Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age
GA 7
Preface to the First Edition, 1901
[ 1 ] What I discuss in this work previously formed the content of lectures which I gave in the course of the past winter at the theosophical library in Berlin. I had been invited by Count and Countess Brockdorff to talk on mysticism before an audience to whom the things dealt with in this connection are a vital question of great importance.—Ten years ago I would not yet have dared to comply with such a wish. This must not be taken to mean that the world of ideas to which I give expression today was not alive in me at that time. This world of ideas is already wholly contained in my Philosophie der Freiheit, Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, (Berlin, 1894). But in order so to express this world of ideas as I do today, and thus to make it the basis of a discussion as is done in this work, something is needed in addition to an unshakeable conviction of its conceptual truth. This requires an intimate familiarity with this world of ideas, such as can only be attained in the course of many years of one's life. Only now, after I have acquired this familiarity, do I dare to speak in the way which one will discover in this work.
[ 2 ] He who does not encounter my world of ideas with an open mind will discover contradiction upon contradiction in it. Only recently have I dedicated a book on the philosophies of the nineteenth century (Berlin, 1900) to the great scientist Ernst Haeckel, a book which I terminated with a justification of his ideas. In the following expositions I speak with assenting devotion about the mystics from Meister Eckhart to Angelus Silesius. Of other “contradictions” which someone or other might enumerate, I shall not speak at all.—I am not surprised if I am condemned by one side as a “mystic,” by the other as a “materialist.”—If I find that the Jesuit priest Müller has solved a difficult chemical problem, and if I therefore agree with him without reservations in this matter, one can hardly condemn me as an adherent of Jesuitism without being considered a fool by the judicious.
[ 3 ] One who like myself goes his own way is bound to be exposed to many misunderstandings. But fundamentally he can bear this easily. Such misunderstandings are generally self-evident for him when he considers the mental make-up of his critics. It is not without humorous feelings that I look back upon many a “critical” judgment I have received in the course of my career as a writer. At the beginning everything went well. I wrote about Goethe and in connection with him. What I said sounded to many as though they could fit it into their preconceived notions. This was done by saying, “A work such as Rudolf Steiner's introductions to the scientific writings of Goethe can be described honestly as the best that has been written on this question.” When later I published an independent work I had already become much more stupid. For now a benevolent critic gave the following advice: “Before he continues to reform and brings his Philosophy of Spiritual Activity into the world, one must urgently advise him first to penetrate to an understanding of those two philosophers (Hume and Kant).” The critic unfortunately knows only what he can manage to read in Kant and Hume; thus he really only advises me to see nothing in these thinkers beyond what he sees. When I shall have achieved this he will be satisfied with me.—When my Philosophie der Freiheit appeared I was in need of being judged like the most ignorant beginner. This judgment I received from a gentleman whom hardly anything forces to write books except the fact that there are innumerable volumes by others, which he has not understood. He informs me with much thoughtfulness that I would have noticed my mistakes if I “had pursued deeper psychological, logical, and epistemological studies;” and he immediately enumerates for me all the books which I should read in order to become as clever as he: “Mill, Sigwart, Wundt, Riehl, Paulsen, B. Erdmann.”—Especially diverting for me was the advice of a man who is so impressed by the way he “understands” Kant that he cannot even imagine someone's having read Kant and nevertheless having an opinion different from his. He therefore indicates to me the chapters in question in Kant's writings from which I might acquire an under standing of Kant as profound as his own.
[ 4 ] I have here adduced a few typical judgments concerning my world of ideas. Although they are insignificant in themselves they appear to me to be well suited to indicate symptomatically certain facts which today constitute serious obstacles in the path of one who writes on questions of higher cognition. I must go my way, no matter whether one gives me the good advice to read Kant, or whether another accuses me of heresy because I agree with Haeckel. And so I have written about mysticism without caring what the judgments of a credulous materialist may be. I would only like, so that no printer's ink is quite needlessly wasted, to inform those who may now perhaps advise me to read Haeckel's Welträtsel (The Riddle of the Universe), that in the last months I have given about thirty lectures on this book.
[ 5 ] I hope to have shown in my work that one can be a faithful follower of the scientific philosophy and still seek out the paths to the soul into which mysticism, properly understood, leads. I go even further and affirm: Only one who understands the spirit in the sense of true mysticism can attain a full understanding of facts in the realm of nature. One must only beware of confusing true mysticism with the “mysticism” of muddled heads. How mysticism can err I have shown in my Philosophie der Freiheit.
Berlin, September, 1901
Rudolf Steiner
Vorwart zur ersten Auflage [1901]
[ 1 ] Was ich in dieser Schrift darstelle, bildete vorher den Inhalt von Vorträgen, die ich im verflossenen Winter in der theosophischen Bibliothek zu Berlin gehalten habe. Ich wurde von Gräfin und Grafen Brockdorff aufgefordert, über die Mystik vor einer Zuhörerschaft zu sprechen, der die Dinge eine wichtige Lebensfrage sind, um die es sich dabei handelt. - Vor zehn Jahren hätte ich es noch nicht wagen dürfen, einen solchen Wunsch zu erfüllen. Nicht als ob damals die Ideenwelt, die ich heute zum Ausdruck bringe, noch nicht in mir gelebt hätte. Diese Ideenwelt ist schon ganz in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» enthalten. Um aber diese Ideenwelt so auszusprechen, wie ich es heute tue, und sie so zur Grundlage einer Betrachtung zu machen, wie es in dieser Schrift geschieht, dazu gehört noch etwas ganz anderes, als von ihrer gedanklichen Wahrheit felsenfest überzeugt sein. Dazu gehört ein intimer Umgang mit dieser Ideenwelt, wie ihn nur viele Jahre des Lebens bringen können. Erst jetzt, nachdem ich diesen Umgang genossen habe, wage ich, so zu sprechen, wie man es in dieser Schrift wahrnehmen wird.
[ 2 ] Wer nicht unbefangen auf meine Ideenwelt eingeht, entdeckt in ihr Widerspruch über Widerspruch. Ich habe erst kürzlich ein Buch über die Weltanschauungen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1900) dem großen Naturforscher Ernst Haeckel gewidmet, und es in eine Rechtfertigung seiner Gedankenwelt ausklingen lassen. Ich spreche in den folgenden Ausführungen voll zustimmender Hingebung über die Mystiker vom Meister Eckhart bis Angelus Silesius. Von anderen «Widersprüchen», die mir der oder jener noch vorzählt, will ich gar nicht sprechen. - Ich bin nicht verwundert darüber, wenn ich von der einen Seite als «Mystiker», von der anderen als «Materialist» verurteilt werde. - Wenn ich finde, daß der Jesuitenpater Müller eine schwierige chemische Aufgabe gelöst hat, und ich ihm deshalb rückhaltlos in dieser Sache zustimme, so darf man mich wohl nicht als Anhänger des Jesuitismus verurteilen, ohne bei Einsichtigen als Tor zu gelten.
[ 3 ] Wer gleich mir seine eigenen Wege wandelt, muß manches Mißverständnis über sich ergehen lassen. Er kann das aber im Grunde leicht ertragen. Sind ihm solche Mißverständnisse Zumeist doch selbstverständlich, wenn er sich die Geistesart seiner Beurteiler vergegenwärtigt. Ich sehe nicht ohne humoristische Empfindungen auf manche «kritische» Urteile zurück, die ich im Laufe meiner Schriftstellerlaufbahn erfahren habe. Im Anfange ging die Sache. Ich schrieb über Goethe und in Anknüpfung an diesen. Was ich da sagte, klang manchem so, daß er es in seine Denkschablonen unterbringen konnte. Man tat das, indem man sagte: Es «darf eine Arbeit wie Rudolf Steiners Einleitungen zu den naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften Goethes geradezu als das beste bezeichnet werden, was in dieser Frage überhaupt geschrieben worden ist». Als ich später eine selbständige Schrift veröffentlichte, war ich schon um ein gut Teil dümmer geworden. Denn nun gab ein wohlmeinender Kritiker den Rat: «Bevor er weiter fortfährt, zu reformieren und seine ,Philosophie der Freiheit' in die Welt setzt, ist ihm dringend anzuraten, sich erst zu einem Verständnisse jener beiden Philosophen (Hume und Kant) hindurchzuarbeiten.» Der Kritiker kennt leider bloß, was er in Kant und Hume zu lesen versteht; er rät mir also im Grunde nur, mir bei diesen Denkern auch nichts weiter vorzustellen wie er: Wenn ich das erreicht haben werde, wird er mit mir zufrieden sein. - Als nun meine «Philosophie der Freiheit» erschien, war ich einer Beurteilung wie der unwissendste Anfänger bedürftig. Sie ließ mir ein Herr zuteil werden, den wohl kaum etwas anderes zum Bücherschreiben nötigt, als die Tatsache, daß er unzählige fremde - nicht verstanden hat. Er belehrt mich tiefsinnig, daß ich meine Fehler bemerkt hätte, wenn ich «tiefere psychologische, logische und erkenntnistheoretische Studien gemacht hätte»; und er zählt mir gleich die Bücher auf, die ich lesen soll, damit ich so klug werde wie er: «Mill, Sigwart, Wundt, Riehl, Paulsen, B. Erdmann». - Besonders ergötzlich war mir der Rat eines Mannes, dem es so sehr imponiert, wie er Kant «versteht», daß er sich gar nicht denken kann, jemand habe Kant gelesen und urteile doch anders als er. Er gibt mir dabei gleich die betreffenden Kapitel in Kants Schriften an, aus denen ich ein ebenso tiefgründiges Kantverständnis schöpfen könne, wie er es hat.
[ 4 ] Ich habe ein paar typische Beurteilungen meiner Ideenwelt hieher gesetzt. Obwohl sie an sich unbedeutend sind. scheinen sie mir doch geeignet zu sein, als Symptome auf Tatsachen Zu weisen, die heute als schwere Hindernisse sich dem in den Weg stellen, der sich in den höherer Erkenntnisfragen schriftstellerisch betätigt. Ich muß schor meinen Weg gehen, gleichgültig, ob der eine mir der guten Rat gibt, Kant zu lesen; oder ob der andere mich verketzert, weil ich Haeckel zustimme. Und so habe ich denn auch über die Mystik geschrieben, gleichgültig dar über, was ein gläubiger Materialist auch urteilen mag. ich möchte bloß - damit nicht ganz unnötig Druckerschwärze verschwendet werde - denjenigen, die mir vielleicht jetzt raten, Haeckels «Welträtsel» zu lesen, mitteilen, daß ich in den letzten Monaten etwa dreißig Vorträge über dieses Buch gehalten habe.
[ 5 ] Ich hoffe in meiner Schrift gezeigt zu haben, daß man ein treuer Bekenner der naturwissenschaftlichen Weltanschauung sein und doch die Wege nach der Seele aufsuchen kann, welche die richtig verstandene Mystik führt. Ich gehe sogar noch weiter und sage: Nur wer den Geist im Sinne der wahren Mystik erkennt, kann ein volles Verständnis der Tatsachen in der Natur gewinnen. Man darf wahre Mystik nur nicht verwechseln mit dem «Mystizismus» verworrener Köpfe. Wie die Mystik irren kann, habe ich in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» S. 139ff. gezeigt.
Berlin, September 1901
Rudolf Steiner
Preface to the first edition [1901]
[ 1 ] What I present in this paper was previously the content of lectures I gave last winter in the Theosophical Library in Berlin. I was asked by Countess and Count Brockdorff to speak about mysticism to an audience for whom the issues involved are an important matter of life. - Ten years ago, I would not have dared to fulfill such a wish. Not as if the world of ideas that I am expressing today did not yet exist within me. This world of ideas is already fully contained in my "philosophy of freedom". But to express this world of ideas as I do today, and to make it the basis of a reflection as I do in this writing, requires something quite different from being rock-solidly convinced of its intellectual truth. It requires the kind of intimate contact with this world of ideas that only many years of life can bring. Only now, after having enjoyed this contact, do I dare to speak as you will perceive it in this writing.
[ 2 ] Anyone who does not open their mind to my world of ideas will discover contradiction after contradiction in it. I recently dedicated a book on the world views of the nineteenth century (Berlin 1900) to the great natural scientist Ernst Haeckel, and let it end in a justification of his world of ideas. In the following remarks, I speak with approving devotion about the mystics from Master Eckhart to Angelus Silesius. I don't even want to talk about other "contradictions" that this or that person still recounts to me. - I am not surprised when I am condemned by one side as a "mystic" and by the other as a "materialist". - If I find that the Jesuit Father Müller has solved a difficult chemical problem and I therefore agree with him wholeheartedly in this matter, then I must not be condemned as a follower of Jesuitism without being considered a fool by those of insight.
[ 3 ] Whoever, like me, goes his own way must endure many a misunderstanding. But basically he can easily bear it. Such misunderstandings are usually a matter of course for him when he realizes the way of thinking of those who judge him. It is not without humorous feelings that I look back on some of the "critical" judgments I have experienced in the course of my writing career. In the beginning, things went well. I wrote about Goethe and in reference to him. What I said there sounded to some people like they could fit it into their thought patterns. This was done by saying: "A work like Rudolf Steiner's introductions to Goethe's scientific writings can be described as the best that has ever been written on this question". When I later published an independent work, I had already become a good deal dumber. For now a well-meaning critic gave the following advice: "Before he goes on reforming and launching his 'philosophy of freedom' into the world, he is urgently advised to first work his way through to an understanding of those two philosophers (Hume and Kant)." Unfortunately, the critic only knows what he knows how to read in Kant and Hume; so he basically only advises me not to imagine anything further with these thinkers than he does: when I have achieved this, he will be satisfied with me. - When my "Philosophy of Freedom" appeared, I was in need of an assessment like the most ignorant beginner. It was bestowed upon me by a gentleman who is hardly compelled to write books by anything other than the fact that he has not understood countless foreign -. He taught me profoundly that I would have noticed my mistakes if I had "made deeper psychological, logical and epistemological studies"; and he immediately listed the books that I should read in order to become as clever as he was: "Mill, Sigwart, Wundt, Riehl, Paulsen, B. Erdmann". - I was particularly amused by the advice of a man who is so impressed by the way he "understands" Kant that he cannot imagine that anyone has read Kant and yet judges differently from him. He immediately gives me the relevant chapters in Kant's writings, from which I can draw as profound an understanding of Kant as he has.
[ 4 ] I have put a few typical assessments of my world of ideas here. Although they are insignificant in themselves, they seem to me to be suitable as symptoms of facts which today stand as serious obstacles in the way of those who are active as writers in the higher questions of knowledge. I must go my own way, regardless of whether one person gives me the good advice to read Kant, or whether the other heretizes me because I agree with Haeckel. And so I have also written about mysticism, regardless of what a believing materialist might judge. I would just like to inform those who might now advise me to read Haeckel's "Welträtsel" that I have given about thirty lectures on this book in the last few months, so that no unnecessary ink is wasted.
[ 5 ] I hope to have shown in my writing that one can be a faithful confessor of the scientific world view and yet seek out the paths to the soul which correctly understood mysticism leads. I go even further and say: Only those who recognize the spirit in the sense of true mysticism can gain a full understanding of the facts in nature. One must not confuse true mysticism with the "mysticism" of confused minds. I have shown how mysticism can err in my "Philosophy of Freedom" p. 139ff.
Berlin, September 1901
Rudolf Steiner