practiced within the cultures of the Celts). There were those others who drew their personal power from unregenerate realms of planetary Double; deep impacted realms of twisted and thwarted energies. From even the most casual forms of pop psychology we all know what happens when core internal energies are not allowed expression or when impacted patterns are challenged; this is the realm of the microcosm within each individual. Christ worked on the most macrocosmic levels imaginable – within the Earth. For the Earth has had its developmental problems, too - as have we all. Not everything has been dealt with in ways which merits hindsight’s satisfaction, and over the course of aeons, the toxic residue had reached a point where something had to be done. Speaking of the compromised religions and spiritualities of the pre-Christian era, even the Pagan Priestess Dion Fortune has said: “…we must not forget that Christianity came as a corrective to a pagan world that was sick unto death with its own toxins.”^²

Steiner minces no words when it comes to describing the excesses of corrupt Aztec culture oar the depths of its dark roots. He balances this with a stunning revelation of the unsuspected wealth within the Mesoamerican experience, although he does not follow though by reconciling these two extremes of that spiritual spectrum.

Let us begin by scrutinizing his observations and reviewing some of the problems which surface as a result of a critical analysis. How far did Steiner go in his indications, and how far can we go with them?

First of all, the language. For instance: “Vitzliputzli.” This agent’s name provokes no immediate associations, and a casual search for references in the dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All RS’s terminology for the Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted by the unappreciative Spanish, one must remember!), but the events to which he refers date from boththe early Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1^st C. A.D., and 16^th C. A.D., respectively. Evidence from the latter is presumed to indicate trends in the former. Between the two, however, are vast gulfs and shifts which were not even suspected in Steiner’s day, gulfs more drastic in many respects than those between, say, 1^stand 16^th C. Italy, England, or Greece. Additionally, there is still no record of anywritten language for the critical Teotihuacan civilization, and the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all researchers in Steiner’s day – as it was even for the Maya themselves until very recently. The curtain of history had fallen with a mighty thunderclap upon that act in the world’s drama! A tangental question: was this a recapitulation of Mesoamerica’s Atlantean roots?

The language of the most recent English translation of Steiner’s Inner Impulses of Evolution is confounding in this regard, and glosses over the problems involved in pursuing his indications. Let us note the spelling of significant names, from the German original to the English translation:

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 translation, only the elimination of a mild quaintness. Yet when we come to the following:

we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its original and unfamiliar form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli is and has always been standard English and Spanish usage for the original Nahuatl form of the name – and transliterated by standardized convention into German as “Vitzliputzli” - yet the editors did not follow this 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 saviour of the Christ-impulse? Better to retain the unfamiliar form of the name, one which carries with it no unpleasant associations or difficult questions….

Yet sidestepping of this problem does not contribute to the solving of any others, while pursuance of it does, as we shall see.

For one living in 1916 there was every reason to assume that Mesoamerican cultures stretched back uninterruptedly from the Aztec times of the 16^th C. back into pre-Classic cultures of the 1^stC. 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 the American Turning Point of Time. A default presumption, to be sure, and one proven since to be mostly wrong, but the one to which Steiner’s age subscribed. Hence, in lieu of any other convenient options (but for reasons which will become clear) Steiner selects the name of the Aztec’s unchallenged culture hero and war-god – Huitzilopochtli – and applies it to our mysterious avatar. Regardless of 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 a caution? 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 our Thinking and in the course of science’s work in contributing clarifying details. That’s us.

Using the name “Huitzilopochtli” may have been an inevitable choice for him, but one which we, a century later, should be very cautious about employing. 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, since it does separate the early from the late aspect rather decisively. Later on, we will consider another option, one that comes from the Maya.

Nonetheless, there are some significant insights that can be developed by pondering the factors which played into the metamorphoses of our 1^stC. 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 little has been done to consider the implications of this metamorphosis – implications that are avoided by “Vitzliputzli”.

Furthermore, since Steiner is unspecific 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 from him whether this person was Olmec, Zapotec, Mayan, or other. In a later section we will consider an Izapan hypothesis.

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 (also, from another time: “Taotl is a Being who as a cosmic, universal spirit weaves in the clouds, lives in the lightning and the thunder.”^³) While we concur with the commentator Dr. Koslik in his thesis that this is the same as the generic nahuatl language “teotl” suffix^⁴, this does not assist us much, for the question remains: “Who was the deity to whom Steiner refers – as it appeared in the 1^st 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, whose shrine shared the top of Tenochtitlan’s much-later 16^th C. Templo Mayor pyramid together with Huitzilopochtli’s? At any rate, it is a leap to capitalize the “T” in “Taotl”, for “teotl” not a proper noun, but a qualifying suffix signifying the god-aspect of any other being (e.g.: Ometeoltl, Huehueteotl, Tlazolteotl, Cinteotl, etc.). To derive anything more than the most general speculations from this 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 from the rather loosely-tethered speculations regarding the generic “Tonantzin” of Guadaloupana lore.

Yet the intuition may have noticed something in these circumstances. Steiner’s attempt to indicate something significant by pointing to such features should be taken seriously. Perhaps “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. The only thing we can be very sure of is that those conceptions varied widely. Onward into the fog…which just might begin 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:

“…We hear of how…forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until they were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate.”

This statement reflects a total confusion of two entirely different sets of circumstances. Steiner clearly indicates that the crisis and its successful resolution took place in the first part of the 1^stC. A.D. He further states that all succeeding crises, whatever their scope or danger, were nothing compared to what they would have been if the prototypical 1^stC. crisis had not been successfully challenged. The negative aspect of the much-later Aztec phenomenon was merely an echo, a feeble afterthought of certain retrograde Mesoamerican tendencies. Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a millennia-and-a-half before! The simple historical fact that the Azteca entered Mesoamerica in the 14^th Century (circa 1332 A.D.!, from out of unidentified northern wastelands), and only began their trajectory of Empire a hundred years 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 the Americas only began in earnest 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 wethink 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.

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 time.

Another vector is illustrated by the case of the Spaniard’s 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 hegemony? I suggest that similar processes were at work on both sides of the Atlantic. The question of exactly what these might have been 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 many cases, an initiate may be no more well-informed than any other educated contemporary. 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.

In the case of Steiner’s extended remarks about ancient American spirituality, one may feel that Steiner was under a difficult obligation to speak distinctly about certain crucial features of its history. Obstructive forces were present then as they were at other points in his career. Additionally, any 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 unbounded fantasies about “Lost Worlds”, there are scores who have struck out. Facts are stubborn things for those who invest in grandiose visions! 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. And there was no consensus as to who were the professionals; all the authorities were self-appointed. Few bothered to consult with Indigenous Wisdom-Keepers, and fewer still found avenues for expression of what they might have thereby learned. The compartmentalization of specialization was well on the way to sequestering behind almost insurmountable barriers what real cross-culturalizing knowledge there was.

On the subject of pre-Colombian Mexico, it is known that Rudolf Steiner had two sources of exoteric information available to him: Eduard Seler^⁵and Charles William Heckethorn.^⁶ The first was – and still is – a giant in his field of Mesoamerican studies (primarily regarding the Aztecs), and a contemporary of Rudolf Steiner’s; a Berliner. Although modern scholars have developed his work, refuting some of his work in the process, there is none who does not acknowledge a great debt of gratitude to him and his influence in the field. (He was one of the first to develop his 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 him; his work product is very large. 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. Similarly, 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….”^⁷

It seems likely, from the textual and societal context, that this “curious individual” might have been Eduard Seler, although any hard evidence of such an encounter is lacking. It would be consistent for Steiner if it was, for he also declined association 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. The mentors whom he lauds 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 (Aztec, to be precise, although this was not a distinction many cared to make in Steiner’s day) life and spiritual practice from the very dubious Heckethorn.

Heckethorn is referenced in a footnote for the German edition of GA 171 as a source for Steiner’s information, upon the evidence that he had a copy of a famously curious 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, conversely, much of Heckethorn finds its way into Steiner’s text. Heckethorn has credibility in some circles: he is cited as a corroborating authority elsewhere by Anthroposophic editors; he is footnoted over fifteen times and quoted for over fifteen pages by Hella Weisberger in her edition of Steiner’s The Temple Legend series of lectures.^⁸

Unfortunately, there is a tendency to accept uncritically anything associated with Steiner’s name by those who believe in him, and this tendency is most vexing in matters concerning his remarks concerning America – especially since this goes against his own explicit instructions to his followers. Hence it is incomprehensible to this writer that such a crank, even one as broadly versed as Heckethorn, could be cited as support for one such as Steiner, or 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 should receive some consideration: Steiner made a mistake, due to overlapping prejudices which made him careless as to other issues such as enter into this affair. We shall look into this matter at some length, for the reader should not be expected to take this writer’s word for it. There may, of course, be better explanations. One partial explanation for Heckethorn’s credibility in Anthroposophic circles is that modern readers have simply not read the book, or gone outside of self-referential anthroposophic commentary for information or critical research. In the meantime, this is one of those difficulties that should not, but nevertheless does 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 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 was in some vogue. A serious researcher would not have wanted to be without it, for whatever reason, even if only as a curious specimen of its type.

However, from two different directions Heckethorn is suspect: 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 brief section devoted to Mesoamerican lore his style is particularly lurid, and 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 condemned for the excesses of the Nazis, while ignoring the legacies of Tauler, Erasmus, St. Francis, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Goethe – and Steiner. Surely the Mexicans had their equivalents! Surely Mexico had an equivalently rich history, since it was birthplace to one of the world’s five independently developing great civilizations (along with Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Peru).

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" - our present-day historical view spans well over two thousand years of many various and simultaneously-existing pre-Columbian cultures - Viracocha is a deity exclusive to the South American Andean cultures. There is no evidence to the contrary, and all we have from Heckethorn is his blithe assertion. 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. 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 devoted mainly to other matters can hardly be considered serious source material, especially as there is no documentation or references given for any of what Mr. Heckethorn 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 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 does claim to be an authority, but ones on which Steiner was the actual 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 judgements 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 ordinarily have been predisposed to give this author's speculations any benefit of the doubt. Steiner knew enough about Masonic history and agendas to be able to have a completely well-formed judgement about Heckethorn's quasi-lunatic appreciation of them, which form a consistent theme in his monomaniacal world-view, as presented in his book.

Heckethorn was also a bald-faced racist in the old 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 more restricted circles of that age’s occultism? To what extent was Steiner at the mercy of such a weight of deformed speculation in his pronouncements concerning happenings in ancient Mexico? Rudolf Steiner, a turn-of-the-century Middle European of humble, rural, and conservative origins, and educated into the loftiest realms (and beyond!) of philosophical inquiry, does seem to have been without the temperamental sympathy for the more dramatic Mexican sensibilities. 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 and of his Anthroposophical Society’s social dynamic; issues that would have involved direct confrontation with all kinds of Doubles, elements so entwined with matters intimately American?

Much energy has been expended trying to uncover root causes for the weak role of the Anthroposophical Society in the world and in America, and of the lack of congruence between the Anthroposophical Society and the sources of its Inspiration. A deep encounter with the root issues involved in the "Mexican Mysteries" can shed a reorienting light on the subject. But pursuing this topic would lead us too far afield, although most of our discussion will prove to be most relevant for one who might wish to consider its 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, and shamans of yore, could associate 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 stroke of genius. 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 his other, more peripheral indications.

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 generate; the new vistas of inquiry which it may open up. Utility value, in other words. For the latter, the immediate issue is more a matter of “is the theory useful” rather than “is ittrue”. On all counts, Steiner’s basic thesis – that is all one can legitimately take it as, for one who had not personally proven it by the same inner access and experience as any initiate in that Tradition obtains – is worthy of serious consideration.

For instance, the conundrum of Teotihuacan’s simple existence, inscrutable to historians of all varieties, 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. If one assumes, as historian Esther Pasztory does, that: “If one considers that gods and religion are human creations”, she herself, out of intellectual honesty, has to continue in the very same sentence to deny the efficacy of that proposition but without replacement: “this explanation of the phenomenon [of Teotihuacan] is inadequate both psychologically and sociologically.”^⁹Her admittedly weak alternative (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.

The vexing matter of Steiner’s sources looms especially large in a detail of ritual human sacrifice as it was practiced in pre-Colombian Mexico – and even into post-Colombian Mexico. 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 Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify that it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction has not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by the fact that Steiner does not acknowledge anypractice of heart-removal, while Heckethorn, Steiner’s most evident source for his more circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal. It remains completely unknown how Steiner arrived at his conclusion that it was the stomach that was excised. Dr. Koslik’s theory remains one that is 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.^¹⁰Dr. Steiner might easily have seen it, since it may then have been exhibited in Stuttgart, Germany, where Seler observed it and where it is still on display.

Statements by Steiner conjoined with knowledge of Aztec practice strongly imply a link between the alleged rituals of human sacrifice allied with stomach excision and the presiding deity Quetzalcoatl. Without Steiner having any obvious opportunity of knowing that Xolotl and Quetzalcoatl were joined together at the hip, so to speak, the configuration of the figurine tends to vouch for the plausibility of his 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. 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 noevidence exists. Heart-sacrifice, on the other hand, has been a documented fixture of Mesoamerican ritual since Day One. The problem remains.

From a bundling of these considerations in two instances comes these additional perspectives:

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:

Priester den Opfern den Magen ausschnitten, was verschiedentlich - als angeblich nicht mit der Oberlieferung ubereinstimmend - beanstandet warden ist.”^¹¹

"Taotl: For external sources of information concerning the Aztecs and their customs, as well as concerning the names of their Gods, Rudolf Steiner used the book by Charles William Heckethorn, Geheime Gesellschaften, Geheimbunde und Geheimlehren, Leipzig 1900 (The Secret Societies, Secret Brotherhoods and Secret Teachings of All Ages and Countries)…. From here Rudolf Steiner obtained the detail that he mentioned that the priests cut out the victim's stomach, an assertion that is variously objected to as apparently not corresponding to the traditions that have been passed down to our time." (as translated for this paper by James Hindes)

I was amazed upon first reading this translation, for no other commentator on the subject has taken notice of the german original (the footnote does not exist in the English edition), nor referred to it as a possible explanation for Steiner’s remark and I, after some dozens or so readings of Heckethorn’s text, had noticed nothing of the sort. What was going on here? Going back to Heckethorn’s original English edition, I reread it with closer scrutiny. A light began to glow. What is most interesting about this passage is that it is misleading; Heckethorn does not mean to imply that the stomach was excised. What he does say is:

"This is the origin of the detail mentioned by Rudolf Steiner that the priests cut open the victims' stomachs, which has been criticized on various occasions as apparently not in accordance with recorded tradition."

This is more in accord with the gist of Heckethorn’s statement, but illustrates the pitfall the editor of Steiner’s text might have encountered.

While I do not have a copy of the German edition of Heckethorn's book to refer to, it is quite possible that Steiner made the same mistake as did his modern editors, especially if the translation into german was not sufficiently precise.

To belabor the obvious, what is clearly intended by Heckethorn is that the victim’s belly was cut open to allow access to the heart, not that the organ of the stomach was removed. In this one instance, Heckethorn’s description, along with other details not quoted here, corresponds exactly with all other reports. Here I believe we have a solution to “the question of the stomach" in Steiner's "Mexican Mysteries" lectures.

It should be noted that the only other instance which I have been able to locate of a spelling identical to Steiner’s occurs in Heckethorn – he uses it seven times - with similar variants used by other sources (Sahagun, Koslik), e.g.; Uitzilopotchtli. Heckethorn chooses to use "Vitzliputzli" instead of the other variant he mentions only once: "Heritzilopochtli."

Unexamined in this regard are Eduard Seler's extensive german texts. Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, in his Alti Publishing edition of Treasures of the Great Temple, cites Sahagun's Florentine Codex references to "Vitzilopochtli."

Thus, it is even more obvious that "Vitzliputzli" and "Huitzilopochtli" are meant to refer to the same entity, at least by the 16th C. chroniclers – and by those that rely upon them.

As Heckethorn’s use of "Vitzliputzli" predates Steiner’s by some 16 years, I believe it reasonable to deduce that Steiner borrowed the form of the name from Heckethorn, with no obvious reservations about its associations with the Aztec warrior and culture-hero. I say “reservations”, because “Vitzliputzli” was a <good guy> at the beginning of High culture in Mesoamerica and “Huitzilopochtli” is a <bad guy> at the tail end of it, so some difficult work is entailed in tracing the devolution of one into the other. Steiner does not address this at all, but uses the name of the 16th C villain for the name of the 1st C. initiate. This creates a conceptual and imaginal knot that must be teased apart; a simple literalism simply will not do.

Thus, evaluating both considerations, I consider that the case that Steiner relied upon Heckethorn is strengthened, although the question of why he would have done so is no closer to solution. As I have tried to emphasize at all times, these details merely lend colour to the story of how Steiner came to tell this tale. On the main points of his description about Christ's activity in Mesoamerica, his seership was in full sail, and entirely reliable, as I can attest from my own investigations. For those who might entertain naïve notions that everything he said must have invariably derived from infallible supersensible perception, that conscientious testing of his reports is somehow tantamount to subversive disloyalty, or that uninformed opinion masquerading as belief or Faith is the same as knowledge, experience, or authority, I must confess a lack of sympathy with such notions.

Fourthly, we must deal with the overarching matter of Meaning, one which, although it encompasses all the foregoing, goes beyond them. Taking into account all those factors which we have discussed, we must decide what Steiner tried to express in the course of being constrained by them. Let us consider this in terms of the specific and fascinating instance of Quetzalcoatl, who is indeed frequently paired in the native lore with Tezcatlipoca. Our Steiner declares:

“…different mysteries were founded that were designed to counteract the excesses of the Taotl mysteries. These were mysteries in which a being lived…this being was Tezkatlipoka. That was the name given to the being who, though he belonged to a much lower hierarchy, was partly connected through his qualities with the Jehovahgod. He worked in the Western Hemisphere against those grisly mysteries of which we have spoken.

“The teachings of Tezcatlipoca soon escaped from the mysteries and were spread abroad exoterically. Thus, in those regions of the earth, the teachings of Tezcatlipoca were actually the most exoteric, while those of Taotl were the most esoteric, since they were only obtained in the manner described above. The ahrimanic powers sought to “save” humanity, however — I am now speaking as Ahriman though of it — from the god Tezcatlipoca. Another spirit was set up against him who, for the Western Hemisphere, had much in common with the spirit whom Goethe described as Mephistopheles [a.k.a.: Ahriman, with some Luciferic qualities]. He was indeed his kin. This spirit was designated with a word that sounded like Quetsalkoatl. He was a spirit who, for this time and part of the earth, was similar to Mephistopheles, although Mephistopheles displayed much more of a soul nature. Quetzalcoatl also never appeared directly incarnated. His symbol was similar to the Mercury staff to be found in the Eastern Hemisphere, and he was, for the Western Hemisphere, the spirit who could disseminate malignant diseases through certain magic forces. He could inflict them upon those whom he wished to injure in order to separate them from the relatively good god, Tezcatlipoca.”^¹²

“Tetzkatlipoka was a kind of Serpent God with whom men felt themselves astrally connected.”^¹³ (the alternate spelling is as it is in the texts. Steiner did not get this information on Tezcatlipoca from Heckethorn – another riddle.)

So: Meaning. What did Steiner intend to convey with these remarks? Are Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca to be considered as representatives of cosmically good and evil forces, respectively benefactor and villain, or as partners who work opposite sides of the same dynamic? An example of the former would be the Good Guys and the Bad Guys in the Hollywood Westerns, an example of the latter would be Plato and Aristotle. Unfortunately, his brief asides are just that: too brief. It is known that the Aztecs themselves definitely subscribed to the latter more sophisticated view

And which Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca are we talking about: the beings of popular 16^th C. Aztec religion as perceived by the trampling Spanish, the original prototypes in core mythology and Ancestral Imagination going back to the Olmec, the beings themselves before they become projected into either – or the fabulous Quetzalcoatls and Tezcatlipocas of the poorly-informed European mind?^¹⁴

Although we may never know the answer to these questions, I suspect that he knew both more and less about these subjects than he is generally credited. Less, because he cannot be credited with scholarship that simply did not exist in his time, and more, because of his deep appreciation for the inner nature of the religious soul, and for the remarkably profound perception that stands, above and beyond all other lesser and annoying considerations, at the core of his American Vision. This essential perception we will examine in detail in the next installment.

There is, however, yet another Quetzalcoatl (Tezcatlipoca has receded from popular view). This is the Quetzalcoatl of year-2002 New Age and popular Chicano and Mexican culture. If there is a universally regarded, utterly positive and benevolent being in the American pantheon, it is Quetzalcoatl – and that this is so is attested by the pervasive presence in the historical record of his avatar Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Toltec fame.^¹⁵ To further complicate matters, in the 18^th and 19^thC, there was considerable conviction that Quetzalcoatl was, in reality, none other than St. Thomas the Apostle, who, it was said, had gone to the Orient to proselytize to the heathen.

Tezcatlipoca may have been the focus of popular cults in unspecified pre-Columbian times, for all deities had had their places in the ritual calendar, but the assertion that his cult was the most popular is unsupported; it is unknown on what basis Steiner could have asserted this. On the other hand, it does apply most obviously to Quetzalcoatl! Is it possible that Steiner got his attributions reversed, or applied names deriving from one era to the inverted deity-aspects of other eras? In support of these possibilities is the fact that nowhere in modern evidence is Tezcatlipoca found depicted with major serpent aspect, whereas it is Quetzalcoatl who has as his most prominent motif that of the feathered serpent – in fact, that is what his name means; he was the Serpent-God ne plus ultra. On the other hand, the Mayan equivalent of Tezcatlipoca (K’awil, aka God K or GII) comes equipped with a significant serpent-foot (significantly deriving from 1^st-C. Izapan representation – more on this later). Or have the attributions themselves reversed over the course of time, as we have seen take place with Vitzliputzli-Huitzilopochtli and that of Jesus Christ Himself…for who would recognize the Jesus of 1^st. C. Palestine in the Jesus of 16^th C. Inquisitional Spain, where the Jews and Muslims were expelled in 1492 with ascendant reactionary fervor, and on whose behalf the Conquistadors and Franciscans were sent to scour the New World? Many peoples on the receiving end of the Christian dispensation have had no difficulty - if they still survive – with conflating the Cross and the Swastika.

In Steiner’s favor, it must be said that the Mesoamerican deities were multi-valent: they were multifaceted in ways that are totally confounding for the “a place for everything and everything in its place” and strict hierarchical mentality of the European mind. Every deity gloried in multiply contradictory internal aspects and exchanged them in the many different kinds of relationships with those with whom it was partnered. Yes, Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca were adversaries, but in indigenous mythology they also assisted each other in the creation of the world, being regents of successive world-ages. In favor of Steiner’s positive estimation for Tezcatlipoca, two of Huitzilopochtli’s common appellations were “Blue Tezcatlipoca” and “Tezcatlipoca of the South”, although these are attributions unknown in RS’s day – unless he had scanned specialist papers by Seler! Unfortunately, the significance and subtleties of such aliases has been mostly lost, and we simply do not know where Steiner came by his information, or what he meant by most of it. What we may confidently assume is that he did mean something significant when he spoke of these matters.

Ah…and determining what he meant from what he said has an additional complication: what he is recorded as saying cannot be considered a totally reliable document. Each and every volume of his compiled lecture-cycles is preceded by a disclaimer from him advising that the contents are compiled from uncorrected notes, and that the material cannot be considered definitive and authoritative.^¹⁶ As mentioned at the outset, many listening to the material had trouble hearing it. What if the transcriber of the lectures was one of those people? If the material was difficult for Steiner to present, how must it have sounded to those in the audience?!

One last set of points: Rudolf Steiner’s indications are typically: 1. Highly nuanced, 2. inseparable from the immediate context, 3. not only well-informed but well-informed from an extremely insightful and unique vantage point, and 4. always directed towards a specific intent. In short, there is always a very precise point to be made; if the context alters, so also does the apparent judgement he is making. We see this in the instances where he addresses various aspects of Masonry, the legacy of Rome, the modern scientific method, the rise of individuality and self-consciousness, the influence of Arabic thought upon European civilization, and many others: there is no such thing as an unmixed blessing or a crisis devoid of possibilities. It is indeed unfortunate that Steiner did not have other, more relaxed opportunities in which to expand on his GA 171 comments, or to approach them from a direction which was not focused on various assaults upon European culture.

For all these reasons, scrutiny can only hover about Steiner’s text; it would be a mistake to parse it too closely. Yet, sympathy – simpatico – can reveal as much in its way as analytical scholarship does in its own fashion. Steiner’s methodology of training in Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition is, essentially, only a disciplined development of becoming inwardly responsive to the “objective subjectivity” of the Other - an intensive listening, in other words, of which the initial stages are Information and Interest. Without good Information, one’s Imagination is bound to go haywire, as has happened to Le Plongeon and Thompson with the Maya, but without Imagination, one does not go anywhere. Let us see where the dynamic interplay between the two can take us.

There is now the requisite critical mass of evidence from all fields of exoteric investigation into Mesoamerica that theories deriving from practice in the Mesoamerican spiritual Traditions themselves, as well as those deriving from practice in equivalent European-derived esoteric disciplines can find a fruitful synesthesia. Steiner’s indications are an excellent place to start – notwithstanding the previous cautions, for these are based in a profoundly original and far-seeing point of view. Almost all of my objections amount to a caution against hasty conclusions, sloppy thinking, and naïve associations on the part of the reader. In the first section we have looked into the fit between RS’s larger-scale indications and what is generally known about Mesoamerican spirituality and history, and their significance for us in 21st-C. USA. Later, we will look into the theoretical and practical utility of his observations as they relate to the shamanic practice of our 1^st. C. culture-hero.

Coda and Summary

Premise: The Deed of Christ was an event of both of planetary and personal significance, and: Elements of the positive American Mystery Tradition proved triumphant in the parallel events of 1^st C. CE in Mexico, in which our initiate’s sacred shamanism was decisive in allowing the Deed of Christ to proceed.

Conclusion: there are streams of essential Christianity present in local indigenous Traditions which, although they may have no traceable historical links to the forms originating in the Middle Eastern locale, nonetheless are an integral part of a future global culture of the Risen Christ.

Also: it is incumbent and proper for us, as spiritual citizens of this country, to familiarize ourselves with, and begin to access out of the peculiar forms of consciousness fostered by Rudolf Steiner’s initiatives, those treasures held in trust for us in these times of crisis.

Crucial to an effective appreciation of these facts is an intuitive grasp of the method of working of this mysterious person who is known only by the name used by Steiner; the same name used by the 16^th C Aztecs for their culture-hero: Huitzilopochtli/Vitzliputzli.

Here we have an instance of one of the obstacles set in place to deter and dissuade inquiry. Another is white middle-class guilt, which is a Threshold Guardian of an especially poignant and pernicious sort. There are others, some originating from ethnocentric elements within European culture itself.

All these, however, need be no more than annoying distractions, for as the adversarial forces continue to mobilize in furthering the Advent of Ahriman, so also are the powers of sacred magic rising to met the challenge. Anyone who can meet them is welcome to do so.

Here, in this continent especially, these sacred powers take the form of those belonging to the domain of the Mother and the Goddess, for it was at her hands, and by their agency that Christ received his Resurrection in the UnderWorld. During the time between the Friday events of the Death of Christ on the Cross – attended, significantly, by the women of his entourage - and the laying of his body in the Tomb, and his reappearance to Mary Magdalene on Easter Sunday, he was lost to biblical sight. Even in the esoteric Traditions of Europe, little is known, and less said. Yet in the West, the realm of the UnderWorld was always at the focus of the greatest attentions of their magi. Of course, progressive and retrograde forces swirled within those InnerWorlds, and within the areas of the body of the Earth that corresponded to them.
Alien terrain for those accustomed to contemplating experientially distant celestial realms by philosophical means, the chthonic UnderWorld seethes with powerful tides of intimate Will. The adepts of the West – and our 1^st. C. initiate most of all – were magicians; shamans; their transformational magic was spirituality of the Will, their arena the overlapping planetary and personal Doubles.

VISION

In Cuicuilco, the dark magician draws upon deep chthonic powers and energies, seeking to overwhelm the human order. His visions are those of Atlantis, his lineage is of those who lived there. The volcano Xitle is the cauldron. Early 1^st C. Cuicuilco is a large metropolis, ascending to empire.

Across the Valley of Mexico, lake Texcoco in its basin, lies Teotihuacan, some way up a feeder valley. Two towns of 5,000 souls each, it is conscious of its placement. Are its inhabitants Mexica gnostics, local variants of Zarathustrian warrior-agriculturalists, Essene-type apocalyptics, or some unique brand of collective visionaries? Regardless, they held the selfless occult balance to the inherently out-of-balance schemes breeding in Cuicuilco. How long had the two been squaring off, what feints, circlings, and pre-echoes had occurred in times past, leading up to this crucial time?

As his magical apotheosis approaches, the dark wizard encounters an unanticipated obstruction. Gradually he realizes that he faces significant opposition, and that it comes from the outpost of Teotihuacan. No longer a minor irritant or stray thread, there is something coming from that area that constitutes a serious threat to his occult agenda. His sight becomes focused upon an individual whom we shall call “our initiate.”

This person had originally hailed from distant Izapa, where significant impulses for the Olmec civilization had emanated; spiritual impulses above all, although the 260-day calendar system had also originated from that latitude. Nourished by that venerated center, our initiate had journeyed to the Highland Basin of Mexico to fulfill his destiny, one that his people had long prepared for one like him.

Welcomed in Teotihuacan, our initiate began to garner his inner and outer forces. Militarily, there was no hope of a frontal attack. Additionally, he realized that means create ends, and that there was no future for half-measures. It would need to be a struggle on the Inner Planes, where forces upholding both conflicting tendencies were strongest and most capable of access. Yet even there, and most especially there, our initiate had allies; allies from other races and streams of evolution, ones who were not honored or allowed by the dark wizard.

So, as the dark shaman raised his power in Cuicuilco to a pitch from which it could not be withdrawn, our initiate of sacred magic also raised his power, a power which was not his, but a power which was the inherent divine power coursing through all creation. The dark shaman’s power could only be a portion of this, and, when the two currents faced each other off, there could only be one result – as long as our initiate did not falter in his trust. Falter he did not, and the power raised in Cuicuilco, having reached a critical state, did not vent in directed focus, but burst its limits and destroyed its entire locale.

In contradistinction to the barely public events in Palestine occurring at the same time, with few, if any, comprehending the occult realities of what was happening, in Mexico at this time, it was a fully public drama. That our white shaman would triumph so decisively and extravagantly over his opponent was an omen of such profundity that no one could deny it for centuries. No coercion, stratagems, or environmental crises were necessary to induce multitudes to come to Teotihuacan, and, indeed, in the course of a few decades, Teotihuacan became how it is remembered by all: the central locus in Mesoamerica of the Turning Point in Time…”The Birthplace of the Gods.”

As the fully enacted Rite of the Sacrificial King was in climax in Palestine, there were those who served it loyally in Mexico. And serve it well they did.

As these events became landmarks in the past, the impulse arose to venerate the memory and Ancestry of our initiate. And, so, what we know as the Ciudadela arose in the second century of Teotihuacan’s career. A center of initiation into the pathway of our initiate, its Temple represented the power flowing along the central axis of all the worlds – worlds which our initiate had joined in balance and flowing harmony at the decisive moment – as the Feathered Serpent: Quetzalcoatl, as the Aztecs over a millenium later would term it. The emblem of personal attunement for them was the Xuihcoatl, or Fire Serpent - as was, in similar fashion, the Cross for those across the Atlantic - and so we see Huitzilopochtli, his gruesomely distorted Aztec echo, still wielding the Xiuhcoatl as his sceptre. Hence we find representations of the Fire Serpent alternating with those of the Feathered Serpent around the famously magnificent walls of the Ciudadela. An version of this same totem occurs in the ubiquitous Manikin Sceptre, emblematic of the serpent-footed God K’awil, wielded by the Mayan adepts of the southern reaches.

Yet such a power as the Central Fire cannot be accessed by rote or technique; only by need, releasing sacrifice of one’s own heart, and responding grace. Hence, such an attempt as would seem reasonable and inevitable – the attempt to institutionalize such an impulse – was bound to meet with concerted opposition from more experienced minds. Thus the later addition of another pyramid erected immediately in front of the Ciudadela, blocking its frontal aspect, is evidence of conflicting tendencies in the honoring of the legacy of the past.

These internal divisions increased over time, held together against the relentless undertow of lower human nature only by the pellucid nature of its founding event and its continuing Inspiration. Many aspects of a noble impulse solidly implanted within its mythos are evident: an anonymous priesthood and ruling class, generous and non-coercive living conditions for at least the vast majority of its 200,000 inhabitants, an at least outwardly stable and long-lasting social order, the lack of an overly-large power center in its warrior class, the generally benign nature of its sacred rituals, the elevation of goddess-entities to positions of major – even ultimate - prominence, evidence of high and plastic art-forms throughout all sectors of the metropolis, a multi-cultural life that graciously included barrios for most of the known regional cultures of the day, ambassadorial outposts in distant areas which acted as centers for cultural influence, and, lastly but not at all least, an enduring reputation for purity and intensity of vision that was never presumed to be equaled.

Yet it struggled to maintain itself at this generally successful level of intention. Human sacrifice was never not a part of its religious life, although it never reached the pitch of paranoid frenzy attained at the time of the Conquest. Certain impulses of regimentation and standardization were probably premature and not employed without unfortunate side-effects. Its empire was maintained and expanded by means of military conquest – recent investigations have revealed previously unexpected dominating influences from Teotihuacan in the formation of Classic Maya civilization. The Atlantean monumentality of its public works can seem overwhelming to our modern sensibilities – was it so for those who lived there? Our initiate, though pure at the time of the decisive event, could not insure continuance of this purity; such insurance does not exist, and attempts to fix a spiritual impulse in time and space always prove counterproductive – to say the least. Yet Teotihaucan succeeded remarkable well; so well that is, that there are no precedents or imitators for such a grand experiment in social engineering.

And when it failed to work as intended, those in charge still had the guts to pull the plug and enlist the population in a last gesture of social deconstruction. Hence the wide-scale evidence for ritual destruction of its ceremonial centers on both a city-wide and local level. The deconsecration was so effective that never again was Teotihaucan ever reoccupied on a consistent basis, although even the much-later Aztec rulers paid homage to it by making regular ritual processions to “The Birthplace of the Gods.”

In the later Toltec civilization, which was headquartered in Tula, not too far to the northwest of the Valley of Teotihuacan, an attempt of a still-undefined nature was made to resurrect the impulse which had given rise to such a magnificent culture. Although it is not known for certain how successful – or unsuccessful - they were, it can be presumed that it was not done as effectively as before: Tula reigned for only half as long as did Teotihuacan. Yet the most famous personage in all Mesoamerica: Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, was he who attempted to lift the Toltec impulse to the highest possible level by reembodying the impulse of his Ancestral predecessor. Famous for his attempts to limit the expanding practice of human sacrifice and other excesses, he ran afoul of entrenched interests, and, duplicating the archetypal trajectory of all reformist heroes, he was exiled – but not without a promise/threat of return.

When the third-generation Aztecs barbarians arrived (as émigré Anasazi?) to attempt to appropriate the legacy of our initiate and his high culture, the impulse was so exhausted that only the most inverted and perverted remnants had survived above ground. Perhaps Cortez actually was the returned Quetzalcoatl, come to clean the Temple of Culture in the only possible way: by tearing it down until not a stone rested upon a stone. Afterwards, what appeared out of the ashes was the same goddess who was the basis for this cycle in the first place; the Mother, the Great Goddess, Spider Woman, now divest of all devouring aspect, as the cornucopia of all grace and succor: La Guadaloupana.

For, as the task of our initiate was to clear the way for the passage of the Son of the Father to reestablish the cosmic axis mundi by passing through death and receiving resurrection from the Mother, so did the Teotihuacanos worship the Great Mother above all others. They were Christians in the truest, but most novel, fashion. What was attempted in the heretical sects of Europe was the norm in Mesoamerica, whereas the inevitable deviancies of later Mesoamerica cultures were totally uncontextable for the Europeans who first encountered them. Double met Double in a collision of mutual incomprehension unprecedented in human history.

The riddle of the crucifixion of the dark magician referred to by Steiner (this is not a form of sacrifice or torture known to be employed by Olmecs) finds a solution if one considers this as being an inner-plane event, where one loosing touch with the Central Flame in such a decisive struggle is dismembered throughout the Four Directions (i.e.: the Cross of the Elements).

Stephen Clarke is of 54 years, a BMW/MBZ Service shop owner, a 30-yr. New Mexico resident, and president of his local Santa Fe Anthroposophical Society Branch. He attends church at a local Pueblo sweat lodge.

16 “”But it must be borne in mind that faulty passages do occur in these reports not revised by myself.”:

R. Steiner.

References:

Inner Impulses in Evolution, GA 171: Rudolf Steiner, 1916, Dornach. Anthroposophic Press, 1984. The

English edition contains seven lectures, from Sept. 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, and Oct. 1, 1916. The German edition of GA 171 contains additional lectures from Sept. 30 and Oct. 2, 7, 14, 15, 21, 28, 29, and 30, 1916: this group is entitled Goethe and the Crisis of the Nineteenth Century. An additional lecture from Dec. 10, 1916 is also grouped with GA 171, although it appears as part of The Problem of Faust, GA 273. No mention is made in the English edition of the abridgements of associated material.

General Mesoamerican background:

The Olmec World – Ritual and Rulership: Coe, Michael D., and Richard A Diehl, David A. Freidel,

Peter T. Furst, F. Kent Reilly, III, Linda Schele, Carolyn E. Tate, and Karl A. Taube: The

Art Museum, Princeton U. & Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1995. Splendid essays and color photography by the best in the business. The Olmec is the Ur-civilization in Mesoamerica and this volume reflects the current high state of scholarship in the field.

Mexico: Coe, Michael D. Thames and Hudson, fourth edition, 1994.

An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: Mary Miller &

Karl Taube. Thames and Hudson, 1993.

This Tree Grows Out of Hell – Mesoamerica and the Search for the Magical Body: Ptolomy

Tompkins, Harper SanFrancisco, 1990.

The Flayed God: Roberta H. & Peter T. Markman, Harper Collins, 1992. On Quetzalcoatl: pp. 63

– 96, ff.

Shamanism and Sacred Magic:

Meditations on the Tarot: Anonymous, Chapters 1 – 5 especially. Back in print from Jeremy P.

Tarcher/Putnam, 2002 (from 1985).

The UnderWorld Initiation: R. J. Stewart. Mercury Publishing, 1998 (from Aquarian Press, 1985).

Religions of Mesoamerica – Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers: David Carrasco. Harper

Collins, 1990.

Owning Your Own Shadow: Robert A. Johnson. HarperSanFransisco, 1993.

Appendix I

Rudolf Steiner’s lectures on Mesoamerican practices: the “Mexican Mysteries”

The Influence of Luciferic and Ahrimanic Beings on Historical Development. The Clear Perception of the Sensory World and Free Imaginations as the Task of Our Time. Genghis Khan and the Discovery of America

Dornach, September 17, 1916

Yesterday, we tried to characterize the forces that permeated Greece and Rome in order to obtain an idea of the influences that have been carried over from the fourth into the fifth post-Atlantean age, and we gave some indication of where we have to look today for signs of continued activity of the forces of the fourth post-Atlantean age. I want to ask you now to turn your attention once again to our description of the civilizations of Greece and Rome.

In the way it developed, the civilization of Greece was a source of great disappointment to the luciferic powers. One can, of course, only say these things out of imaginative cognition, and this will also be true of what is to be presented to you today. The development of Greek civilization was a great disappointment to the luciferic powers because they expected something quite different from it. Think what this means. They had expected the civilization of Greece, the fourth epoch of post-Atlantean times, to bring into being for them all they had striven for during Atlantean times. On Atlantis they had developed certain activities, certain influences and forces and they had expected to see the fruits of their labors appear in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. What was it they were really looking for?

To speak of such a matter lets us look right into the luciferic soul. We come to know this luciferic life that continually strives, hoping that certain results may ensue, but that continually meets with fresh disappointment. A logician would naturally ask, “Why do not these luciferic powers stop trying? Why do they not see that they must be forever and repeatedly disappointed?” Such a conclusion would be human, not luciferic, wisdom. At any rate, the luciferic powers have yet to come to his conclusion. On the contrary, it is their practice to redouble their efforts whenever they experience disappointment.

What was it, then, that the luciferic powers expected from this fourth post-Atlantean age? They wanted to obtain mastery of all the soul forces of the Greek people, those soul forces that were, as we have seen, directed to carrying over the ancient imaginations of the Chaldean-Egyptian period, and to incorporate them into the creations of their own fantasy. The luciferic powers made it their endeavor to work so strongly on the human beings of the Greek civilization that their imaginations, refined and distilled to fantasy, should fill their whole being. The Greeks would then have lost themselves in a soul world, in an everyday thinking, feeling and willing that would have consisted entirely of those subtle imaginations that had become complete fantasy.

If the Greeks had developed nothing in their souls but these imaginations refined to fantasy, if these enticing imaginations had come to fill their souls completely, the luciferic powers would have been able to lift the Greeks and a great part of humanity out of human evolution to place them in their own luciferic world. This was the intention of the luciferic powers. From the Atlantean epoch on, it had been their hope to achieve in the fourth post-Atlantean age what they had failed to do in Atlantis. Humanity, at the stage it had then reached, would have been incorporated into the cosmos. They wanted nothing less than to create for themselves a separate world were earthly gravity did not exist but were human beings would dwell with absolute supersensible lightness, entirely given up to a life of fantasy. It was the hope of the luciferic beings to create a planetary body, which would contain those members of humanity who had reached this highest development of the fantasy life. They made every endeavor to lead the souls of the Greeks away from the earth. Had they succeeded, these souls would gradually have forsaken the earth. The bodies that still came to birth would have been degenerate. Egoless beings would have been born, the earth would have fallen into decadence and a special luciferic kingdom would have begun. This did not come to pass. Why?

This condition did not come about because, mingled with the “self-deifying madness” of Greek poetry, to quote Plato, was the genius and greatness of Greek philosophy and wisdom. The Greek philosophers — Heraclitus, Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle — saved Greek civilization from being completely spiritualized in a life of fantasy. They kept the Greeks on earth, providing the strongest forces that kept Greece within earthly evolution. In considering the course of history, we must always take into account the forces that lie behind physical reality and are the true causes of all that happens. It was, then, in this way that Greece was preserved for earthly evolution.

Now, the luciferic beings would have been unable to achieve anything at all without the help of the ahrimanic beings. In all their intentions and hope they reckoned on their support. Indeed, it must always be that two forces strive together in this kind of working. Just as the luciferic beings were disappointed in Greece, so were the ahrimanic beings disappointed in Rome and the way it developed. The luciferic beings wanted to lead Grecian souls away from the earth-planet and the ahrimanic beings wanted to contribute their efforts to the end that the Roman civilization would assume a particular form. The ahrimanic beings exerted their strongest efforts in Rome, just as the luciferic beings did in Greece. They calculated that a certain hardening would arise on earth brought about by an entirely blind obedience and subjection to Rome. What did the ahrimanic powers want to accomplish in Rome? They wanted to establish a Roman Empire that would extend over the whole of the then known world, embracing within it every human activity. It would be directed entirely from Rome with the strictest centralization and the utmost development of the rule of might. They sought to establish a widely flung state machinery that would include and make subject to it all religious and artistic life. Its goal would be to stamp out all individuality. Every people and human being would comprise merely some small part of this mighty state machine.

Thanks to the clarity of its philosophers, however, Greece was not lulled into the luciferic dream, nor could Rome be hardened as these ahrimanic powers desired, because in Rome, too, something was working against them. This was described in the last lecture as Roman ideals, but the legal, political and military ideals that were then developing could not have withstood Ahriman alone. Within the Roman civilization the ahrimanic powers gathered for a stupendous onslaught. That attempt was like a repetition of their attempt made in Atlantean times, and it developed infinitely strong powers and forces. It was only from another side that Ahriman's intention was hindered. It was, at first, prevented by something that, at first sight, might be regarded as a lower trait in the Roman character, but that was not the case. As a matter of fact, the Romans had need of what I may have seemed to describe in the last lecture with some antipathy. They needed their ruthlessness, stubborn egoism, that continuous stirring up of emotions, to be able to march against the ahrimanic powers. Roman history — I beg you expressly to note this — is not a revelation of the ahrimanic powers. Although they stand in the background, it is a fight against them. If it is all confused and self-seeking, seeming to tend more and more toward a politicalization of the whole world, it is because only in this way could Ahriman's mechanizing be resisted.

All this alone, however, would not have been of much avail. Rome had also received Christianity, which in Rome would have assumed a form that would have given Ahriman a splendid opportunity to achieve his aim since, through the spiritual decline of a Roman rule that had been transformed into a papacy, the mechanizing of culture could have been accomplished. So another external power had to be brought against Ahriman, who works with much more external means than Lucifer. Ahriman, as we have seen, diverted the forces of Christianity to his own service. Another power had to be brought against him. This was the onslaught of the Germanic tribes caused by the migration of peoples in Europe. Through this onslaught on Rome, the mechanizing of the world under a single, all-embracing Roman Empire was hindered. If you will study all that took place in the migration of these peoples, you will find that you can get a true insight into it when you see it from this point of view. Whenever the migration of peoples occurs in the Roman world, Roman history is not thereby brought to an end, but the ahrimanic powers, combated throughout their history by the Romans, are repelled.

Thus did Ahriman meet with his disappointment, as Lucifer had met with his. But they will take up their tasks again in the fifth post-Atlantean age with all the more determination. Here is the point at which we must gain an understanding of the forces that are operative in our age, insofar as such an understanding is possible today.

The fourth post-Atlantean age extends both backwards and forwards from its central point in 333 A.D. It ended about 1413 A.D. and it began about 747 B.C. These are of course, approximate dates. I have just told you that the disappointment