Reincarnation and Karma
GA 34
I. Reincarnation and Karma
Concepts Compelled by the Modern Scientific Point of view
[ 1 ] Francesco Redi, the Italian natural scientist, was considered a dangerous heretic by the leading scholars of the seventeenth century because he maintained that even the lowest animals originate through reproduction. He narrowly escaped the martyr-destiny of Giordano Bruno or Galileo. For the orthodox scientist of that time believed that worms, insects, and even fish could originate out of lifeless mud. Redi maintained that which today is generally acknowledged: that all living creatures have descended from living creatures. He committed the sin of recognizing a truth two centuries before science found its “irrefutable” proof. Since Pasteur has carried out his investigations, there can be no longer any doubt about the fact that those cases were merely illusion in which people believed that living creatures could come into existence out of lifeless substances through “spontaneous generation”. The life germs entering such lifeless substances escaped observation. With proper means, Pasteur prevented the entrance of such germs into substances in which, ordinarily, small living creatures come into existence, and not even a trace of the living was formed. Thus it was demonstrated that the living springs only from the life germ. Redi had been completely correct.
[ 2 ] Today, the spiritual scientist, the anthroposophist, finds himself in a situation similar to that of the Italian scientist.
On the basis of his knowledge, he must maintain in regard to the soul what Redi maintained in regard to life. He must maintain that the soul nature can spring only from the soul. And if science advances in the direction it has taken since the seventeenth century, then the time will come when, out of its own nature, science will uphold this view. For—and this must be emphasized again and again—the attitude of thought which underlies the anthroposophical conception of today is no other than the one underlying the scientific dictum that insects, worms and fish originate from life germs and not from mud. The anthroposophical conception maintains the postulate: “Every soul originates out of the soul nature,” in the same sense and with the same significance in which the scientist maintains: “Everything living originates out of the living.”1It is necessary to make this statement, for today superficial readers are numerous, and they are always ready to read all manner of nonsense into the expositions of a thinker, even though the latter takes great pains to express himself precisely. For that reason I should like to add here quite especially that it would never occur to me to fight those who, resting upon scientific premises, follow up the problem of “spontaneous generation.” But even though it may be a fact that somehow mere “lifeless” substances do unite to form living albumin, this does not prove that, rightly understood, Redi's conception is wrong.
[ 3 ] Today's customs differ from those of the seventeenth century. The attitudes of mind underlying the customs have not changed particularly. To be sure, in the seventeenth century, heretical views were persecuted by means no longer considered human today. Today, spiritual scientists, anthroposophists, will not be threatened with burning at the stake: one is satisfied in rendering them harmless by branding them as visionaries and unclear thinkers. Current science designates them fools. The former execution through the inquisition has been replaced by modern, journalistic execution. The anthroposophists, however, remain steadfast; they console themselves in the consciousness that the time will come when some Virchow will say: “There was a time—fortunately it is now superseded—when people believed that the soul comes into existence by itself if certain complicated chemical and physical processes take place within the skull. Today, for every serious researcher this infantile conception must give way to the statement that everything pertaining to the soul springs from the soul.”
[ 4 ] One must by no means believe that spiritual science intends to prove its truths through natural science. It must be emphasized, however, that spiritual science has an attitude of mind similar to that of true natural science. The anthroposophist accomplishes in the sphere of the soul life what the nature researcher strives to attain in the domains perceptible to the eyes and audible to the ears. There can be no contradiction between genuine natural science and spiritual science. The anthroposophist demonstrates that the laws which he postulates for the soul life are correspondingly valid also for the external phenomena of nature. He does so because he knows that the human sense of knowledge can only feel satisfied if it perceives that harmony, and not discord, rules among the various phenomenal realms of existence. Today most human beings who strive at all for knowledge and truth are acquainted with certain natural-scientific conceptions. Such truths can be acquired, so to speak, with the greatest ease. The science sections of newspapers disclose to the educated and uneducated alike the laws according to which the perfect animals develop out of the imperfect, they disclose the profound relationship between man and the anthropoid ape, and smart magazine writers never tire of inculcating their readers with their conception of “spirit” in the age of the “great Darwin.” They very seldom add that in Darwin's main treatise there is to be found the statement: “I hold that all organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from one primordial form into which the creator breathed the breath of life.” (Origin of Species, Vol. II, chapter XV.)—In our age it is most important to show again and again that Anthroposophy does not treat the conceptions of “the breathing in of life” and the soul as lightly as Darwin and many a Darwinian, but that its truths do not contradict the findings of true nature research. Anthroposophy does not wish to penetrate into the mysteries of spirit-life upon the crutches of natural science of the present age, but it merely wishes to say: “Recognize the laws of the spiritual life and you will find these sublime laws verified in corresponding form if you descend to the domain in which you can see with eyes and hear with ears.” Natural science of the present age does not contradict spiritual science; on the contrary, it is itself elemental spiritual science. Only because Haeckel applied to the evolution of animal life the laws which the psychologists since ancient days have applied to the soul, did he achieve such beautiful results in the field of animal life. If he himself is not of this conviction, it does not matter; he simply does not know the laws of the soul, nor is he acquainted with the research which can be carried on in the field of the soul.e1While research has been undertaken in the “field of the soul” by modern psychologists, the only difficulty is that modern psychology denies the existence of the soul apart from the physical body. (Editor.) The significance of his findings in his field is thereby not diminished. Great men have the faults of their virtues. Our task is to show that Haeckel in the field where he is competent is nothing but an anthroposophist.—By linking up with the natural-scientific knowledge of the present age, still another aid offers itself to the spiritual scientist. The objects of outer nature are, so to speak, to be grasped by our hands. It is, therefore, easy to expound their laws. It is not difficult to realize that plants change when they are transplanted from one region into another. Nor is it hard to visualize that a certain animal species loses its power of eyesight when it lives for a certain length of time in dark caves. By demonstrating the laws which are active in such processes, it is easy to lead over to the less manifest, less comprehensible laws which we encounter in the field of the soul life.—if the anthroposophist employs natural science as an aid, he merely does so in order to illustrate what he is saying. He has to show that anthroposophic truths, with respective modifications, are to be found in the domain of natural science, and that natural science cannot be anything but elemental spiritual science; and he has to employ natural-scientific concepts in order to lead over to his concepts of a higher nature.
[ 5 ] The objection might be raised here that any inclination toward present-day natural-scientific conceptions might put spiritual science into an awkward position for the simple reason that these conceptions themselves rest upon a completely uncertain foundation. It is true: There are scientists who consider certain fundamental principles of Darwinism as irrefutable, and there are others who even today speak of a “crisis in Darwinism.” The former consider the concepts of “the omnipotence of natural selection” and “the struggle for survival” to be a comprehensive explanation of the evolution of living creatures; the latter consider this “struggle for survival” to be one of the infantile complaints of modern science and speak of the “impotence of natural selection.”—If matters depended upon these specific, problematic questions, it were certainly better for the anthroposophist to pay no attention to them and to wait for a more propitious moment when an agreement with natural science might be achieved. But matters do not depend upon these problems. What is important, however, is a certain attitude, a mode of thought within natural-scientific research in our age, certain definite great guiding lines, which are adhered to everywhere, even though the thoughts of various researchers and thinkers concerning specific questions diverge widely. It is true: Ernst Haeckel's and Virchow's conceptions of the “genesis of man” diverge greatly. But the anthroposophical thinker might consider himself fortunate if leading personalities were to think as clearly about certain comprehensive viewpoints concerning the soul life as these opponents think about that which they consider absolutely certain in spite of their disagreement. Neither the adherents of Haeckel nor those of Virchow search today for the origin of worms in lifeless mud; neither the former nor the latter doubt that “all living creatures originate from the living,” in the sense designated above.—In psychology we have not yet advanced so far. Clarity is completely lacking concerning a view point which might be compared with such scientific fundamental convictions. Whoever wishes to explain the shape and mode of life of a worm knows that he has to consider its ovum and ancestors; he knows the direction in which his research must proceed, although the viewpoints may differ concerning other aspects of the question, or even the statement may be made that the time is not yet ripe when definite thoughts may be formed concerning this or that point.—Where, in psychology, is there to be found a similar clarity? The fact that the soul2The adherents of Wundt must feel disagreeably affected by my speaking of “soul” in such outmoded fashion, while they swear by the words of their master who just recently has proclaimed that we ought not to speak of “soul” since, after the “mythologizing of phenomena has evaporated into the transcendental,” nothing has remained of this “super-real” soul substance but an “interrelated occurrence.” Well, Wundt's wisdom resembles the assertion that we must not speak of “lily” because we are merely concerned with color, form, the process of growth, and so forth. (Wundt, Naturwissenschaft und Psychologie, Natural Science and Psychology.) has spiritual qualities, just as the worm has physical ones, does not cause the researcher to approach—as he should—the one fact with the same attitude of mind as he approaches the other. To be sure, our age is under the influence of thought habits which prevent innumerable people, occupied with these problems, from entering at all properly upon such demands.—True, it will be admitted that the soul qualities of a human being must originate somewhere just as do the physical ones. The reasons are being sought for the fact that the souls of a group of children are so different from one another, although the children all grew up and were educated under identical circumstances; that even twins differ from one another in essential characteristics, although they always lived at the same place and under the care of the same nurse. The case of the Siamese Twins is quoted, whose final years of life were, allegedly, spent in great discomfort in consequence of their opposite sympathies concerning the North-American Civil War. We do not deny that careful thought and observation have been directed upon such phenomena and that remarkable studies have been made and results achieved. But the fact remains that these efforts concerning the soul life are on a par with the efforts of a scientist who maintains that living creatures originate from lifeless mud. In order to explain the lower psychic qualities, we are undoubtedly justified in pointing to the physical forebears and in speaking of heredity, just as we do in the case of bodily traits. But we deliberately close our eyes to the most important aspect of the matter if we proceed in the same direction with respect to the higher soul qualities, the actually spiritual in man. We have become accustomed to regard these higher soul qualities as a mere enhancement, as a higher degree of the lower ones. And we therefore believe that an explanation might satisfy us which follows the same lines as the explanation offered for the soul qualities of the animal.
[ 6 ] It is not to be denied that the observation of certain soul functions of higher animals may easily lead to this mistaken conception. We only need draw attention to the fact that dogs show remarkable proof of a faithful memory; that horses, noticing the loss of a horse shoe, walk of their own accord to the blacksmith who has shod them before; that animals which are shut up in a room, can by themselves open the door; we might quote many more of these astonishing facts. Certainly, the anthroposophist, too, will not refrain from admitting the possibility of continued enhancement of animal faculties. But must we, for that reason, obliterate the difference between the lower soul traits which man shares with the animal, and the higher spiritual qualities which man alone possesses? This can only be done by someone who is completely blinded by the dogmatic prejudice of a “science” which wishes to stick fast to the facts of the coarse, physical senses. Simply consider what is established by indisputable observation, namely, that animals, even the highest-developed ones, cannot count and therefore are unable to learn arithmetic. The fact that the human being is distinguished from the animal by his ability to count was considered a significant insight even in ancient schools of wisdom.—Counting is the simplest, the most insignificant of the higher soul faculties. For that very reason we cite it here, because it indicates the point where the animal-soul element passes over into the spirit-soul element, into the higher human element. Of course, it is very easy to raise objections here also. First, one might say that we have not yet reached the end of the world and that we might one day succeed in what we have not yet been able to do, namely, to teach counting to intelligent animals. And secondly, one might point to the fact that the brain has reached a higher stage of perfection in man than in the animal, and that herein lies the reason for the human brain's higher degrees of soul activity. We may fully concur with the persons who raise these objections. Yet we are in the same position concerning those people who, in regard to the fact that all living creatures spring from the living, maintain over and over again that the worm is governed by the same chemical and physical laws that govern the mud, only in a more complicated manner. Nothing can be done for a person who wishes to disclose the secrets of nature by means of trivialities and what is self-evident. There are people who consider the degree of insight they have attained to be the most penetrating imaginable and to whom, therefore, it never occurs that there might be someone else able to raise the same trivial objections, did he not see their worthlessness.—No objection can be raised against the conception that all higher processes in the world are merely higher degrees of the lower processes to be found in the mud. But just as it is impossible for a person of insight today to maintain that the worm originates from the mud, so is it impossible for a clear thinker to force the spirit-soul nature into the same concept-pattern as that of the animal-soul nature. Just as we remain within the sphere of the living in order to explain the descent of the living, so must we remain in the sphere of the soul-spirit nature in order to understand the soul-spirit nature's origin.
[ 7 ] There are facts which may be observed everywhere and which are bypassed by countless people without their paying any attention to them. Then someone appears who, by becoming aware of one of these facts, discovers a fundamental and far-reaching truth. It is reported that Galileo discovered the important law of the pendulum by observing a swinging chandelier in the cathedral of Pisa. Up to that time, innumerable people had seen swinging church lamps without making this decisive observation. What matters in such cases is that we connect the right thoughts with the things we see. Now, there exists a fact which is quite generally accessible and which, when viewed in an appropriate manner, throws a clear light upon the character of the soul-spirit nature. This is the simple truth that every human being has a biography, but not the animal. To be sure, certain people will say: Is it not possible to write the life story of a cat or a dog? The answer must be: Undoubtedly it is; but there is also a kind of school exercise which requires the children to describe the fate of a pen. The important point here is that the biography has the same fundamental significance in regard to the individual human being as the description of the species has in regard to the animal. Just as I am interested in the description of the lion-species in regard to the lion, so am I interested in the biography in regard to the individual human being. By describing their human species, I have not exhaustively described Schiller, Goethe, and Heine, as would be the case regarding the single lion once I have recognized it as a member of its species. The individual human being is more than a member of his species. Like the animal, he shares the characteristics of his species with his physical forebears. But where these characteristics terminate, there begins for the human being his unique position, his task in the world. And where this begins, all possibility of an explanation according to the pattern of animal-physical heredity ceases. I may trace back Schiller's nose and hair, perhaps even certain characteristics of his temperament, to corresponding traits in his ancestors, but never his genius. And naturally, this does not only hold good for Schiller. This also holds good for Mrs. Miller of Gotham. In her case also, if we are but willing, we shall find soul-spiritual characteristics which cannot be traced back to her parents and grand-parents in the same way we can trace the shape of her nose or the blue color of her eyes. It is true, Goethe has said that he had received from his father his figure and his serious conduct of life, and from his little mother his joyous nature and power of fantasy, and that, as a consequence, nothing original was to be found in the whole man. But in spite of this, nobody will try to trace back Goethe's gifts to father and mother—and be satisfied with it—in the same sense in which we trace back the form and manner of life of the lion to his forebears.—This is the direction in which psychology must proceed if it wishes to parallel the natural-scientific postulate that “all living creatures originate from the living” with the corresponding postulate that “everything of the nature of the soul is to be explained by the soul-nature.” We intend to follow up this direction and show how the laws of reincarnation and karma, seen from this point of view, are a natural-scientific necessity. [ 8 ] It seems most peculiar that so many people pass by the question of the origin of the soul-nature simply because they fear that they might find themselves caught in an uncertain field of knowledge. They will be shown what the great scientist Carl Gegenbaur has said about Darwinism. Even if the direct assertions of Darwin may not be entirely correct, yet they have led to discoveries which without them would not have been made. In a convincing manner Darwin has pointed to the evolution of one form of life out of another one, and this has stimulated the research into the relationships of such forms. Even those who contest the errors of Darwinism ought to realize that this same Darwinism has brought clarity and certainty to the research into animal and plant evolution, thus throwing light into dark reaches of the working of nature. Its errors will be overcome by itself. If it did not exist, we should not have its beneficial consequences. In regard to the spiritual life, the person who fears uncertainty concerning the anthroposophical conception ought to concede to it the same possibility; even though anthroposophical teachings were not completely correct, yet they would, out of their very nature, lead to the light concerning the riddles of the soul. To them, too, we shall owe clarity and certainty. And since they are concerned with our spiritual destiny, our human destination, our highest tasks, the bringing about of this clarity and certainty ought to be the most significant concern of our life. In this sphere, striving for knowledge is at the same time a moral necessity, an absolute moral duty.
[ 9 ] David Friedrich Strauss endeavored to furnish a kind of Bible for the “enlightened” human being in his book, Der alte und neue Glaube (Faith—Ancient and Modern). “Modern faith” is to be based on the revelations of natural science, and not on the revelations of “ancient faith” which, in the opinion of this apostle of enlightenment, have been superceded. This new Bible has been written under the impression of Darwinism by a personality who says to himself: Whoever, like myself, counts himself among the enlightened, has ceased, long before Darwin, to believe in “supernatural revelation” and its miracles. He has made it clear to himself that in nature there hold sway necessary, immutable laws, and whatever miracles are reported in the Bible would be disturbances, interruptions of these laws; and there cannot be such disturbances and interruptions. We know from the laws of nature that the dead cannot be reawakened to life: therefore, Jesus cannot have reawakened Lazarus.—However,—so this enlightened person continues—there was a gap in our explanation of nature. We were able to understand how the phenomena of the lifeless may be explained through immutable laws of nature; but we were unable to form a natural conception about the origin of the manifold species of plants and animals and of the human being himself. To be sure, we believed that in their case also we are concerned merely with necessary laws of nature; but we did not know their nature nor their mode of action. Try as we might, we were unable to raise reasonable objection to the statement of Carl von Linné, the great nature-researcher of the eighteenth century, that there exist as many “species in the animal and plant kingdom as were originally created in principle.” Were we not confronted here with as many miracles of creation as with species of plants and animals? Of what use was our conviction that God was unable to raise Lazarus through a supernatural interference with the natural order, through a miracle, when we had to assume the existence of such supernatural deeds in countless numbers. Then Darwin appeared and showed us that, through immutable laws of nature (natural selection and struggle for life), the plant and animal species come into existence just as do the lifeless phenomena. Our gap in the explanation of nature was filled.
[ 10 ] Out of the mood which this conviction engendered in him, David Friedrich Strauss wrote down the following statement of his “ancient and modern belief”: “We philosophers and critical theologians spoke to no purpose in denying the existence of miracles; our authoritative decree faded away without effect because we were unable to prove their dispensability and give evidence of a nature force which could replace them in the fields where up to now they were deemed most indispensable. Darwin has given proof of this nature force, this nature process, he has opened the door through which a fortunate posterity will cast the miracle into oblivion. Everybody who knows what is connected with the concept ‘miracle’ will praise him as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.”
[ 11 ] These words express the mood of the victor. And all those who feel like Strauss may disclose the following view of the “modern faith”: Once upon a time, lifeless particles of matter have conglomerated through their inherent forces in such a way as to produce living matter. This living matter developed, according to necessary laws, into the simplest, most imperfect living creatures. These, according to similarly necessary laws, transformed themselves further into the worm, the fish, the snake, the marsupial, and finally into the ape. And since Huxley, the great English nature researcher, has demonstrated that human beings are more similar in their structure to the most highly developed apes than the latter are to the lower apes, what then stands in the way of the assumption that the human being himself has, according to the same natural laws, developed from the higher apes? And further, do we not find what we call higher human spiritual activity, what we call morals, in an imperfect condition already with the animal. May we doubt the fact that the animals—as their structure became more perfect, as it developed into the human form, merely on the basis of physical laws—likewise developed the indications of intellect and morals to be found in them to the human stage?
[ 12 ] All this seems to be perfectly correct. Although everybody must admit that our knowledge of nature will not for a long time to come be in the position to conceive of how what has been described above takes place in detail, yet we shall discover more and more facts and laws; and thus the “modern faith” will gain more and firmer supports.
[ 13 ] Now it is a fact that the research and study of recent years have not furnished such solid supports for this belief; on the contrary, they have contributed greatly to discredit it. Yet it holds sway in ever extending circles and is a great obstacle to every other conviction.
[ 14 ] There is no doubt that if David Friedrich Strauss and those of like mind are right, then all talk of higher spiritual laws of existence is an absurdity; the “modern faith” would have to be based solely on the foundations which these personalities assert are the result of the knowledge of nature.
[ 15 ] Yet, whoever with unprejudiced mind follows up the statements of these adherents of the “modern faith” is confronted by a peculiar fact. And this fact presses upon us most irresistibly if we look at the thoughts of those people who have preserved some degree of impartiality in the face of the self-assured assertions of these orthodox pioneers of progress.
[ 16 ] For there are hidden corners in the creed of these modern believers. And if we uncover what exists in these corners, then the true findings of modern natural science shine forth in full brilliance, but the opinions of the modern believers concerning the human being begin to fade away.3There may be many people today who wish to inform themselves quickly about the teachings of spiritual science. They will find it very bothersome if we first present to them explicitly the natural-scientific facts in a light that will make them serve as the basis upon which an anthroposophical view may be erected. They say: we wish to hear something about spiritual science, but you give us natural-scientific facts which every educated person knows. This is an objection which shows very clearly how little our contemporaries are inclined to think seriously. In reality, those who make the above statement know nothing at all about the far-reaching consequences of their knowledge. The astronomer knows nothing about the consequences of astronomy, the chemist nothing about those of chemistry, and so forth. There is no salvation for them but to be modest and to listen quietly when they are shown that, because of the superficiality of their thinking, they know nothing at all about that which in their conceit they believe they have completely exhausted.—And even anthroposophists often believe that it is unnecessary to prove the convictions of karma and reincarnation by means of the findings of natural science. They do not know that this is the task of the human groups to which the inhabitants of Europe and America belong; and that without this basis the members of these groups cannot truly attain to spiritual-scientific insight. Whoever wishes merely to repeat what he hears from the great Teachers of the East, cannot become an anthroposophist within the European-American culture.
[ 17 ] Let us throw light into a few of these corners. At the outset, let us keep to that personality who is the most significant and the most venerable of these modern believers. On page 804 of the ninth edition of Haeckel's Natuerliche Schoepfungsgeschichte (Natural Genesis) we read: “The final result of a comparison of animals and man shows that between the most highly developed animal souls and the lowest human souls there exists only a small quantitative, but no qualitative difference; this difference is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and the highest human souls, or the difference between the highest and the lowest animal souls.” Now, what is the modern believer's attitude toward such a fact? He announces: we must explain the difference between the lower and the higher animal souls as a consequence of necessary and immutable laws. And we study these laws. We ask ourselves: how did it come about that out of animals with a lower soul have developed those with a higher soul? We look in nature for conditions through which the lower may develop into the higher. We then find, for example, that animals which have migrated to the caves of Kentucky become blind there. It becomes clear to us that through the sojourn in the darkness the eyes have lost their function. In these eyes the physical and chemical processes no longer take place which were carried out during the act of seeing. The stream of nourishment which has formerly been used for this activity is now diverted to other organs. The animals change their shape. In this way, new animal species can arise out of existing ones if only the transformation which nature causes in these species is sufficiently great and manifold.—What actually takes place here? Nature brings about changes in certain beings; and these changes later also appear in their descendants. We say: they are transmitted by heredity. Thus the coming into existence of new animal and plant species is explained.
[ 18 ] The modern believers now continue happily in the direction of their explanation. The difference between the lowest human souls and the highest animal souls is not particularly great. Therefore, certain life conditions in which the higher animal souls have been placed have brought about changes by means of which they became lower human souls. The miracle of the evolution of the human soul has been cast out of the temple of the “modern faith” into oblivion, to use an expression of Strauss', and man has been classified among the animals according to “eternal, necessary” laws. Satisfied, the modern believer retires into peaceful slumber; he does not wish to go further.
[ 19 ] Honest thinking must disturb his slumber. For this honest thinking must keep alive around his couch the spirits which he himself has evoked. Let us consider more closely the above statement of Haeckel: “the difference (between higher animals and men) is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and the highest human souls.” If the modern believer admits this, may he then indulge in peaceful slumber as soon as he—according to his opinion—has explained the evolution of the lower men out of the highest animals?
[ 20 ] No, he must not do this, and if he does so nevertheless, then he denies the whole basis upon which he has founded his conviction. What would a modern believer reply to another who were to say: I have demonstrated how fish have originated from lower living creatures. This suffices. I have shown that everything evolves—therefore the species higher than the fish will doubtless have developed like the fish. There is no doubt that the modern believer would reply: Your general thought of evolution is useless; you must be able to show how the mammals originate; for there is a greater difference between mammals and fish than between fish and those animals on a stage directly below them.—And what would have to be the consequence of the modern believer's real faithfulness to his creed? He would have to say: the difference between the higher and lower human souls is greater than the difference between these lower souls and the animal souls on the stage directly below them; therefore I must admit that there are causes in the universe which effect changes in the lower human soul, transforming it in the same way as do the causes, demonstrated by me, which lead the lower animal form into the higher one. If I do not admit this, the species of human souls remain for me a miracle in regard to their origin, just as the various animal species remain a miracle to the one who does not believe in the transformation of living creatures through laws of nature.
[ 21 ] And this is absolutely correct: the modern believers, who deem themselves so greatly enlightened because they believe they have “cast out” the miracle in the domain of the living, are believers in miracles, nay, even worshipers of the miracle in the domain of the soul life. And only the following fact differentiates them from the believers in miracles, so greatly despised by them: these latter honestly avow their belief; the modern believers, however, have not the slightest inkling of the fact that they themselves have fallen prey to the darkest superstition.
[ 22 ] And now let us illumine another corner of the “modern belief.” In his Anthropology, Dr. Paul Topinard has beautifully compiled the findings of the modern theory of the origin of man. At the end of his book he briefly recapitulates the evolution of the higher animal forms in the various epochs of the earth according to Haeckel: “At the beginning of the earth period designated by geologists the Laurentian period, the first nuclei of albumin were formed by a chance meeting of certain elements, i.e. carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, under conditions probably only prevailing at that epoch. From them, through spontaneous generation, monads developed (the smallest, imperfect living creatures). These split and multiplied, rearranged themselves into organs, and finally, after a series of transformations which Haeckel estimates as nine, they bestowed life upon certain vertebrae such as the amphioxus lanceolatus.” We may skip the description of the further animal species in the same direction and add here at once Topinard's concluding sentences: “In the twentieth earth epoch, we find the anthropoid ape approximately during the whole Miocene period; in the twenty-first, the man-ape which does not yet possess speech and a corresponding brain. In the twenty-second period, Man finally appears as we know him, at least in his less perfect forms.” And now, after having cited what is to be understood as the “natural-scientific basis of the modern belief,” Topinard, in a few words, makes a significant confession. He says: “Here the classification comes to an abrupt halt. Haeckel forgets the twenty-third degree in which the brilliant Lamarck and Newton appear.”
[ 23 ] A corner in the creed of the modern believer is thereby exposed in which he points with the utmost clarity to facts, concerning which he denies his creed. He is unwilling to rise into the human soul sphere with the concepts with which he tried to find his way in the other spheres of nature.—Were he to do this, were he, with his attitude of mind acquired through the observation of external nature, to enter upon the sphere which Topinard calls the twenty-third degree, then he would have to say to himself: just as I derive the higher animal species from the lower through evolution, so do I derive the higher soul nature from the lower through evolution. I cannot understand Newton's soul if I do not conceive of it as having sprung from a preceding soul being. And this soul being can never be looked for in the physical ancestors. Were I to look for it there, I would turn upside down the whole method of nature research. How could it ever occur to a scientist to show the evolution of one animal species out of another if the latter, in regard to its physical makeup, were as dissimilar to the former as Newton, in regard to his soul, is to his forebears: One conceives of one animal species having proceeded from a similar one which is merely one degree lower than itself. Therefore, Newton's soul must have sprung from a soul similar to it, but only one degree lower, psychically. Newton's soul nature is comprised in his biography. I recognize Newton by his biography just as I recognize a lion by the description of its species. And I comprehend the species “lion” if I imagine that it has sprung from a species on a correspondingly lower stage. Thus I comprehend what is comprised in Newton's biography if I conceive of it as having developed from the biography of a soul which resembles it, is related to it as soul. From this follows that Newton's soul existed already in another form, just as the species “lion” existed previously in a different form.
[ 24 ] For clear thought, there is no escape from this conception. Only because the modern believers do not have the courage to think their thoughts through to the end do they not arrive at this final conclusion. Through it, however, the reappearance of the being who is comprised in the biography is secured.—Either we must abandon the whole natural-scientific theory of evolution, or we must admit that it must be extended to include the evolution of the soul. There are only two alternatives: either, every soul is created by a miracle, just as the animal species would have to be created by miracles if they have not developed one out of the other, or, the soul has developed and has previously existed in another form, just as the animal species has existed in another form.
[ 25 ] A few modern thinkers who have preserved some clarity and courage for logical thinking are a living proof of the above conclusion. They are just as unable to familiarize themselves with the thought of soul evolution, so strange to our age, as are the modern believers characterized above. But they at least possess the courage to confess the only other possible view, namely: the miracle of the creation of the soul. Thus, in the book on psychology by Professor Johannes Rehmke, one of the best thinkers of our time, we may read the following: “The idea of creation ... appears to us ... to be the only one suited to render comprehensible the mystery of the origin of the soul.” Rehmke goes so far as to acknowledge the existence of a conscious Universal-Being who, “as the only condition for the origin of the soul, would have to be called the creator of the soul.” Thus speaks a thinker who is unwilling to indulge in gentle spiritual slumber after having grasped the physical life processes, yet who is lacking the capacity of acknowledging the idea that each individual soul has evolved out of its previous form of existence. Rehmke has the courage to accept the miracle, since he is unable to have the courage to acknowledge the anthroposophical view of the reappearance of the soul, of reincarnation. Thinkers in whom the natural-scientific striving begins to be developed logically must of necessity arrive at this view. Thus, in the book, Neuchristentum und reale Religion (Neo-Christianity and Real Religion), by Julius Baumann, professor of philosophy at the University of Goettingen, we find the following (twenty-second) paragraph among the thirty-nine paragraphs of a Sketch of a Summary of Real-Scientific Religion: “Just as in inorganic nature the physical-chemical elements and forces do not disappear but only change their combinations, so is this also to be assumed, according to the real scientific method, in respect of the organic and organic-spiritual forces. The Human soul as formal unity, as connecting Ego, returns in new human bodies and is thus enabled to pass through all the stages of human evolution.”
[ 26 ] Whoever possesses the full courage for the natural-scientific avowal of faith of the present age must arrive at this conception. This, however, must not be misunderstood;we do not maintain that the more prominent thinkers among the modern believers are cowardly persons, in the ordinary sense of the word. It needed courage, indescribable courage to carry to victory the natural-scientific view in face of the resisting forces of the nineteenth century.5The writer of this essay cannot be charged with failure to acknowledge the great merits of our modern believers for the very reason that he himself, in his book Die Raetsel der Philosophie (Riddles of Philosophy), has presented these merits in connection with the spiritual evolution of their epoch, fully appreciating and acknowledging their value. But this courage must be distinguished from the higher one in regard to logical thinking. Yet just those nature researchers of the present age who desire to erect a world conception out of the findings of their domain are lacking such logical thinking. For, is it not a disgrace if we have to hear a sentence like the following, which was pronounced by the Breslau chemist Albert Ladenburg, in a lecture at a recent (1903) Conference of scientists: “Do we know anything about a substratum of the soul? I have no such knowledge.” After having made this confession, this same man continues: “What is your opinion concerning immortality? I believe that in regard to this question, more than in regard to any other, the wish is father to the thought, for I do not know a single scientifically proven fact which might serve as the basis for the belief in immortality.” What would the learned gentleman say if we were confronted by a speaker who said: “I know nothing about chemical facts. I therefore deny the chemical laws, for I know not a single scientifically proven fact which might serve as the basis for these laws.” Certainly, the professor would reply: “What do we care about your ignorance of chemistry? First study chemistry, then do your talking!” Professor Ladenburg does not know anything about a substratum of the soul; he, therefore, should not bother the world with the findings of his ignorance.
[ 27 ] Just as the nature researcher, in order to understand certain animal forms, studies the animal forms out of which these former have evolved, so the psychologist, rooted in natural science, must, in order to understand a certain soul form, study the soul form out of which the former has evolved. The skull form of higher animals is explained by scientists as having arisen out of the transformation of the lower animal skull. Therefore, everything belonging to a soul's biography ought to be explained by them through the biography of the soul out of which this soul concerned has evolved. The later conditions are the effects of former ones. That is to say, the later physical conditions are the effects of former physical conditions; likewise, the later soul conditions are the effects of former soul conditions. This is the content of the Law of Karma which says: all my talents and deeds in my present life do not exist separately as a miracle, but they are connected as effect with the previous forms of existence of my soul and as cause with future ones.
[ 28 ] Those who, with open spiritual eyes, observe human life and do not know this comprehensive law, or do not wish to acknowledge it, are constantly confronted by riddles of life. Let us quote one example for many. It is contained in Maurice Maeterlinck's book Le Temple Enseveli (The Buried Temple). This is a book which speaks of these riddles, which appear to present-day thinkers in a distorted shape because they are not conversant with the great laws in spiritual life of cause and effect, of Karma. Those who have fallen prey to the limited dogmas of the modern believers have no organ for the perception of such riddles. Maeterlinck puts [forth] one of these questions: “If I plunge into the water in zero weather in order to save my fellow man, or if I fall into the water while trying to push him into it, the consequences of the cold I catch will be exactly the same in both cases, and no power in heaven or earth beside myself or the man (if he is able to do so) will increase my suffering because I have committed a crime, or will relieve my pain because I performed a virtuous deed.” Certainly; the consequences in question here appear to an observation which limits itself to physical facts to be the same in both cases. But may this observation, without further research, be considered complete? Whoever asserts this holds, as a thinker, the same view point as a person who observes two boys being taught by two different teachers, and who observes nothing else in this activity but the fact that in both cases the teachers are occupied with the two boys for the same number of hours and carry on the same studies. If he were to enter more deeply upon the facts, he would perhaps observe a great difference between the two cases, and he would consider it comprehensible that one boy grows up to be an inefficient man, while the other boy becomes an excellent and capable human being.—And if the person who is willing to enter upon soul-spiritual connections were to observe the above consequences for the souls of the human beings in question, he would have to say to himself: what happens there cannot be considered as isolated facts. The consequences of a cold are soul experiences, and I must, if they are not to be deemed a miracle, view them as causes and effects in the soul life. The consequences for the person who saves a life will spring from causes different from those for the criminal; or they will, in the one or the other case, have different effects. And if I cannot find these causes and effects in the present life of the people concerned, if all conditions are alike for this present life, then I must look for the compensation in the past and the future life. Then I proceed exactly like the natural scientist in the field of external facts; he, too, explains the lack of eyes in animals living in dark caves by previous experiences, and he presupposes that present-day experiences will have their effects in future formations of races and species.
[ 29 ] Only he has an inner right to speak of evolution in the domain of outer nature who acknowledges this evolution also in the sphere of soul and spirit. Now, it is clear that this acknowledgment, this extension of knowledge of nature beyond nature is more than mere cognition. For it transforms cognition into life; it does not merely enrich man's knowledge, it provides him with the strength for his life's journey. It shows him whence he comes and whither he goes. And it will show him this whence and whither beyond birth and death if he steadfastly follows the direction which this knowledge indicates. He knows that everything he does is a link in the stream which flows from eternity to eternity. The point of view from which he regulates his life becomes higher and higher. The man who has not attained to this state of mind appears as though enveloped in a dense fog, for he has no idea of his true being, of his origin and goal. He follows the impulses of his nature, without any insight into these impulses. He must confess that he might follow quite different impulses, were he to illuminate his path with the light of knowledge. Under the influence of such an attitude of soul, the sense of responsibility in regard to life grows constantly. If the human being does not develop this sense of responsibility in himself, he denies, in a higher sense, his humanness. Knowledge lacking the aim to ennoble the human being is merely the satisfying of a higher curiosity. To raise knowledge to the comprehension of the spiritual, in order that it may become the strength of the whole life, is, in a higher sense, duty. Thus it is the duty of every human being to seek the understanding for the Whence and Whither of the Soul.
Reinkarnation Und Karma
vom Standpunkte der Modernen Naturwissenschaft Notwendige Vorstellungen
[ 1 ] Als ein gefährlicher Ketzer galt der tonangebenden Weisheit des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts der italienische Naturforscher Francesco Redi, weil er behauptete, daß auch die niedersten Tiere durch Fortpflanzung entstehen. Nur mit knapper Not entging er dem Märtyrerschicksal Giordano Brunos oder Galileis. Denn der rechtgläubige Gelehrte der damaligen Zeit meinte, daß Würmer, Insekten, ja selbst Fische aus leblosem Schlamm entstehen können. Nichts anderes hat Redi behauptet, als was heute allgemein anerkannt ist, daß alles Lebendige von einem Lebendigen abstammt. Er hat die Sünde begangen, eine Wahrheit zu kennen, zwei Jahrhunderte bevor die Wissenschaft «unumstößliche Beweise » für sie fand. Seit Pasteur seine Untersuchungen angestellt hat, kann kein Zweifel mehr darüber walten, daß man es lediglich mit einer Täuschung zu tun hatte in solchen Fällen, in denen man früher geglaubt hat, aus leblosen Substanzen entständen durch « Urzeugung » lebendige Wesenheiten. Die in derlei leblose Substanzen eindringenden Lebenskeime entzogen sich der Beobachtung. Durch sichere Mittel hat Pasteur das Eindringen solcher Keime in Substanzen, in denen für gewöhnlich kleine Lebewesen entstehen, verhindert — und es bildete sich nicht eine Spur des Lebendigen. Das Lebendige entsteht also nur aus dem Lebenskeime. Redi hatte vollkommen recht.
[ 2 ] In einer ähnlichen Lage wie der italienische Denker ist heute der Anthroposoph. Er muß auf Grund seines Wissens das von dem Seelischen sagen, was Redi von dem Lebendigen gesagt hat. Er muß behaupten: Seelisches kann nur aus Seelischem entstehen. Und wenn die Naturwissenschaft in derselben Richtung sich weiterbewegt, die sie seit dem siebzehnten Jahrhundert genommen hat, dann wird auch die Zeit kommen, in der sie selbst - aus sich heraus - diese Anschauung vertreten wird. Denn — das muß immer von neuem betont werden — der anthroposophischen Anschauung von heute liegt genau die gleiche Denkgesinnung zugrunde wie der naturwissenschaftlichen Behauptung, daß Insekten, Würmer und Fische nicht aus Schlamm, sondern aus Lebenskeimen entstehen. Und sie behauptet den Satz: «jede Seele entsteht aus Seelischem » in demselben Sinne und in derselben Bedeutung wie der Naturforscher den seinigen: «Alles Lebendige entsteht aus Lebendigem.» 1Das Obige muß ausdrücklich gesagt werden, denn die flüchtigen Leser sind heute zahlreich, und sie sind jederzeit gern bereit, jeden möglichen Unsinn in die Ausführungen eines Denkers hineinzulesen, auch wenn dieser bemüht ist, ganz genau sich auszusprechen. Deshalb sei hier noch besonders hinzugefügt, daß es mir gar nicht beifallen kann, diejenigen zu bekämpfen, die, auf naturwissenschaftlichen Voraussetzungen fußend, dem Problem der «Utrzeugung» nachgehen. Aber wenn es auch Tatsache sein kann, daß irgendwie bloß «leblose» Substanzen sich zu lebendigem Eiweiß vereinigen, so folgt daraus nicht, daß, richtig verstanden, Redis Anschauung falsch sei.
[ 3 ] Die Sitten sind heute andere als im siebzehnten Jahrhundert. Die den Sitten zugrunde liegenden Gesinnungen haben sich nicht sonderlich geändert. Im siebzehnten Jahrhundert verfolgte man ketzerische Anschauungen allerdings mit Mitteln, die heute nicht mehr human erscheinen. Man wird die Anthroposophen heute nicht gerade mit dem Feuertode bedrohen: man begnügt sich damit, sie dadurch unschädlich zu machen, daß man sie für Schwärmer und unklare Köpfe erklärt. Die landläufige Wissenschaft stempelt sie zu Toren. An die Stelle der früheren Hinrichtung durch die Inquisition ist die neue Hinrichtungsart, die journalistische, getreten. Nun, die Anthroposophen stehen aufrecht: sie trösten sich mit dem Bewußtsein, daß die Zeit kommen werde, in der man von irgendeinem Virchow ungefähr hören wird: «Es gab eine Zeit - wir sind glücklich, daß die überwunden ist- in der man glaubte, daß die Seele von selbst entstehe, wenn gewisse komplizierte chemische und physikalische Vorgänge innerhalb einer Hirnschale sich abspielen. Heute aber muß für jeden ernsten Forscher solch kindliche Vorstellung dem Satze weichen: Jedes Seelische entsteht aus Seelischem.» Und der Chorus «aufgeklärter» Journalisten verschiedener Parteirichtungen wird - falls dann nicht solcher Journalismus selbst unter die Kindereien gerechnet wird - er wird dann schreiben: «Der geniale Forscher X hat mannhaft die Fahne aufgeklärter Seelenwissenschaft entrollt und den Aberglauben einer mechanischen Naturanschauung zu Paaren getrieben, der noch auf der Naturforscherversammlung des Jahres 1903 durch den Breslauer Chemiker Ladenburg wahre Triumphe feiern durfte.»
[ 4 ] Nun soll man sich aber ja nicht dem Wahn hingeben, die Geisteswissenschaft wolle aus der Naturwissenschaft heraus ihre Wahrheiten beweisen. Was betont werden muß, ist vielmehr, daß die Geisteswissenschaft die gleiche Gesinnung hat wie die wahre Naturwissenschaft. Der Anthroposoph vollbringt nur für die Gebiete des seelischen Lebens dasselbe, was der Naturforscher für das zu erreichen strebt, was er mit Augen sehen und mit Ohren hören kann. Zwischen echter Naturforschung und Geisteswissenschaft kann kein Widerspruch bestehen. Der Anthroposoph legt dar, daß die Gesetze, die er für das Seelenleben aufstellt, in entsprechender Weise auch für die äußeren Naturerscheinungen gelten. Er tut es deshalb, weil er weiß, daß das menschliche Erkenntnisgefühl sich nur dann befriedigt erklären kann, wenn es einsieht, daß Einklang und nicht Widerspruch ist zwischen den verschiedenen Erscheinungsgebieten des Daseins. Heute sind ja die meisten Menschen, die sich überhaupt um Erkenntnis und Wahrheit bemühen, mit gewissen naturwissenschaftlichen Einsichten bekannt. Solche Wahrheiten fliegen dem Menschen, sozusagen, auf der Straße an. Die Unterhaltungsbeilagen der Zeitungen enthüllen dem Gebildeten und auch dem Ungebildeten die Gesetze, wie sich die vollkommenen Tiere aus den unvollkommenen entwickeln, welch tiefgehende Verwandtschaft zwischen dem Menschen und dem höchststehenden Affen bestehe, und flinke Wochenblattschreiber werden nicht müde, ihren Lesern einzuschärfen, wie sie über den «Geist» zu denken haben im Zeitalter des «großen Darwin ». Sie fügen höchst selten hinzu, daß sich in Darwins Hauptwerk auch der Satz findet: «Ich halte dafür, daß alle organischen Wesen, die je auf dieser Erde gelebt haben, von einer Urform abstammen, welcher das Leben vom Schöpfer eingehaucht wurde.» - In einem solchen Zeitalter ist es höchst notwendig, immer wieder und wieder zu zeigen, daß es sich die Anthroposophie mit dem «Einhauchen des Lebens» und auch der Seele nicht so leicht macht wie Darwin und manche Darwinianer, daß aber ihre Wahrheiten mit den Ergebnissen wahrer Naturforschung nicht in Widerspruch stehen. Nicht auf der Krücke der Naturwissenschaft der Gegenwart will die Anthroposophie zu den Geheimnissen des Geisteslebens vordringen, sondern nur sagen will sie: «Erkennet die Gesetze des geistigen Lebens, und ihr werdet diese hohen Gesetze auch in entsprechender Form bewahrheitet finden, wenn ihr auf das Gebiet heruntersteigt, wo ihr mit Augen sehen und mit Ohren hören könnt. Die Naturwissenschaft der Gegenwart widerspricht nicht der Geisteswissenschaft, sondern sie ist selbst elementare Geisteswissenschaft. Haeckel hat es im Gebiete des tierischen Lebens nur deshalb zu so schönen Ergebnissen gebracht, weil er die Gesetze, welche die Seelenforscher seit langem auf die Seeleanwenden, nun auch auf die Entwickelung des tierischen Lebens anwandte. Wenn er selbst nicht diese Überzeugung hat, so tut das nichts; er kennt eben die Seelengesetze nicht und weiß auch nichts von den Forschungen, die man auf dem Felde der Seele anstellen kann. Die Bedeutung seiner Ergebnisse auf seinem Gebiete wird dadurch nicht geringer. Große Männer haben die Fehler ihrer Tugenden. Unsere Aufgabe ist, zu zeigen, daß Haeckel da, wo er zu Hause ist, nichts anderes ist als Anthroposoph.» Und.noch ein anderes Hilfsmittel bietet sich dem Geisteswissenschafter durch die Anknüpfung an die naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse der Gegenwart. Die Dinge der äußeren Natur sind gewissermaßen mit den Händen zu greifen. Deshalb ist es leicht, ihre Gesetze klarzulegen. Sich zu vergegenwärtigen, daß Pflanzen sich verändern, wenn sie aus einer Gegend in eine andere versetzt werden, macht keine Schwierigkeiten. Daß gewisse Tierarten die Sehkraft ihrer Augen verlieren, wenn sie eine Zeitlang in finsteren Höhlen leben, ruft unschwer anschauliche Vorstellungen hervor. Wenn man nun zeigt, welche Gesetze in solchen Vorgängen wirken, so kann man von da aus leicht zu den minder anschaulichen, weniger faßbaren Gesetzen hinüberleiten, die uns auf dem Gebiete des seelischen Lebens entgegentreten. — Veranschaulichen und nichts anderes will der Anthroposoph, wenn er die Naturwissenschaft zu Hilfe ruft. Er hat zu zeigen, daß sich auf ihrem Gebiete die anthroposophischen Wahrheiten in entsprechender Form wiederfinden, daß die Naturwissenschaft nichts anderes sein kann als elementare Geisteswissenschaft; und er hat sich der naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen zu bedienen, um zu seinen höher gearteten hinüberzuleiten.
[ 5 ] Nun könnte ja hier auch eingewendet werden, daß jegliche Hinneigung zu den gegenwärtigen naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen die Geisteswissenschaft schon deshalb in eine schiefe Lage bringen könne, weil diese Vorstellungen selbst auf einem ganz unsicheren Boden ruhen. Es ist richtig: da gibt es Naturforscher, die gewisse Grundlinien des Darwinismus für unumstößliche Wahrheiten halten, und andere, die bereits von einer «Krisis des Darwinismus » sprechen. Die einen finden in der «Allmacht der Naturzüchtung», im «Kampf ums Dasein » umfassende Erklärungsgründe für die Entwickelung der Lebewesen; die andern verweisen diesen « Kampf ums Dasein» zu den Kinderkrankheiten der neueren Naturlehre und reden von der «Ohnmacht der Naturzüchtung ». —- Wenn es auf diese besonderen strittigen Punkte ankäme, dann könnte man als Anthroposoph wahrlich nichts Besseres tun, als sich um sie vorläufig nicht bekümmern, und für den Einklang mit der Naturwissenschaft einen Zeitpunkt abwarten, der besser als der gegenwärtige ist. Aber eben darauf kommt es gar nicht an. Es handelt sich vielmehr um eine gewisse Gesinnung, um eine Denkungsart innerhalb des naturwissenschaftlichen Forschens in unserer Zeit, um bestimmte große Richtungslinien, die überall eingehalten werden, wenn auch die Gedanken über besondere Fragen bei einzelnen Forschern und Denkern weit auseinandergehen. Wahr ist: Ernst Haeckels und Virchows Anschauungen über die «Abstammung des Menschen » gehen weit auseinander. Aber der anthroposophisch Gesinnte könnte froh sein, wenn die maßgebenden Persönlichkeiten über gewisse große Gesichtspunkte in bezug auf das Seelenleben so weit in klarer Weise dächten, wie diese Gegner über dasjenige, was ihnen bei allem Streit doch als absolut sicher gilt. Weder Haeckels noch Virchows Anhänger suchen heute den Ursprung der Würmer im leblosen Schlamm, weder die ersten, noch die letzteren zweifeln an dem Satze: «alles Lebendige stammt aus Lebendigem» in dem oben bezeichneten Sinne. — In der Seelenkunde haben wir es so weit noch nicht gebracht. Da fehlt jede Klarheit über einen Gesichtspunkt, der sich mit solchen naturwissenschaftlichen Grundüberzeugungen vergleichen ließe. Wer die Gestalt und Lebensweise eines Wurmes erklären will, weiß, daß er zum Wurm-Ei und zu den Vorfahren des Wurmes hinaufsteigen muß; er weiß, in welcher Richtung er forschen muß, wenn auch über alles Weitere verschiedene Ansichten herrschen, oder auch behauptet wird, die Zeit sei noch nicht reif, über diesen oder jenen Punkt bestimmte Gedanken zu erzeugen. -— Wo wäre in der Seelenkunde eine ähnliche Klarheit? Daß die Seele 2Die Getreuen der Wundtschen Schule mögen sich entsetzlich berührt - fühlen, daß ich in so altväterischer Weise von «Seele» spreche, während sie doch auf die Worte ihres Meisters schwören, der es eben wieder verkündet hat, daß man nicht von «Seele» sprechen soll, weil von dieser «überwirklichen» Seelensubstanz, nachdem «sich die Mythologisierung der Erscheinungen ins Transzendente verflüchtigt» hat, nichts übriggeblieben ist, als ein «zusammenhängendes Geschehen». Nun ja: Wundtsche Weisheit kommt der Behauptung gleich, daß man nicht von «Lilie» reden dürfe, weil man es ja nur mit Farbe, Form, Wachstumsprozessen usw. zu tun habe. (Wundt: Naturwissenschaft und Psychologie, Leipzig 1903.) geistige Eigenschaften habe, wie der Wurm physische, veranlaßt nicht, wie es doch sollte, an die eine Tatsache mit derselben Forschergesinnung heranzutreten wie an die andere. Allerdings steht unsere Zeit unter dem Einfluß von Denkgewohnheiten, die bewirken, daß Unzählige aus den Reihen derer, die sich mit diesen Dingen beschäftigen, gar nicht einmal auf eine solche Forderung in entsprechender Art eingehen wollen. - Gewiß: es wird zur Not zugegeben, daß auch die seelischen Eigenschaften eines Menschen geradeso irgendwoher stammen müssen wie die physischen. Es werden Erwägungen darüber angestellt, wie es dehn komme, daß die Seelen einer Schar von Kindern so verschieden sind, die alle unter gleichen Umständen aufgewachsen und erzogen sind, daß sogar Zwillinge in wesentlichen Eigenarten von einander abweichen, die stets an demselben Orte, unter der Obhut einer Amme gewesen sind. Man führt wohl auch gelegentlich an, daß es von «den siamesischen Zwillingen heißt, ihre letzten Lebensjahre wären infolge ihrer entgegengesetzten Sympathien im nordamerikanischen Bürgerkriege recht unbehaglich gewesen.» Übrigens soll gar nicht behauptet werden, daß nicht sorgfältiges Nachdenken und Beobachten auf solche Erscheinungen gewendet worden, und nicht beachtenswerte Arbeiten darüber vorlägen. Aber es ist das Gewöhnliche, daß sich solche Arbeiten zum Seelischen so verhalten, wie sich eben der Naturforscher zum Lebendigen verhalten würde, wenn er einfach seine Herkunft aus dem leblosen Schlamme behaupten wollte. Es ist zweifellos berechtigt, wenn man zur Erklärung der niederen seelischen Eigenschaften zu den physischen Vorfahren hinaufsteigt, und ebenso von Vererbung spricht, wie man es für die körperlichen Merkmale tut. Aber man will die Augen vor dem Wesentlichsten verschließen, wenn man dieselbe Richtung für die höheren Seeleneigenschaften, für das eigentlich Geistige im Menschen nimmt. Man hat sich eben daran gewöhnt, diese höheren seelischen Eigenschaften nur als eine Steigerung, als einen höheren Grad der niederen zu betrachten. Und man meint deshalb, man könne sich mit einer Erklärung zufriedengeben, die in demselben Sinne gehalten ist wie diejenige der seelischen Eigenschaften der Tiere.
[ 6 ] Es soll nicht geleugnet werden, daß die Beobachtung gewisser seelischer Verrichtungen der höheren Tiere zu einer solchen Anschauung leicht verführt. Man braucht ja nur darauf hinzuweisen, daß Hunde merkwürdige Beweise eines treuen Gedächtnisses geben, daß Pferde, die den Mangel eines Hufeisens bei sich bemerken, selbst zur Schmiede gehen, in der sie gewöhnlich beschlagen werden; daß sogar Tiere, die in einem Zimmer eingeschlossen sind, sich selbst die Klinke öffnen, und was an dergleichen erstaunlichen Dingen mehr angeführt werden kann. Gewiß: auch der Anthroposoph wird nicht ermangeln, jede beliebige Steigerung der tierischen Fähigkeiten zuzugeben. Aber soll man deshalb allen Unterschied zwischen den niederen Seelenmerkmalen, die der Mensch mit den Tieren gemein hat, und den höheren geistigen Eigenschaften, die nur ihm eignen, verwischen? Nur der kann das, der durch ein dogmatisches Vorurteil der «Wissenschaft» ganz geblendet ist, welche am Grobsinnlichen haften bleiben will. Man nehme doch nur die durch einwandfreie Beobachtung festgestellte Tatsache, daß die Tiere, auch die höchststehenden, nicht zählen, und daher auch nicht rechnen lernen. Schon in alten Weisheitsschulen galt es als ein vielsagender Satz, daß sich der Mensch dadurch vom Tiere unterscheide, daß er zählen könne. — Das Zählen ist die einfachste, die trivialste der höheren Seelenfähigkeiten. Eben deshalb sei es hier angeführt als der Grenzpunkt, wo das Tierisch-Seelische in das Geistig-Seelische, in das höhere Menschliche übergeht. Es ist natürlich kinderleicht, auch hier Einwände zu machen. Erstens kann man sagen, daß ja noch nicht aller Tage Abend ist, und daß einmal gelingen könne, was bisher nicht gelungen ist: gewissen intelligenten Tieren das Zählen beizubringen. Und zweitens möchte man wohl darauf hinweisen, daß ja des Menschen Gehirn immerhin sich dem der Tiere gegenüber vervollkommnet habe; und daß es einfach daher komme, wenn es höhere Grade von Seelentätigkeiten hervorbringe. Man mag dem, der solche Einwände macht, nicht einmal, sondern hundertmal recht geben. Aber in derselben Lage ist man bei solchen, die gegenüber der Tatsache, daß alles Leben aus Lebendigem hervorgeht, immer wieder behaupten: aber im Wurm herrschen dieselben chemischen und physikalischen Gesetze wie im Schlamme, nur in komplizierterer Weise. Wer mit Trivialitäten und Selbstverständlichkeiten durchaus die Geheimnisse der Natur enthüllen will, dem wird eben schwer zu helfen sein. Es gibt Leute, die den Grad von Verstand, zu dem sie sich gerade emporgerungen haben, für den denkbar höchsten halten, und die deshalb gar nicht darauf verfallen, daß ein anderer sich vielleicht ihre trivialen Einwände selbst machen könnte, wenn er nicht deren Nichtigkeit einsähe. - Es ist gar nichts dagegen einzuwenden, daß alle höheren Verrichtungen in der Welt nur Steigerungen der niederen sind, daß die im Wurm herrschenden Gesetze Steigerungen derjenigen sind, die im Schlamme anzutreffen sind. Aber so wie heute kein Einsichtiger die Herkunft des Wurmes aus dem Schlamme behauptet, so kann kein klar Denkender das Geistig-Seelische in dieselbe Begriffsschablone bringen wollen wie das Tierisch-Seelische. Wie man zunächst in der Reihe des Lebendigen bleibt, um dieses Lebendige seiner Abstammung nach zu erklären, so muß man im Reich des Seelisch-Geistigen bleiben, um das Seelisch-Geistige seiner Herkunft nach zu verstehen.
[ 7 ] Es gibt Tatsachen, die überall beobachtet werden können und an denen unzählige Menschen vorbeigehen, ohne sich besondere Gedanken dabei zu machen. Einmal kommt einer und macht an einer solch jedermann zugänglichen Tatsache die Entdeckung einer folgenschweren Wahrheit. An einer schwingenden Kirchenlampe soll Galilei das wichtige Gesetz der Pendelschwingung bemerkt haben. Vorher haben unzählige Menschen Kirchenlampen schwingen sehen, ohne daran diese tiefgreifende Bemerkung zu machen. Es kommt darauf an, daß man mit den Dingen, die man sieht, die rechten Gedanken verknüpft. Nun gibt es eine Tatsache, die ganz allgemein zugänglich ist, und die, richtig angesehen, ein helles Licht wirft auf den Charakter des Seelisch-Geistigen. Das ist die einfache Wahrheit, daß jeder Mensch eine Biographie hat, das Tier aber keine. Zwar werden wieder manche sagen: Kann man denn nicht auch die Lebensgeschichte einer Katze oder eines Hundes schreiben? Ihnen ist zu antworten: zweifellos, aber es gibt auch Schulaufgaben, in denen man von den Kindern verlangt: sie sollen die Schicksale einer Schreibfeder erzählen, Doch handelt es sich darum, daß für den einzelnen Menschen die Biographie dieselbe grundwesentliche Bedeutung hat, wie für das Tier die Beschreibung seiner Art. In demselben Sinne, in dem mich bei dem Löwen die Beschreibung der Löwenart interessiert, beschäftigt mich beim einzelnen Menschen die Biographie. Schiller, Goethe und Heine sind nicht in demselben Sinne für mich erschöpft, wenn ich ihre Menschenart beschreibe, wie der einzelne Löwe für mich erschöpft ist, wenn ich ihn als Exemplar seiner Gattung erkannt habe. Der einzelne Mensch ist mehr als ein Exemplar der Menschengattung. Er hat in demselben Sinne seine Gattungsmerkmale mit seinen physischen Vorfahren gemein wie das Tier. Aber wo das Gattungsmäßige aufhört, da beginnt für den Menschen das, was seine besondere Stellung, seine Aufgaben in der Welt bedingt. Und wo dieses anfängt, da hört alle Möglichkeit einer Erklärung nach der Schablone der tierisch-physischen Vererbung auf. Ich kann Schillers Nase und Haare, vielleicht auch gewisse Temperamentseigenschaften auf Entsprechendes bei seinen Vorfahren zurückführen, aber nicht sein Genie. Und das gilt natürlich nicht nur von Schiller. Das gilt auch von der Frau Müller aus Krähwinkel. Auch bei ihr wird man, wenn man nur zusehen will, SeelischGeistiges finden, das durchaus nicht in der gleichen Art bei ihren Eltern und Großeltern gefunden werden könnte, wie ihre Nase und ihre blauen Augen. Zwar hat Goethe gesagt, vom Vater habe er die Statur und des Lebens ernstes Führen, vom Mütterchen die Frohnatur und Lust zu fabulieren, und deshalb wäre an dem ganzen Wicht nichts original zu nennen. Nun, trotzdem wird aber niemand versuchen, Goethes Begabung in demselben Sinne von Vater und Mutter herzuleiten, und sich damit befriedigt erklären, wie man die Form und Lebensart des Löwen aus seinen Vorfahren herleitet. — Hier liegt die Richtung, welche die Seelenkunde nehmen muß, wenn sie dem naturwissenschaftlichen Satz: «alles Lebendige stammt aus Lebendigem» den entsprechenden an die Seite stellen will: «alles Seelische ist aus Seelischem zu erklären.» Wir werden weiterhin diese Richtung verfolgen und zeigen, wie die Gesetze von Reinkarnation und Karma von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus eine naturwissenschaftliche Notwendigkeit sind.
[ 8 ] Es erscheint höchst sonderbar, daß so viele an der Frage nach der Herkunft des Seelischen vorbeigehen, rein aus Furcht, daß sie dabei in ein unsicheres Wissensgebiet kommen könnten. Ihnen muß vorgehalten werden, was der große Naturforscher Karl Gegenbaur vom Darwinismus gesagt hat. Mögen die unmittelbaren Behauptungen Darwins auch nicht ganz richtig sein, sie waren Führer zu Entdeckungen, die ohne sie nicht wären gemacht worden. Darwin hat in einleuchtender Weise auf die Entwickelung der Lebensformen aus einander hingewiesen, und das hat dazu angespornt, die Zusammenhänge solcher Formen zu suchen. Auch diejenigen, welche die Irrtümer des Darwinismus bekämpfen, müßten sich darüber klar sein, daß dieser selbe Darwinismus der Erforschung tierischer und pflanzlicher Entwickelung Klarheit und Sicherheit gebracht hat, und daß er durch sie in dunkle Gebiete des Naturwirkens hineingeleuchtet hat. Seine Irrtümer wird er durch sich selbst überwinden. Wäre er nicht gewesen, so hätten wir auch seine Folgen nicht. Und den anthroposophischen Anschauungen müßte für das geistige Leben ein gleiches auch derjenige zugestehen, der diesen Lehren gegenüber Unsicherheit fürchtet. Auch wenn sie nicht ganz richtig wären, würden sie aus sich selbst zum Licht über die Rätselfragen der Seele führen. Auch ihnen wird Klarheit und Sicherheit verdankt werden. Und da sie sich auf unser geistiges Schicksal, auf unsere menschliche Bestimmung, auf unsere höchsten Aufgaben beziehen, so müßte die Herbeiführung dieser Klarheit und Sicherheit die wichtigste Angelegenheit unseres Lebens sein. Auf diesem Gebiete ist das Streben nach Erkenntnis zugleich eine moralische Notwendigkeit, eine unbedingte sittliche Verpflichtung.
[ 9 ] Eine Art Bibel des «aufgeklärten» Menschen der neuen Zeit wollte David Friedrich Strauß in seinem 1872 erschienenen Buche «Der alte und der neue Glaube» liefern. Dem «neuen Glauben» sollen die Offenbarungen der Naturwissenschaft zugrunde liegen, und nicht die, nach der Meinung des genannten Apostels der Aufklärung überlebter, Offenbarungen des «alten Glaubens». Unter dem Eindruck der Darwinschen Vorstellungen ist die neue Bibel geschrieben. Und sie rührt von einer Persönlichkeit her, die sich gesagt hat: wer gleich mir zu den aufgeklärten Menschen sich rechnet, der hat längst vor Darwin nicht an die «übernatürliche Offenbarung» und ihre Wunder geglaubt. Er hat sich klar gemacht: in der Natur walten notwendige, unabänderliche Gesetze, und was uns die Bibel als Wunder erzählt, wären Störungen, Unterbrechungen dieser Gesetze; und solche kann es nicht geben. Wir wissen nach Naturgesetzen, daß kein Toter wieder lebendig werden kann: also kann auch Jesus den Lazarus nicht auferweckt haben. — Aber nun - so sagt sich unser Aufgeklärter weiter — hatte unsere Naturerklärung eine Lücke. Wir vermochten einzusehen, wie die leblosen Erscheinungen durch unabänderliche Naturgesetze erklärt werden können; aber wie die mannigfaltigen Arten der Pflanzen und Tiere und der Mensch selbst entstanden seien: davon konnten wir uns keine naturgemäße Vorstellung machen. Wir glaubten zwar, daß auch da nur notwendige Naturgesetze in Betracht kämen; aber welche es seien, und wie sie wirken, davon wußten wir nichts. Was wir uns auch Mühe gaben: etwas Vernünftiges konnten wir nicht einwenden gegen das, was Karl von Lineé, der große Naturforscher des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts, ausgesprochen hat: es seien so viele «Spezies im 'Tier- und Pflanzenreich vorhanden, als ursprünglich im Prinzip geschaffen worden sind.» Hatten wir da nicht so viele Schöpfungswunder vor uns, als Arten von Pflanzen und Tieren? Was nützte uns unsere Überzeugung, Gott könne nicht durch einen übernatürlichen Eingriff in die Naturordnung, durch ein Wunder, den Lazarus erweckt haben, wenn wir solcher übernatürlicher Taten doch unzählige annehmen mußten. Da kam Darwin und zeigte uns, daß durch unabänderliche Naturgesetze — Anpassung und Kampf ums Dasein — die pflanzlichen und tierischen Arten entstehen wie die leblosen Erscheinungen. Unsere Lücke in der Naturerklärung war ausgefüllt.
[ 10 ] Aus der Stimmung heraus, die ihm aus solcher Überzeugung kam, schrieb David Friedrich Strauß diese Worte seines «Alten und neuen Glaubens» hin: «Wir Philosophen und kritischen Theologen haben gut reden gehabt, wenn wir das Wunder in Abgang dekretierten; unser Machtspruch verhallte ohne Wirkung, weil wires nicht entbehrlich zu machen, keine Naturkraft nachzuweisen wußten, die es an den Stellen, wo es bisher am meisten für unerläßlich galt, ersetzen konnte. Darwin hat diese Naturkraft, dieses Naturverfahren nachgewiesen, er hat die Tür geöffnet, durch welche eine glücklichere Nachwelt das Wunder auf Nimmerwiederkehr hinauswerfen wird. Jeder, der weiß, was am Wunder hängt, wird ihn dafür als einen der größten Wohltäter des menschlichen Geschlechts preisen.»
[ 11 ] In diesen Worten liegt Siegerstimmung. Und alle, die wie Strauß empfinden, dürfen den folgenden Ausblick in einen «neuen Glauben» eröffnen: Einmal haben sich leblose Stoffteilchen durch die ihnen innewohnenden Kräfte so zusammengeballt, daß sie lebendigen Stoff gaben. Dieser entwickelte sich durch notwendige Gesetze zu den einfachsten, unvollkommensten Lebewesen. Dann veränderten sich diese nach ebenso notwendigen Gesetzen weiterzum Wurm, Fisch, zur Schlange, zum Beuteltier und zuletzt zum Affen, Und da Huxley, der große englische Naturforscher, nachgewiesen hat, daß die Menschen ihrem Baue nach den höchststehenden Affen viel ähnlicher sind, als diese den niederen Affen: was steht noch dem Glauben entgegen, daß der Mensch selbst sich nach denselben Naturgesetzen aus höheren Affen entwickelt habe? Ferner, treffen wir nicht das, was wir höhere menschliche Geistestätigkeit, was wir Moral nennen, in einem unvollkommenen Zustande schon bei den Tieren? Dürfen wir daran zweifeln, daß die Tiere, als ihr Bau vollkommener wurde, als er sich zur menschlichen Gestalt entwickelte, bloß auf Grund der physischen Gesetze, auch die Andeutungen von Verstandestätigkeit und Moral, die sich schon bei ihnen finden, zur menschlichen Höhe ausgestalteten ?
[ 12 ] Alles scheint da aufs beste zu stimmen. Zwar wird jeder zugestehen müssen, daß unsere Naturkenntnis noch lange nicht ausreichen wird, um sich vorzustellen, wie das oben Beschriebene alles im einzelnen vor sich geht; aber man wird immer mehr Tatsachen und Gesetze entdecken; und dann wird auch der «neue Glaube» immer festere Stützen gewinnen.
[ 13 ] Nun haben die Forschungen und Überlegungen der letzten Zeit zwar gar keine so festen Stützen für diesen Glauben geliefert, vielmehr alles mögliche zu seiner Erschütterung beigetragen: er lebt aber doch in immer weiteren Kreisen fort und ist ein schweres Hindernis für jede andere Überzeugung.
[ 14 ] Es kann kein Zweifel darüber bestehen: haben David Friedrich Strauß und seine Gesinnungsgenossen recht, so ist alles Reden von höheren geistigen Gesetzen des Daseins ein Unding: man müßte den «neuen Glauben» lediglich auf die Grundlagen aufbauen, von denen diese Persönlichkeiten behaupten, daß sie Ergebnisse des Naturerkennens seien.
[ 15 ] Nun stellt sich aber eine merkwürdige Tatsache dem vor Augen, der mit unbefangenen Augen die Ausführungen dieser Anhänger des «neuen Glaubens» verfolgt. Und diese Tatsache drängt sich besonders dann unwiderstehlich auf, wenn man auf die Gedanken derer blickt, die sich noch ein wenig Unbefangenheit bewahrt haben gegenüber den mit solcher Sicherheit auftretenden Behauptungen der orthodoxen Aufklärer,
[ 16 ] Es gibt nämlich verborgene Ecken in den Bekenntnissen dieser Neu-Gläubigen. Und deckt man das auf, was in diesen Ecken vorhanden ist, dann erstrahlen die wahren Ergebnisse der neueren Naturwissenschaft zwar in einem hellen Glanze, aber die Meinungen der Neu-Gläubigen über den Menschen beginnen zu erblassen.3Es mag heute viele geben, die sich gerne recht schnell über die Lehren der Geisteswissenschaft unterrichten möchten. Solche werden es recht unbequem finden, wenn man ihnen in umständlicher Weise die naturwissenschaftlichen Tatsachen erst einmal in einem solchen Lichte vorführt, daß sie als Grundlage eines anthroposophischen Aufbaues dienen müssen. Sie sagen: wir wollen etwas von Geisteswissenschaft hören, und ihr erzählt uns naturwissenschaftliche Dinge, die jeder Gebildete kennt. Das ist ein Einwand, der so recht klar zeigt, wie unsere Zeitgenossen gar nicht ernstlich denken wollen. In Wahrheit wissen die, welche in der angedeuteten Weise reden, gar nichts von der Tragweite ihrer Kenntnisse; der Astronom nichts von den Konsequenzen der Astronomie, der Chemiker nichts von denen der Chemie usw. Und es gibt für sie kein Heil, als bescheiden zu sein und still zuzuhören, wenn ihnen klargemacht wird, wie sie — wegen der Flüchtigkeit ihres Denkens gar nichts wissen von dem, was sie in ihrem Dünkel ganz ausgeschöpft zu haben glauben. - Und auch Anthroposophen meinen oft, es sei unnötig, die Überzeugungen von Karma und Reinkarnation mit Ergebnissen der Naturwissenschaft zu belegen. Sie wissen nicht, daß dies die Aufgabe der Unterrassen ist, denen die Bewohner Europas und Amerikas angehören; und daß ohne diese Grundlage die Mitglieder dieser Rassen nicht wahrhaft zur geisteswissenschaftlichen Einsicht kommen können. Wer nur nachreden will, was er von den großen Lehrern des Ostens hört, der kann innerhalb der europäisch-amerikanischen Gesittung nicht Anthroposoph werden.
[ 17 ] Leuchten wir doch in ein paar solcher Ecken einmal hinein. Halten wit uns an die Persönlichkeit zunächst, welche die bedeutendste und verehrungswürdigste dieser Neu-Gläubigen ist. Auf Seite 804 der neunten Auflage von Haeckels «Natürlicher Schöpfungsgeschichte » ist zu lesen: «Das Endresultat (einer Vergleichung der Tiere und des Menschen) ist, daß zwischen den höchstentwickelien Tierseelen und den tiefststehenden Menschenseelen nur ein geringer quantitativer, aber kein qualitativer Unterschied existiert; dieser Unterschied ist viel geringer als der Unterschied zwischen den niedersten und höchsten Menschenseelen oder als der Unterschied zwischen den höchsten und niedersten Tierseelen.» Nun, wie verhält sich der NeuGläubige zu einer solchen Tatsache? Er verkündet: wir müssen den Unterschied zwischen den niederen und den höheren Tierseelen aus notwendigen und unabänderlichen Gesetzen heraus erklären. Und wir studieren diese Gesetze. Wir fragen uns: wie ist es gekommen, daß aus Tieren mit niedriger Seele solche mit höherer sich entwickelt haben? Wir suchen in der Natur nach Bedingungen, durch die das Niedere zum Höheren werden kann. Wir finden da zum Beispiel, daß Tiere, die in die Höhlen von Kentucky aus anderen Orten herkommen, blind werden. Es wird uns klar, daß der Aufenthalt im Finstern die Augen außer Tätigkeit gesetzt hat. In diesen Augen wird dadurch nicht mehr die physikalische und chemische Tätigkeit verrichtet, die während des Sehens vor sich geht. Der Strom der Nahrung, der für diese Tätigkeit früher verwendet worden ist, fließt nunmehr andern Organen zu. Die Tiere verändern ihre Gestalt. Aufsolche Weise können neue Tierarten aus alten entstehen, wenn die Verwandlungen nur hinreichend groß und mannigfaltig genug sind, welche die Natur an diesen Arten bewirkt. — Was geschieht da eigentlich? Die Natur nimmt mit gewissen Wesen Veränderungen vor; und diese Veränderungen treten dann auch bei den Nachkommen auf. _ Man sagt, sie vererben sich. So ist die Entstehung neuer Tierund Pflanzenarten erklärt.4Von manchem mag gegen die obigen Ausführungen eingewendet werden, daß ja die Naturwissenschaft in der gegenwärtigen Gestalt der anthroposophischen Lehre widerspräche, und daß zum Beispiel in H.P.Blavatskys «Geheimlehre» eine andere Abstammungslehre sich finde, als die von Haeckel vertretene ist. Wie es sich damit verhält, wird später einmal auseinandergesetzt werden. Hier soll ja gar nicht gezeigt werden, wie sich der «Neue Glaube» zur «Geheimlehre» verhält, sondern lediglich, wie er sich zu sich selbst verhalten müßte, wenn er seine eigenen Voraussetzungen verstände.
[ 18 ] Und nun geht bei den Neu-Gläubigen die Erklärung munter weiter. Der Unterschied zwischen den tiefstehenden Menschenseelen und den hochstehenden Tierseelen ist nicht gar so groß. Also haben gewisse Lebensverhältnisse, in welche hochstehende 'Tierseelen versetzt worden sind, Veränderungen in ihnen bewirkt, wodurch sie zu niederen Menschenseelen wurden. Das Wunder der Menschenseelen-Entwickelung ist - um mit Strauß zu reden - auf Nimmerwiederkehr aus dem Tempel des neuen Glaubens hinausgeworfen, und der Mensch nach «ewigen, notwendigen» Gesetzen der Tierwelt eingereiht. Der Neu-Gläubige zieht sich damit befriedigt zum friedlichen Schlummer zurück; von jetzt an will er nicht mehr weiter.
[ 19 ] Ehrliches Denken muß ihn stören in diesem Schlummer. Denn dieses ehrliche Denken muß an seinem Schlummerlager Geister am Leben erhalten, die er selbst gerufen hat. Sehen wir uns einmal obigen Haeckelschen Satz näher an, «der Unterschied (zwischen höheren Tieren und Menschen) ist viel geringer als der Unterschied zwischen den niedersten und höchsten Menschenseelen». Wenn der Neu-Gläubige das zugibt: darf er sich dann in friedlichen Schlummer einlullen, sobald er — nach seiner Ansicht die Entwickelung der niederen Menschen aus den höchsten Tieren erklärt hat?
[ 20 ] Nein, er darf es nicht; und tut er es doch, dann verleugnet er die ganze Grundlage, auf die er seine Überzeugung aufgebaut hat. Was würde ein Neu-Gläubiger dem andern entgegnen, wenn dieser käme und sagte: ich habe gezeigt, wie die Fischtiere aus niedrigeren Lebewesen entstanden sind. Damit bin ich fertig. Ich habe gezeigt, daß sich alles entwickelt — also werden sich schon die über den Fischen stehenden Arten so entwickelt haben wie die Fische. Ohne Zweifel würde unser Neu-Gläubiger sagen: mit deinem allgemeinen Entwickelungsgedanken ist es nichts: du mußt auch begreiflich machen, wie die Säugetiere entstehen; denn zwischen den Säugetieren und den Fischen ist ein größerer Unterschied als zwischen den Fischen und den unmittelbar unter ihnen stehenden Tieren. - Und was müßte daraus folgen, wenn der Neu-Gläubige sich wirklich in seinem Bekenntnisse treu bliebe? Er müßte sagen: der Unterschied zwischen den höheren und niederen Menschenseelen ist größer, als der zwischen diesen niederen Seelen und den unmittelbar unter ihnen stehenden Tierseelen: also muß ich zugeben, daß es im Weltall Ursachen gibt, welche an der niederen Menschenseele Verwandlungen bewirken, die sie ebenso umgestalten, wie die von mir aufgezeigten Ursachen die niedere Tierform in die höhere überführen. Tue ich das nicht, so bleiben die Arten der Menschenseelen für mich ihrer Entstehung nach ebenso Wunder, wie es die verschiedenen Tierarten für den bleiben, der nicht an die Veränderung der Lebewesen durch Naturgesetze glaubt.
[ 21 ] Und dies ist unbedingt richtig: die Neu-Gläubigen, die sich so aufgeklärt dünken, weil sie das Wunder auf dem Gebiete des Lebendigen «hinausgeworfen» zu haben glauben, sie sind Wundergläubige, ja Anbeter des Wunders auf dem Gebiete des seelischen Lebens. Und nur dadurch unterscheiden sie sich von den von ihnen so sehr verachteten Wundergläubigen, daß diese ihren Glauben ehrlich eingestehen; sie selbst aber gar keine Ahnung davon haben, daß sie von dem finstersten Aberglauben befallen sind.
[ 22 ] Und nun soll unser Licht in eine andere Ecke des «neuen Glaubens » getragen werden. Schön hat Dr. Paul Topinard in seiner «Anthropologie» die Ergebnisse der modernen Menschenursprungslehre zusammengestellt. Am Schluß des Buches wiederholt er kurz, wie die höheren Tierformen nach Haeckel in den verschiedenen Zeiten der Erde sich entwickelt haben: «Im Beginne der Erdperiode, die von den Geologen laurentische genannt wird, bildeten sich durch zufälliges Zusammentreffen unter Bedingungen, die sich wahrscheinlich nur in dieser Epoche darboten, aus einigen Elementen: Kohlenstoff, Sauerstoff, Wasserstoff und Stickstoff die ersten Eiweißklümpchen. Aus ihnen gingen durch Urzeugung Moneren — kleinste, unvollkommene Lebewesen - hervor. Darauf teilten und vervielfältigten sich diese, ordneten sich zu Organen an und gaben schließlich, nach einer Reihe von Umbildungen, die Haeckel auf neun festsetzt, einigen Wirbeltieren nach Art des Amphioxus lanceolatus (Lanzettfischchen) das Leben.» Wir können übergehen, wie die weiteren Arten der Tiere in derselben Richtung verfolgt werden, und fügen sogleich den Schluß der Topinardschen Sätze hinzu: «Im zwanzigsten Grade (der Umbildungen) ist der Anthropoide (menschenähnliche Affe) da, ungefähr während der ganzen Miozänperiode; im einundzwanzigsten der Affenmensch, der die Sprache und ein dementsprechendes Gehirn noch nicht besitzt. Im zweiundzwanzigsten erscheint endlich der Mensch, so wie wir ihn kennen, wenigstens in seinen minder vollkommenen Formen.» Und nun, nachdem Topinard aufgeführt hat, was die «naturwissenschaftliche Grundlage des neuen Glaubens » sein soll, macht er in wenigen Worten ein wichtiges Geständnis. Ex sagt: «Hier schneidet die Aufzählung ab. Haeckel vergißt den dreiundzwanzigsten Grad, in dem ein Lamarck und Newton glänzen.»
[ 23 ] Eine Ecke im Bekenntnis des Neu-Gläubigen ist damit aufgezeigt, in der er so deutlich wie nur irgend möglich auf Tatsachen weist, denen gegenüber er dieses sein Bekenntnis verleugnet. Er will mit den Begriffen, mit denen er in der übrigen Natur sich zurechtzufinden sucht, nicht heraufsteigen in menschlich-seelisches Gebiet. — Täte er dies, beträte er mit seiner an der äußeren Natur gewonnenen Gesinnung das Feld, das Topinard den dreiundzwanzigsten Grad nennt, dann müßte er sich sagen: wie ich die höhere Tierart aus der niederen durch Entwickelung herleite, so leite ich die höhere Seelenart durch Entwickelung aus der niederen her. Ich kann Newtons Seele nicht verstehen, wenn ich sie nicht hervorgehend denke aus einem vorausgehenden seelischen Wesen. Und dieses seelische Wesen kann nie und nimmer in den physischen Vorfahren gesucht werden. Denn wollte man es da suchen, so würde man allen Geist der Naturforschung auf den Kopf stellen. Wo könnte es einem Naturforscher je beifallen, eine tierische Art aus einer anderen sich entwickeln zu lassen, wenn die letztere der ersteren in physischer Beziehung so unähnlich wäre wie in seelischer Beziehung Newton seinen Vorfahren? Man stellt sich doch vor, daß eine Tierart aus einer ähnlichen hervorgeht, die nur um einen Grad tiefer steht als sie. Also muß Newtons Seele aus einer solchen hervorgegangen sein, die ihr ähnlich, nur in seelischer Beziehung einen Grad tiefer ist als sie. Das Seelische in Newton umfaßt mir seine Biographie (vergleiche Seite 75). Ich erkenne Newton aus dieser seiner Biographie, wie ich einen Löwen aus der Beschreibung seiner Art erkenne. Und ich verstehe die Löwenart, wenn ich mir vorstelle, daß sie aus einer im Verhältnis zu ihr niedrigeren hervorgegangen ist. Also verstehe ich das, was ich in Newtons Biographie umfasse, wenn ich es mir entwickelt denke aus dem Biographischen einer Seele, die ihr ähnlich, als Seele mit ihr verwandt ist. Demnach war Newtons Seele in anderer Form bereits da, wie die Löwenart in anderer Form vorher da war.
[ 24 ] Für ein klares Denken gibt es kein Entrinnen aus dieser Anschauung. Nur weil die Neu-Gläubigen nicht den Mut haben, ihre Gedanken wirklich zu Ende zu führen, kommen sie nicht zu dieser Schlußfolgerung. Durch sie ist aber das Wiedererscheinen der Wesenheit, die man in der Biographie umfaßt, gesichert. — Man lasse entweder die ganze naturwissenschaftliche Entwickelungslehre fallen, oder man gebe zu, daß sie auf die seelische Entwickelung ausgedehnt werden müsse, Es gibt nur zweierlei: entweder es ist jede Seele durch ein Wunder geschaffen, wie die tierischen Arten durch Wunder geschaffen sein müßten, wenn sie sich nicht auseinander entwickelthaben; oder die Seele hat sich entwickelt und ist in anderer Form früher dagewesen, wie die tierische Art in anderer Form da war.
[ 25 ] Einige der gegenwärtigen Denker, die sich noch ein wenig Klarheit und Mut zufolgerichtigem Vorstellen bewahrt haben, sind ein lebendiger Beweis für diese Tatsache. Sie können sich zwar ebensowenig in den unserer Zeit so ungewohnten Gedanken von der Seelenentwickelung hineinfinden wie die charakterisierten Neu-Gläubigen. Aber sie haben wenigstens den Mut, sich zu der dann einzig möglichen anderen Ansicht zu bekennen: zu dem Wunder der Seelenschöpfung.. So kann man in dem Werk über Psychologie des Greifswalder Professors Johannes Rehmke, eines der besten Denker unserer Zeit, lesen: «Der Schöpfungsgedanke ... erscheint uns ... allein geeignet, dem Geheimnis der Seelenentstehung doch etwas Begreifliches abzugewinnen.» Rehmke kommt dazu, ein bewußtes Allwesen anzuerkennen, von dem er sagt, es «würde dasselbe, ... als alleinige Bedingung der Seelenentstehung, der Schöpfer der Seele heißen müssen». So spricht ein Denker, der nicht sanft sich in geistigen Schlummer einlullen will, nachdem er die physischen Lebensvorgänge begriffen hat, und dem doch die Fähigkeit fehlt, sich zu der Vorstellung zu bekennen, daß eine Seele sich aus ihrer früheren Daseinsform entwickelt habe. Rehmke hat eben den Mutzum Wunder, da er den anderen nicht haben kann zur anthroposophischen Ansicht von dem Wiedererscheinen der Seele, oder der Reinkarnation. Denker, in denen das naturwissenschaftliche Streben anfängt, sich folgerichtig auszubilden, kommen notwendig zu dieser Ansicht. So lesen wir in der Schrift des Göttinger Philosophieprofessors JuliusBaumann über «Neuchristentumund reale Religion » unter den neununddreißig Sätzen eines «Entwurfes eines kurzen Inbegriffs realwissenschaftlicher Religion» auch den folgenden (zweiundzwanzigsten): «... Wie ... in der unorganischen Natur die physikalisch-chemischen Elemente und Kräfte nicht vergehen, sondern nur ihre Kombinationen ändern, so ist dies nach realwissenschaftlicher Methode auch anzunehmen von den organischen und den organisch-geistigen Kräften. Die Menschenseele als formale Einheit, als verknüpfendes Ich kehrt wieder in neuen Menschenleibern und kann so alle Stufen menschheitlicher Entwickelung durchleben.»
[ 26 ] Solche Anschauung muß haben, wer den vollen Mut zum naturwissenschaftlichen Glaubensbekenntnis der Gegenwart besitzt. Das soll nicht dahin mißverstanden werden, als ob hier behauptet werde, die Hervorragenderen unter den NeuGläubigen seien, im gewöhnlichen Sinne des Wortes, mutlose Persönlichkeiten. Mut, unbeschreiblich großer Mut gehörte dazu, die naturwissenschaftliche Ansicht gegen die widerstrebenden Mächte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts durchzukämpfen.5Dem Schreiber dieses Aufsatzes kann schon aus dem Grunde kein Verkennen der großen Verdienste unserer Neu-Gläubigen vorgeworfen werden, weil er doch selbst in seinem Buche « Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert» diese Verdienste im Zusammenhange der Geistesentwickelung ihrer Zeit in vollem Maße gewürdigt und mit Anerkennung ihres Wertes dargestellt hat. - Aber dieser Mut ist etwas anderes als der höhere dem folgerichtigen Denken gegenüber. Solches folgerichtiges Denken lassen aber gerade Naturforscher der Gegenwart vermissen, die aus den Erkenntnissen ihres Gebietes eine Weltansicht aufbauen wollen. Ist es denn nicht trostlos, daß in einem Vortrage, der auf der letzten Naturforscherversammlung von dem Breslauer Chemiker Albert Ladenburg gehalten worden ist, der Satz vorkommt: «Kennen wir denn ein Substrat der Seele? Ich kenne keins.» Und daß dann, nach diesem — Eingeständnis, von demselben Manne gesagt werden konnte: «Wie wollen Sie es mit der Unsterblichkeit halten? Ich glaube, daß bei dieser Frage mehr als bei jeder anderen der Wunsch der Vater des Gedankens ist, denn ich kenne keine einzige wissenschaftlich erhärtete Tatsache, auf die wir uns bei dem Unsterblichkeitsglauben berufen können.» Was würde der gelehrte Herr wohl sagen, wenn er einem Redner gegenüberstände, der sagte: «Ich kenne nichts von den chemischen Tatsachen. Deshalb leugne ich die chemischen Gesetze, denn ich kenne keine einzige wissenschaftlich erhärtete Tatsache, auf die wir uns bei diesen Gesetzen berufen können.» Da würde doch der Professor sagen: Was geht uns deine Unwissenheit in der chemischen Wissenschaft an; befasse dich doch erst mit Chemie, dann rede. Der Professor Ladenburg kennt kein Substrat der Seele; also soll er die Welt nicht mit den Ergebnissen seiner Unkenntnis behelligen.
[ 27 ] Wie der Naturforscher zu den 'Tierformen geht, aus denen sich andere entwickelt haben, um diese anderen zu verstehen, so sollte der Seelenforscher, der sich auf den Boden dieser Naturforschung stellt, zu der Seelenform gehen, aus der sich eine andere entwickelt hat, um die letztere zu verstehen. Die Schädelform der höheren Tiere erklären doch die Naturforscher aus der Umbildung des niederen Tierschädels. Also sollen sie alles, was in das Biographische einer Seele gehört, aus dem Biographischen der Seele erklären, aus welcher diejenige hervorgegangen ist, die man im Auge hat. Die späteren Zustände sind die Wirkungen früherer. Und zwar die späteren physischen die Wirkungen früherer physischer; aber auch die späteren seelischen die Wirkungen früherer seelischer. Dies ist der Inhalt des Karma-Gesetzes, das besagt: alles, was ich in meinem gegenwärtigen Leben kann und tue, steht nicht abgesondert für sich da als Wunder, sondern hängt als Wirkung mit den früheren Daseinsformen meiner Seele zusammen, und als Ursache mit den späteren.
[ 28 ] Diejenigen, welche mit offenem Geistesauge das menschliche Leben betrachten und dieses umfassende Gesetz nicht kennen, oder nicht anerkennen wollen, stehen fortwährend vor Lebensrätseln. — Es sei ein Beispiel für vieles angeführt. In Maurice Maeterlincks «Begrabenem Tempel» kann man es finden, einem Buche, das von solchen Rätseln spricht, wie sie den gegenwärtigen Denkern in verzetrter Gestalt erscheinen, weil diese mit den großen Gesetzen von Ursache und Wirkung im geistigen Leben, mit Karma nicht vertraut sind. Diejenigen, welche den engumgrenzten Dogmen der NeuGläubigen verfallen sind, haben für solche Rätselfragen heute überhaupt keinen Sinn. Maeterlinck wirft eine derselben auf: «Wenn ich mich bei strenger Kälte ins Wasser werfe, um meinen Nächsten zu retten, oder wenn ich hineinfalle, während ich ihn hineinzuwerfen suche, so werden die Folgen der Erkältung in beiden Fällen die gleichen sein, und keine Macht im Himmel und auf Erden, außer mir selbst und dem Menschen (wenn er es vermag), wird meine Leiden mehren, weil ich ein Verbrechen begangen, oder mir einen Schmerz abnehmen, weil ich eine tugendhafte Tat vollbracht habe.» Gewiß: es erscheinen die hier in Rede stehenden Folgen für eine Beobachtung, die sich auf die bloß physischen Tatsachen beschränkt, als die gleichen in beiden Fällen. Aber darf diese Beobachtung, ohne weiteres, als eine vollständige angesehen werden? Wer das behauptet, der steht als Denker ungefähr auf dem gleichen Gesichtspunkte mit jenem, der beobachtet, daß zwei Knaben von zwei verschiedenen Lehrern unterrichtet werden, und der dabei nichts sieht, als daß in beiden Fällen die Lehrer sich täglich die gleiche Anzahl Stunden mit den beiden Knaben beschäftigen, und dabei ungefähr das gleiche vollziehen. Ginge der Beobachter tiefer auf die Tatsachen ein, so würde er vielleicht in beiden Fällen eine große Verschiedenheit wahrnehmen und es dann erklärlich finden, daß der eine Knabe ein untüchtiger, der andere ein vorzüglicher Mensch wird. — Und betrachtete der, welcher auf seelisch-geistige Zusammenhänge eingehen will, die obigen Folgen für die Seelen der in Betracht kommenden Menschen, so müßteersichsagen: was da geschieht, kann nicht für sich allein angesehen werden. Die Folgen der Erkältung sind Seelenerlebnisse, und ich muß sie, wenn sie nicht als Wunder gelten sollen, als Ursachen und Wirkungen im Seelenleben ansehen. Die Folgen beim Lebensretter werden aus anderen Ursachen fließen als beim Verbrecher; oder sie werden in dem einen oder anderen Falle andere Wirkungen haben. Und wenn ich in dem gegenwärtigen Leben der Menschen diese Ursachen und Wirkungen nicht finden kann, wenn für dieses gegenwärtige Leben alles gleich ist, so muß ich den Ausgleich im vergangenen und zukünftigen suchen. Ich verfahre dann genau wie der Naturforscher auf dem Felde der äußeren Tatsachen verfährt: auch dieser erklärt die Augenlosigkeit der Tiere in finsteren Höhlen aus früheren Erlebnissen; und er setzt voraus, daß die gegenwärtigen Erlebnisse ihre Wirkungen in künftigen Rassen- und Artbildungen haben werden.
[ 29 ] Nur der hat ein inneres Recht, im Gebiete der äußeren Natur von Entwickelung zu reden, der diese Entwickelung auch im Geistig-Seelischen anerkennt. Es ist nun klar, daß diese Anerkennung, diese Erweiterung des Naturerkennens über die Natur hinaus, mehr ist als bloßes Erkennen. Denn sie wandelt die Erkenntnis in Leben; sie bereichert nicht nur des Menschen Wissen, sondern sie gibt ihm die Kraft, seine Lebenswege zu wandeln. Sie zeigt ihm, woher er kommt und wohin er geht. Und sie wird ihm dieses Woher und Wohin über Geburt und Tod hinaus zeigen, wenn er standhaft die Richtung verfolgt, die ihm die Erkenntnis weist. Von allem, was er tut, weiß er, daß es sich eingliedert in einen Strom, der von Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit fließt. Immer höher und höher wird der Gesichtspunkt, von dem aus er sein Leben regelt. Wie in einen dumpfen Nebel gehüllt ist der Mensch, bevor er zu dieser Gesinnung kommt, denn er ahnt nichts von seinem wahren Wesen, nichts von dessen Utsprung und seinen Zielen. Er folgt den Antrieben seiner Natur, ohne Einsicht in diese Antriebe zu haben. Er muß sich sagen, daß er vielleicht ganz anderen folgen würde, wenn er seine Wege mit dem Lichte der Erkenntnis beleuchtete. Das Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl gegenüber dem Leben wächst immer mehr unter dem Einfluß solcher Gesinnung. Allein, bildet der Mensch dieses Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl nicht in sich aus, so verleugnet er im höheren Sinne sein Menschentum. Erkenntnis ohne das Ziel der Menschenveredelung ist nur Befriedigung höherer Neugierde. Die Erkenntnis hinauf’ zu heben zum Erfassen des Geistigen, damit sie die Kraft des ganzen Lebens werde, das ist - im höheren Sinne gefaßt - Pflicht. Und Pflicht ist es daher für jeden Menschen, Verständnis zu suchen für das Woher und Wohin der Seele.
[ 30 ] Wie diese Gesetze des Geisteslebens — Reinkarnation und Karma - wirken, das soll Gegenstand eines nächsten Aufsatzes werden.
Reincarnation And Karma, from the point of view of modern natural science Necessary ideas
[ 1 ] The Italian natural scientist Francesco Redi was considered a dangerous heretic by the leading scholars of the seventeenth century because he claimed that even the lowest animals are created through reproduction. He only narrowly escaped the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno or Galileo. For the orthodox scholars of that time believed that worms, insects, even fish could arise from lifeless mud. Redi did not claim anything other than what is generally recognized today, that all living things come from a living thing. He committed the sin of knowing a truth two centuries before science found “irrefutable proof” of it. Since Pasteur conducted his experiments, there can be no doubt that what was previously believed to be the creation of living beings from lifeless substances through “spontaneous generation” was merely a delusion. The germs of life that penetrate such inanimate substances elude observation. Pasteur has prevented the penetration of such germs into substances in which small living beings usually develop by means of certain reliable methods – and not a trace of life has formed. Life therefore only develops from the germ of life. Redi was perfectly right.
[ 2 ] The anthroposophist today is in a similar position to the Italian thinker. On the basis of his knowledge, he must say of the soul what Redi said of the living. He must assert that the soul can only arise from the soul. And if natural science continues to move in the same direction that it has taken since the seventeenth century, then the time will also come when it will itself – out of itself – hold this view. For, as must always be emphasized, the anthroposophical view of today is based on exactly the same way of thinking as the scientific assertion that insects, worms and fish do not arise from mud but from germs of life. And it asserts the proposition: “Every soul arises from the soul” in the same sense and with the same meaning as the natural scientist asserts his: “All that is alive arises from that which is alive.” 1The above must be expressly stated, for today there are many superficial readers who are always ready to read any possible nonsense into the statements of a thinker, even if the latter endeavors to express himself precisely. Therefore, I would like to add that I have no intention of fighting those who, based on scientific principles, pursue the problem of “generation”. But even if it is a fact that somehow “lifeless” substances combine to form living proteins, it does not follow that, properly understood, Redi's view is wrong.
[ 3 ] The mores of today are different from those of the seventeenth century. The underlying attitudes have not changed much. In the seventeenth century, heretical views were persecuted by means that no longer seem humane today. Today, one would not threaten anthroposophists with death by fire: one is content to render them harmless by declaring them to be visionaries and confused minds. Conventional science brands them as fools. The old execution by the Inquisition has been replaced by a new form of execution, the journalistic one. Well, the anthroposophists stand upright: they console themselves with the knowledge that the time will come when someone like Virchow will say: “There was a time - we are happy that it is over - when people believed that the soul came into being by itself when certain complicated chemical and physical processes took place within a brain. Today, however, every serious researcher must abandon such childish notions in favor of the following statement: Every soul arises from a soul.” And the chorus of ‘enlightened’ journalists from various political parties will write - if such journalism is not itself considered childish - that ”the brilliant researcher X has bravely unfurled the banner of enlightened spiritual science and driven the superstition of a mechanical view of nature into the background, which was still able to celebrate true triumphs at the Natural Science Congress of 1903 through the chemist Ladenburg from Breslau.»
[ 4 ] But we should not fall into the error of thinking that spiritual science wants to prove its truths from natural science. What must be emphasized is rather that spiritual science has the same attitude as true natural science. The anthroposophist achieves the same for the realm of the soul as the natural scientist strives to achieve for that which he can see with his eyes and hear with his ears. No contradiction can exist between genuine natural science and spiritual science. The anthroposophist demonstrates that the laws he establishes for the life of the soul also apply in a corresponding way to the external phenomena of nature. He does so because he knows that the human sense of knowledge can only be satisfied when it recognizes that there is harmony and not contradiction between the various manifestations of existence. Today, most people who are at all concerned with knowledge and truth are familiar with certain scientific insights. Such truths, as it were, fly at people in the street. The entertainment sections of newspapers reveal to the educated and the uneducated alike the laws by which perfect animals develop from imperfect ones, the profound relationship that exists between man and the highest-ranking ape, and nimble weekly writers never tire of impressing upon their readers how they should think about the “spirit” in the age of the “great Darwin”. They rarely add that Darwin's main work also contains the sentence: “I believe that all organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from a single original form, which was breathed life into by the Creator.” In such an age it is most necessary to show again and again that anthroposophy does not take the “breathing of life” and the soul as lightly as Darwin and many Darwinians, but that its truths are not in contradiction with the results of true natural science. Anthroposophy does not want to penetrate the secrets of spiritual life with the crutch of contemporary natural science, but only to say: “Recognize the laws of spiritual life, and you will also find these high laws confirmed in a corresponding form when you descend into the sphere where you can see with your eyes and hear with your ears. Contemporary natural science does not contradict spiritual science, but is itself an elementary spiritual science. Haeckel has only been able to achieve such beautiful results in the field of animal life because he has applied the laws that soul researchers have long applied to the soul to the development of animal life. If he himself does not have this conviction, it does not matter; he simply does not know the laws of the soul and also knows nothing about the research that can be done in the field of the soul. The significance of his results in his field is not diminished by this. Great men have the defects of their virtues. Our task is to show that Haeckel, where he is at home, is nothing other than anthroposoph.” And yet another aid is offered to the spiritual scientist by the connection with the present-day scientific knowledge. The things of external nature are, as it were, within our grasp. Therefore it is easy to explain their laws. It is not difficult to realize that plants change when they are moved from one region to another. The fact that certain animal species lose the sight of their eyes when they live in dark caves for a time easily evokes vivid images. If one now shows what laws operate in such processes, one can easily lead from there to the less vivid, less comprehensible laws that confront us in the realm of the soul. — The anthroposophist wants to illustrate and nothing else when he calls on natural science for help. He has to show that the anthroposophical truths can be found in a corresponding form in its field, that natural science can be nothing other than elementary spiritual science; and he has to use the concepts of natural science to lead over to his higher concepts.
[ 5 ] Now it might be objected here that any tendency towards the present-day conceptions of natural science could already place spiritual science in an awkward position, because these conceptions themselves rest on very uncertain ground. It is true that there are natural scientists who regard certain basic tenets of Darwinism as incontrovertible truths, and others who are already talking about a “crisis of Darwinism”. Some find comprehensive explanations for the development of living beings in the “omnipotence of natural selection” and the “struggle for existence”; others regard this “struggle for existence” as a child illness of the newer natural science and speak of the “powerlessness of natural selection”. If it were a matter of these particular points of contention, then an anthroposophist could truly do no better than to not concern himself with them for the time being, and to wait for a better time than the present to harmonize with natural science. But that is not the point. It is rather a question of a certain attitude, a way of thinking within the field of scientific research in our time, of certain broad lines of thought that are followed everywhere, even though the thoughts of individual researchers and thinkers on particular questions may differ widely. It is true that Ernst Haeckel's and Virchow's views on the “origin of man” differ widely. But the anthroposophist could be happy if the leading personalities thought as clearly about certain major aspects of the life of the soul as these opponents do about what they consider to be absolutely certain, despite all the controversy. Neither Haeckel's nor Virchow's followers today seek the origin of worms in lifeless mud; neither the former nor the latter doubt the proposition: “all that is alive comes from that which is alive” in the sense indicated above. In the science of the soul we have not yet come so far. There is a lack of clarity about a point of view that could be compared with such fundamental convictions of natural science. Anyone who wants to explain the form and way of life of a worm knows that he must go back to the worm egg and to the ancestors of the worm; he knows in which direction he must search, even if different views prevail about everything else, or it is even claimed that the time is not yet ripe to produce definite thoughts about this or that point. -— Where would there be a similar clarity in the study of the soul? That the soul 2The faithful followers of Wundt's school may feel horrified that I speak of the “soul” in such an old-fashioned way, while they swear by the words of their master, who has just proclaimed again that one should not speak of “soul” because, after “the mythologization of phenomena has evaporated into the transcendental,” nothing remains of this “super-real” soul substance but a “coherent event.” Well, yes: Wundt's wisdom is equivalent to the claim that one should not speak of “lilies” because one is only dealing with color, form, growth processes, etc. (Wundt: Naturwissenschaft und Psychologie, Leipzig 1903.) mental qualities, like the worm has physical ones, does not lead us to approach one fact with the same spirit of research as the other. However, our time is under the influence of thinking habits that cause countless numbers of those who deal with these things not to even want to respond to such a demand in an appropriate manner. It is admitted, of course, that a person's mental qualities must have come from somewhere just as much as their physical ones. People wonder how it is that the souls of a group of children who have all grown up and been educated under the same circumstances are so different from one another, that even twins differ from one another in essential characteristics, even though they have always been in the same place and under the care of the same nurse. It is also occasionally said that “the Siamese twins are said to have spent their last years in great discomfort as a result of their opposing sympathies in the North American Civil War.” It is not to be claimed that careful thought and observation have not been applied to such phenomena, and that there are no noteworthy works on the subject. But it is common for such works on the soul to be treated in the same way as a natural scientist would treat living things if he simply wanted to claim that they originated from lifeless mud. It is undoubtedly right to go back to the physical ancestors in order to explain the lower qualities of the soul, and to speak of heredity in the same way as we do for physical characteristics. But we want to close our eyes to the most essential thing when we take the same approach to the higher qualities of the soul, to the actual spiritual in man. We have simply become accustomed to regarding these higher mental qualities as an intensification, as a higher degree of the lower ones. And we therefore think that we can be satisfied with an explanation that is held in the same sense as that of the mental qualities of animals.
[ 6 ] It should not be denied that the observation of certain mental processes in higher animals easily leads to such a view. One need only point out that dogs give remarkable evidence of a faithful memory, that horses, noticing the lack of a horseshoe, go to the blacksmith's where they are usually shod; that even animals that are locked in a room open the door themselves, and what more can be said about such amazing things. Of course, the anthroposophist will not fail to admit any increase in animal abilities. But should we therefore blur the distinction between the lower soul characteristics that man shares with animals and the higher spiritual qualities that are unique to him? Only someone who is completely blinded by a dogmatic prejudice of “science” that wants to cling to the grossly sensual can do that. Just take the fact, established by impeccable observation, that animals, even the most highly developed, do not count and therefore do not learn to count. In ancient schools of wisdom it was considered a significant statement that man differs from animals in that he can count. Counting is the simplest, most trivial of the higher mental abilities. For this very reason it is cited here as the point of transition from the animal soul to the spiritual soul, to the higher human soul. Of course, it is child's play to raise objections here too. Firstly, it can be said that all is not yet lost, and that what has not yet been achieved may yet be achieved: teaching certain intelligent animals to count. And secondly, it may be pointed out that the human brain has, after all, been perfected in comparison to that of animals; and that it is simply a matter of producing higher degrees of soul activity. One may agree with those who make such objections not just once, but a hundred times. But one is in the same situation with those who, in the face of the fact that all life comes from living things, repeatedly claim: but the same chemical and physical laws prevail in the worm as in the mud, only in a more complicated way. It is difficult to help those who want to reveal the secrets of nature with trivialities and self-evident truths. There are people who consider the level of understanding they have achieved to be the highest conceivable, and who therefore do not realize that someone else might make their own trivial objections if they did not see their futility. There is nothing to be said against the idea that all higher functions in the world are only intensifications of the lower ones, that the laws ruling in the worm are intensifications of those found in the mud. But just as no one with insight today would claim that the worm comes from the mud, so no one with clear thinking can want to put the spiritual-mental into the same conceptual mold as the animal-mental. Just as one must remain within the realm of the living in order to explain the origin of this living, so one must remain within the realm of the soul-spiritual in order to understand the origin of the soul-spiritual.
[ 7 ] There are facts that can be observed everywhere and that countless people pass by without giving them a second thought. Then someone comes along and discovers a momentous truth in such a fact that is accessible to everyone. Galileo is said to have noticed the important law of pendulum motion from a swinging church lamp. Before him, countless people had seen swinging church lamps without making this profound observation. It is important to associate the right thoughts with the things that you see. Now there is a fact that is generally accessible and that, when viewed correctly, sheds a bright light on the character of the soul-spiritual. This is the simple truth that every human being has a biography, but animals do not. Some people will say: Can't you write the life story of a cat or a dog? To which the answer is: of course you can, but there are also school assignments in which children are asked to tell the story of a pen. However, the point is that for the individual human being, the biography has the same fundamental significance as the description of its species for the animal. In the same way that I am interested in the description of the lion species in the case of the lion, I am interested in the biography of the individual human being. Schiller, Goethe and Heine are not exhausted for me in the same way that I am exhausted for me when I describe their human species, as the individual lion is exhausted for me when I have recognized him as an example of his species. The individual human being is more than an example of the human species. In the same sense, he shares his generic characteristics with his physical ancestors, just like an animal. But where the generic ends, that is where the human begins, with what determines his special position, his tasks in the world. And where this begins, there all possibility of an explanation according to the template of animal-physical inheritance ends. I can trace Schiller's nose and hair, and perhaps also certain temperamental characteristics, back to their ancestors, but not his genius. And this is not only true of Schiller. It is also true of Mrs. Müller from Krähwinkel. In her case, too, if you just want to look, you will find something spiritual and intellectual that could not be found in the same way in her parents and grandparents, just as you could not find her nose and blue eyes in them. Goethe said that he had inherited his father's stature and serious approach to life, and his mother's cheerful nature and love of storytelling, and that therefore there was nothing original about the whole person. Well, nevertheless, no one will attempt to derive Goethe's talent from his father and mother in the same way, and declare themselves satisfied with explaining the form and way of life of the lion from his ancestors. This is the direction that psychology must take if it wants to place the corresponding statement to the side of the scientific statement: “all that is alive comes from that which is alive”: “all that is of the soul can be explained from that which is of the soul.” We will continue to pursue this direction and show how the laws of reincarnation and karma are a scientific necessity from this point of view.
[ 8 ] It seems highly strange that so many people avoid the question of the origin of the soul, purely out of fear that they might enter an uncertain field of knowledge. They must be reminded of what the great naturalist Karl Gegenbaur said about Darwinism. Even if Darwin's direct assertions are not entirely correct, they were a guide to discoveries that would not have been made without them. Darwin pointed out the development of life forms in an illuminating way, and this inspired people to seek the connections between such forms. Even those who fight against the errors of Darwinism should be aware that this same Darwinism has brought clarity and certainty to the study of animal and plant development, and that it has shed light on the dark areas of natural activity. It will overcome its errors through itself. If it had not been for Darwinism, we would not have had to deal with its consequences. And those who fear uncertainty in the face of these teachings should also concede that the same applies to anthroposophical views in spiritual life. Even if they were not entirely correct, they would lead to light on the enigmatic questions of the soul. Clarity and certainty will also be owed to them. And since they relate to our spiritual destiny, to our human destiny, to our highest tasks, the attainment of this clarity and certainty should be the most important matter of our lives. In this area, the striving for knowledge is at the same time a moral necessity, an unconditional moral obligation.
[ 9 ] In his book “Der alte und der neue Glaube” (The Old and the New Faith), published in 1872, David Friedrich Strauß wanted to provide a kind of bible for the “enlightened” man of the new age. The “new faith” is to be based on the revelations of science, and not on the revelations of the “old faith”, which, in the opinion of the aforementioned apostle of enlightenment, have been superseded. The new Bible was written under the influence of Darwin's ideas. And it comes from a person who said to himself: anyone who, like me, counts himself among the enlightened, has long since stopped believing in “supernatural revelation” and its miracles, long before Darwin. He realized that the laws of nature are necessary and immutable, and that what the Bible tells us are miracles are disruptions and interruptions of these laws, which cannot exist. We know from the laws of nature that no dead person can come back to life: so Jesus could not have raised Lazarus from the dead. But now, our enlightened man continues, our explanation of nature had a gap. We were able to see how inanimate phenomena could be explained by unalterable laws of nature; but how the various species of plants and animals and man himself came into being, we could not form a natural conception of. We believed, it is true, that only necessary laws of nature could be considered here too; but what they were and how they worked, we knew nothing about. No matter how hard we tried, we could not come up with a rational argument against what Karl von Lineé, the great naturalist of the eighteenth century, had said: that there were as many “species in the animal and plant kingdoms as were originally created in principle.” Did we not have as many miracles of creation before us as there were species of plants and animals? What use was our conviction that God could not have raised Lazarus through a supernatural intervention in the order of nature, through a miracle, when we had to assume countless such supernatural acts? Then Darwin came along and showed us that plant and animal species arise through immutable laws of nature – adaptation and the struggle for existence – just like inanimate phenomena. Our gap in the explanation of nature was filled.
[ 10 ] In the mood that came to him from such conviction, David Friedrich Strauß wrote these words of his “Old and New Faith”: “We philosophers and critical theologians have had a good talk when we decreed the end of miracles; our edict fell on deaf ears because we were unable to prove that it was not indispensable, unable to demonstrate any natural force that could replace it in the places where it had previously been considered indispensable. Darwin has demonstrated this natural force, this natural process; he has opened the door through which a happier future generation will throw the miracle out forever. Anyone who knows what is at stake in the miracle will praise him for it as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.»
[ 11 ] These words are full of a sense of victory. And all those who feel like Strauß are allowed to open up the following view of a “new faith”: At one time, lifeless particles of matter combined through their inherent powers in such a way that they gave living matter. This developed through necessary laws into the simplest, most imperfect living beings. Then, according to equally necessary laws, these developed into worms, fish, snakes, marsupials and finally into apes. And since Huxley, the great English naturalist, has proved that humans are much more similar to the highest apes in terms of their structure than the apes are to the lower apes, what is there to prevent us from believing that humans themselves have developed from higher apes according to the same laws of nature? Furthermore, do we not find what we call higher human mental activity, what we call morality, in an imperfect state even in animals? Can we doubt that, as their structure became more perfect, as it developed into the human form, the animals, purely on the basis of physical laws, also developed the rudiments of mental activity and morality, which can already be found in them, to the human level?
[ 12 ] Everything seems to be in perfect harmony. Of course, everyone will have to admit that our knowledge of nature is still far from sufficient to imagine how all the above described processes take place in detail; but more and more facts and laws will be discovered; and then the “new faith” will also gain more and more firm support.
[ 13 ] Now, the research and considerations of recent times have not provided any firm support for this belief, but rather have contributed to its undermining: however, it continues to live on in ever wider circles and is a serious obstacle to any other conviction.
[ 14 ] There can be no doubt about it: if David Friedrich Strauß and his like are right, then all talk of higher spiritual laws of existence is nonsense: the “new faith” would have to be built solely on the foundations that these personalities claim are the results of knowledge of nature.
[ 15 ] Now, however, a curious fact presents itself to the eye of anyone who follows the statements of these supporters of the “new faith” with an open mind. And this fact becomes particularly irresistibly apparent when one looks at the thoughts of those who have still retained a little impartiality towards the assertions of the orthodox enlighteners,
[ 16 ] There are hidden corners in the confessions of these new believers. And when what is present in these corners is revealed, then the true results of the newer natural science shine in a bright light, but the opinions of the new believers about humanity begin to pale.3There may be many today who would like to be quickly informed about the teachings of spiritual science. They will find it quite uncomfortable if the facts of natural science are first presented to them in such a way that they have to serve as the basis of an anthroposophical structure. They say: we want to hear something about spiritual science, and you are telling us about natural science, which every educated person knows. This objection clearly shows how our contemporaries do not want to think seriously. In truth, those who speak in the manner indicated know nothing of the scope of their knowledge; the astronomer knows nothing of the consequences of astronomy, the chemist nothing of those of chemistry, etc. And there is no salvation for them but to be modest and to listen quietly when it is made clear to them how they, because of the fleetingness of their thinking, know nothing at all of what they believe they have completely exhausted in their conceit. And anthroposophists also often think it is unnecessary to prove the convictions of karma and reincarnation with the results of natural science. They do not know that this is the task of the sub-races to which the inhabitants of Europe and America belong; and that without this foundation the members of these races cannot truly come to spiritual-scientific insight. Those who only want to repeat what they hear from the great teachers of the East cannot become anthroposophists within the European-American civilization.
[ 17 ] Let us take a look at a few of these corners. Let us first consider the personality who is the most important and most venerable of these new believers. On page 804 of the ninth edition of Haeckel's “Natural History of Creation” we read: “The final result (of a comparison of animals and humans) is that between the most highly developed animal souls and the lowest human souls there is only a small quantitative, but no qualitative difference; this difference is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and highest human souls or than the difference between the highest and lowest animal souls.” animal souls and the lowest human souls, there is only a slight quantitative difference, but no qualitative difference; this difference is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and highest human souls or than the difference between the highest and lowest animal souls.» Now, how does the NewBeliever react to such a fact? He proclaims: we must explain the difference between the lower and the higher animal souls on the basis of necessary and immutable laws. And we study these laws. We ask ourselves: how did it come about that animals with a lower soul developed into those with a higher one? We look in nature for conditions through which the lower can become the higher. We find, for example, that animals that come from other places to the caves of Kentucky become blind. It becomes clear to us that the stay in the dark has put the eyes out of action. In these eyes, the physical and chemical activity that takes place during seeing is no longer performed. The stream of nutrition that was previously used for this activity now flows to other organs. The animals change their shape. In this way, new animal species can arise from old ones, if the transformations that nature brings about in these species are sufficiently great and diverse. What actually happens here? Nature brings about changes in certain beings; and these changes then also occur in their descendants. They are said to inherit them. This explains the origin of new animal and plant species.4Some people may object to the above statements, saying that natural science contradicts the present form of the anthroposophical doctrine, and that, for example, in H.P. Blavatsky's “Secret Doctrine” a different theory of evolution is found than that advocated by Haeckel. How this is to be understood will be explained later. Here it is not intended to show how the “New Faith” relates to the “Secret Doctrine”, but merely how it ought to relate to itself if it understood its own premises.
[ 18 ] And now the explanation continues with the new believers. The difference between the lowly human souls and the high-standing animal souls is not that great. Thus, certain living conditions, into which high-standing 'animal souls have been transferred, have caused changes in them, whereby they became lower human souls. The miracle of the evolution of human souls is - to use Strauß's words - cast out of the temple of the new faith for good, and man is ranked with the animal world according to the “eternal, necessary” laws. The new believer withdraws contentedly to a peaceful slumber; from now on he no longer wants to go further.
[ 19 ] Honest thinking must disturb him in this slumber. For this honest thinking must keep alive in his slumbering place spirits that he himself has called forth. Let us take a closer look at Haeckel's above-mentioned statement, “the difference (between higher animals and humans) is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and highest human souls”. If the new believer admits this, can he then lull himself into a peaceful slumber as soon as he has explained – in his opinion – the development of lower humans from the highest animals?
[ 20 ] No, he may not; and if he does, he denies the whole basis on which he has built his conviction. What would one new believer say to another if the latter came and said: I have shown how the fish animals have developed from lower living beings. I have finished with that. I have shown that everything develops – so the species above the fish must have developed in the same way as the fish. Without doubt, our new believer would say: your general idea of development is no good: you must also explain how mammals come into being; for there is a greater difference between mammals and fish than between fish and the animals immediately below them. And what would follow from this if the new believer really remained true to his confession? He would have to say: the difference between the higher and lower human souls is greater than that between these lower souls and the animal souls immediately below them: therefore I must admit that there are causes in the universe which bring about transformations in the lower human soul, which transform it just as the causes I have pointed out transform the lower animal form into the higher. If I do not do so, the origin of the types of human souls will remain as much of a mystery to me as the various types of animal remain to those who do not believe in the transformation of living beings by natural laws.
[ 21 ] And this is absolutely true: the new believers who think they are so enlightened because they believe they have “thrown out” the miracle in the field of living things, they are miracle-mongers, indeed worshippers of the miracle in the field of spiritual life. And the only way in which they differ from the miracle-believers, whom they so despise, is that the latter honestly admit their faith; whereas they themselves have no idea that they are afflicted with the darkest superstition.
[ 22 ] And now our light is to be carried into another corner of the “new faith”. Dr. Paul Topinard has compiled the results of modern anthropology in his “Anthropologie”. At the end of the book, he briefly reiterates how the higher animal forms developed over the course of the Earth's history, according to Haeckel: “At the beginning of the geological period known as the Laurentian, the first protein clumps were formed from a few elements: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, the first protein clumps. From these, monads – the smallest, most imperfect living beings – emerged through spontaneous generation. These then divided and multiplied, organized themselves into organs and finally, after a series of transformations that Haeckel sets at nine, gave rise to some vertebrates in the manner of the amphioxus lanceolatus (lancelet). We can pass over how the other species of animals are pursued in the same direction, and immediately add the conclusion of Topinard's sentences: “In the twentieth degree (of transformation) the anthropoid (human-like ape) is there, approximately during the whole Miocene period; in the twenty-first the ape-man, who does not yet possess language and a brain corresponding to it. In the twenty-second, man finally appears as we know him, at least in his less perfect forms. And now, after Topinard has listed what is to be the “scientific basis of the new faith”, he makes an important confession in a few words. Ex says: “The list ends here. Haeckel forgets the twenty-third degree, in which Lamarck and Newton shine.”
[ 23 ] A corner in the confession of the new believer is thus revealed, in which he points as clearly as possible to facts that he denies in his confession. He does not want to use the terms with which he seeks to find his way in the rest of nature to ascend into the human-spiritual realm. If he did so, he would enter the field that Topinard calls the twenty-third degree with the attitude he has gained from external nature, and then he would have to say to himself: just as I derive the higher species of animal from the lower through development, so I derive the higher species of soul from the lower through development. I cannot understand Newton's soul if I do not think it to have emerged from a preceding soul-being. And this soul-being can never and ever be sought in the physical ancestors. For if one were to seek it there, one would turn all spirit of natural research upside down. How could a natural scientist ever imagine that an animal species could develop from another if the latter were as physically dissimilar to the former as Newton was mentally dissimilar to his ancestors? We imagine that an animal species develops from a similar one that is only one degree lower than it. Thus Newton's soul must have emerged from a similar one that is only one degree lower than it in the spiritual sense. The spiritual in Newton is contained in his biography (compare page 75). I recognize Newton from this biography of his, just as I recognize a lion from the description of its species. And I understand the species of lions when I imagine that it emerged from a species that is lower in relation to it. Thus I understand what I comprehend in Newton's biography when I think of it as having developed from the biography of a soul that is similar to it, as a soul related to it. Accordingly, Newton's soul was already there in a different form, just as the lion species was there in a different form before it.
[ 24 ] There is no escape from this view for clear thinking. Only because the new believers do not have the courage to really carry their thoughts to their conclusion, do they not come to this conclusion. But through them the reappearance of the being, which one includes in the biography, is secured. Either the whole doctrine of natural development is to be abandoned, or it is to be admitted that it must be extended to the development of the soul. There are only two alternatives: either every soul is created by a miracleor the soul has developed and existed in another form, as the animal species existed in another form.
[ 25 ] Some of the contemporary thinkers who have retained a little clarity and courage in logical thinking are living proof of this fact. They may be just as unable to find their way into the idea of soul development, which is so unfamiliar to our time, as the characterized new believers. But at least they have the courage to profess the only other view that is possible: the miracle of the creation of the soul. In the work on psychology by the Greifswald professor Johannes Rehmke, one of the best thinkers of our time, we can read: “The idea of creation... seems to us... the only way to gain some understanding of the mystery of the origin of the soul.” Rehmke comes to recognize a conscious universal being, which he says “would have to be called the creator of the soul” as the sole condition of the origin of the soul. This is the way a thinker speaks who does not want to gently lull himself into a spiritual slumber after he has understood the physical processes of life, and who nevertheless lacks the ability to admit to the idea that a soul has developed from its previous form of existence. Rehmke has the courage to wonder, since he cannot have the other one to the anthroposophical view of the reappearance of the soul, or reincarnation. Thinkers in whom the scientific striving begins to develop logically necessarily come to this view. Thus, in the writings of the Göttingen philosophy professor JuliusBaumann on “New Christianity and Real Religion”, we read the following (twenty-second) among the thirty-nine sentences of a “Draft of a Short Summary of Real-Scientific Religion”: “... As... in inorganic nature the physical-chemical elements and forces do not cease to exist, but only change their combinations, so this is also to be assumed according to the real scientific method of the organic and the organic-spiritual forces. The human soul as a formal unit, as a linking I, returns in new human bodies and can thus live through all stages of human development.»
[ 26 ] Anyone who has the courage to embrace the scientific creed of the present day must have this view. This should not be misunderstood as if it were being claimed here that the more outstanding among the new believers are, in the usual sense of the word, discouraged personalities. It took indescribable courage to fight for the scientific view against the opposing forces of the nineteenth century.5The author of this essay cannot be accused of misjudging the great merits of our new believers, because he himself, in his book “Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert” (World and Life Views in the Nineteenth Century), has fully recognized these merits in the context of the intellectual development of their time and has presented them with appreciation of their value. But this courage is something different from the higher courage that is shown in the face of logical thinking. But it is precisely contemporary natural scientists who want to build a world view from the insights of their field who lack such logical thinking. Is it not disheartening that in a lecture given at the last meeting of natural scientists by the chemist Albert Ladenburg of Breslau, the sentence occurs: “Do we know of a substratum of the soul? I do not.” And that then, after this admission, the same man could be heard to say: “What do you think about immortality? I believe that in this question, more than in any other, the wish is the father of the thought, for I know of no single scientifically proven fact on which we can base our belief in immortality.” What would the learned gentleman say if he were confronted by a speaker who said: ”I know nothing about chemical facts. Therefore I deny the chemical laws, because I know of no single scientifically proven fact on which we can rely in these laws.” The professor would say: What do we care about your ignorance of chemical science; first learn chemistry, then talk. Professor Ladenburg knows no substrate of the soul; so he should not bother the world with the results of his ignorance.
[ 27 ] Just as the natural scientist goes to the 'animal forms from which others have developed in order to understand these others, so the soul researcher, who places himself on the ground of this natural science, should go to the soul form from which another has developed in order to understand the latter. Naturalists explain the skull shape of higher animals by the transformation of the lower animal skull. So they should explain everything that belongs to the biography of a soul from the biography of the soul from which the one they are looking at emerged. The later states are the effects of earlier ones. The later physical ones are the effects of earlier physical ones; but the later mental ones are also the effects of earlier mental ones. This is the content of the law of karma, which says: everything that I can do in my present life does not stand alone as a miracle, but is connected as an effect with the earlier forms of existence of my soul, and as a cause with the later ones.
[ 28 ] Those who look at human life with an open mind and do not know or do not want to recognize this all-embracing law are constantly faced with life's mysteries. — Let us take one example from many. It can be found in Maurice Maeterlinck's “Buried Temple”, a book that speaks of such riddles as appear to contemporary thinkers in distorted form because they are not familiar with the great laws of cause and effect in spiritual life, with karma. Those who have fallen prey to the narrow dogmas of the new believers have no sense at all for such riddles today. Maeterlinck raises one of them: “If I throw myself into the water in severe cold to save my neighbor, or if I fall into it while trying to throw him in, the consequences of the cold will be the same in both cases and no power in heaven or on earth, except myself and the man (if he is capable of it), will increase my suffering because I have committed a crime, or relieve me of pain because I have done a virtuous deed.” Certainly: the consequences in question appear to be the same in both cases for an observation that is limited to purely physical facts. But can this observation be regarded as complete without further ado? Anyone who claims this is, as a thinker, roughly on the same point of view as someone who observes that two boys are taught by two different teachers and sees nothing in this but that in both cases the teachers spend the same number of hours a day with the two boys and do roughly the same thing. If the observer were to examine the facts more closely, he would perhaps perceive a great difference in both cases and then find it explicable that one boy becomes an incompetent person and the other an excellent one. And if the one who wants to go into the spiritual and mental connections were to consider the above consequences for the souls of the people in question, he would have to say to himself: what happens there cannot be considered in isolation. The consequences of a cold are experiences of the soul, and if they are not to be considered miracles, I must regard them as causes and effects in the life of the soul. The consequences for the lifesaver will flow from different causes than for the criminal; or they will have different effects in one case or the other. And if I cannot find these causes and effects in the present life of human beings, if everything is the same for this present life, then I must seek the balance in the past and future. I proceed exactly as the naturalist proceeds in the field of external facts: he too explains the eyelessness of animals in dark caves from previous experiences; and he presupposes that the present experiences will have their effects in future races and species.
[ 29 ] Only he has an inner right to speak of development in the field of external nature who also recognizes this development in the spiritual-mental. It is now clear that this recognition, this expansion of knowledge of nature beyond nature, is more than mere knowledge. For it transforms knowledge into life; it not only enriches man's knowledge, but gives him the power to change his life's path. It shows him where he comes from and where he is going. And it will show him this wherefrom and whereto beyond birth and death, if he steadfastly follows the direction that knowledge points out to him. He knows that everything he does is part of a stream that flows from eternity to eternity. The point of view from which he regulates his life becomes higher and higher. Before he reaches this state of mind, he is enveloped in a dull fog, for he has no inkling of his true nature, of its origin and its goals. He follows the impulses of his nature without insight into these impulses. He must tell himself that he would perhaps follow quite different ones if he illuminated his paths with the light of knowledge. The sense of responsibility towards life grows more and more under the influence of such a disposition. However, if man does not develop this sense of responsibility within himself, he denies his humanity in the higher sense. Knowledge without the goal of human ennoblement is only the satisfaction of a higher curiosity. To raise knowledge up to the comprehension of the spiritual, so that it may become the power of the whole life, that is – in the higher sense – duty. And it is therefore the duty of every human being to seek understanding for the origin and destination of the soul.
[ 30 ] How these laws of the spiritual life – reincarnation and karma – work, will be the subject of a future essay.