The Story of My Life
GA 28
Chapter XXXII
[ 1 ] In reading discussions of anthroposophy such as appear nowadays there is something painful in having to meet again and again such thoughts, for instance, as “that the World War has been the cause of moods in men's souls fitted to set up all sorts of ‘mystical’ and similar spiritual currents”; and then to have anthroposophy included among these currents.
[ 2 ] Against this stands the fact that the anthroposophic movement was founded at the beginning of the century, and that nothing essential has been done within this movement since its foundation that has not been derived from the inner life of the spirit. Twenty-five years ago I had a content of spiritual impressions within me. I gave the substance of these in lectures, treatises, and books. What I did was done from spiritual impulses. In its essence every theme was drawn from the spirit. During the war I discussed also topics which were suggested by the events of the times. But in these there was nothing basic due to any intention of taking advantage of the mood of the time for propagation of anthroposophy. These discussions occurred because men desired to have certain events illuminated by the knowledge which comes from the spiritual world.
[ 3 ] On behalf of anthroposophy no endeavour has ever been made for anything except that it should take that course of development made possible by its own inner force bestowed upon it from the spirit. It is as far as possible out of harmony with anthroposophy to imagine that it would desire to win something from the dark abysses of the soul during the World War. That the number of those interested in anthroposophy increased after the war, that the Anthroposophical Society increased in its membership – these things are true; only one ought to note that all these facts have never changed anything in the development of the anthroposophical reality in the sense in which this took its full form at the beginning of the century.
[ 4 ] The form which was to be given to anthroposophy from inner spiritual being had at first to struggle against all sorts of opposition from the theosophists in Germany.
[ 5 ] There was, first of all, the justification of spiritual knowledge before the “scientific” mode of thought of the time. That this justification is necessary I have stated frequently in this story of my life. I took that mode of thought which rightly passes as “scientific” in natural knowledge and extended this into spiritual knowledge. Through this means, the mode of knowledge of nature became, to be sure, something different for the observation of spirit from what it is for the observation of nature, but the character which causes it to be looked upon as “scientific” was maintained.
[ 6 ] For this mode of scientific shaping of spiritual knowledge, those persons who considered themselves representatives of the theosophical movement at the beginning of the century never had any feeling or interest.
[ 7 ] These were the persons grouped about Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. He, as a personal friend of H. P. Blavatsky, had established a theosophical society as early as the 'eighties, beginning at Elberfeld. In this foundation H. P. Blavatsky herself participated. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden then published a journal, Die Sphinx, in which the theosophical world-conception should be upheld. The whole movement failed; and, when the German section of the Theosophical Society was founded, there was nothing existing except a number of persons, who looked upon me, however, as a sort of trespasser in their territory. These persons awaited the “scientific founding” of theosophy by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. They held the opinion that, until this should occur, nothing was to be done in this matter within German territory. What I began to do appeared to them as a disturbance of their “waiting,” as something utterly blameworthy. Yet they did not at once withdraw; for theosophy was their affair, and, if anything should happen in this, they did not wish to be absent.
[ 8 ] What did they understand of the “science” that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden was to establish, whereby theosophy would be “proven”? To anthroposophy they conceded nothing.
[ 9 ] They understood by this term the atomistic bases of natural scientific theorizing. The phenomena of nature were “explained” when one conceived the “primal parts” of the world-substance as grouping into atoms and these into molecules. A substance was there by reason of the fact that it represented a certain structure of atoms in molecules.
This mode of thought was supposed to be figurative. Complicated molecules were constructed which were also to be the basis for spiritual effects. Chemical processes were supposed to be the results of processes within the molecular structure; for spiritual processes something similar must be found.
[ 10 ] For me this atomic theory, in the significance given to it in natural science, was something quite impossible even within that science; to wish to carry this over into the spiritual seemed to me a confusion of thought that one could not even seriously discuss.
[ 11 ] In this field there have always been difficulties for my way of establishing anthroposophy. People have been assured from certain sides for a long time that materialism was overcome. To those who incline to this view, anthroposophy seems to be attacking windmills when it discusses materialism in science. To me, on the contrary, it was always clear that what people call a way of overcoming materialism is just the way unconsciously to maintain it.
[ 12 ] It was never a matter of moment to me that atoms should be conceived either in a purely mechanical or other activity in connection with processes in matter. What was important to me was that the thoughtful consideration of the atom – the smallest image of the world – should go forward and seek for an issue into the organic, into the spiritual. I saw the necessity of proceeding from the whole. Atoms, or atomic structure, can only be the results of spiritual action or organic action. From the perceived primal phenomena, and not from an intellectual construction, would I take the way leading out into the spirit of Goethe's view of nature. Profoundly impressive to me was the meaning of Goethe's words that the factual is in itself theoretical, and that one should seek for nothing behind this. But this demands that one must receive in the presence of nature that which the senses give, and must employ thought solely in order to go past the complicated derivative phenomena (appearances), which cannot be surveyed, and arrive at the simple, the primal phenomena. Then it will be noted that in nature one has to do with colour and other sense-qualities within which spirit is actually at work; but one does not arrive at an atomic world behind the sense-world.
[ 13 ] That in this direction progress has occurred in the conception of nature the anthroposophic mode of thinking cannot admit. What appears in such views as those of Mach, or what has recently appeared in this sphere, is really the beginning of an abandonment of the atomic and molecular constructions; yet all this shows that this construction is so deeply rooted in the mode of thought that abandoning it means losing all reality. Mach has spoken now of concepts only as if they were economical generalizations of sense-perceptions, not something which lives in a spiritual reality; and it is the same with recent writers.
[ 14 ] Therefore what now appears as a battle within theoretical materialism is no less remote from the spiritual being in which anthroposophy lives than from the materialism of the last third of the nineteenth century. What has been brought forward, therefore, by anthroposophy against the customary thinking of the physical sciences holds good to-day, not in lesser but in greater measure.
[ 15 ] The setting forth of these things may appear to be theoretical obtrusions in this story of my life. To me they are not; for what is contained in these analyses was for me an experience, the strongest sort of experience, far more significant even than what came to me from without.
[ 16 ] Immediately upon the foundation of the German section of the Theosophical Society, it seemed to me a matter of necessity to have a publication of our own. So Marie von Sievers and I established the monthly Luzifer. The name was naturally in no way associated at that time with the spiritual Power whom I later designated as Lucifer, the opposite of Ahriman. The content of anthroposophy had not then been developed to such an extent that these Powers could have been discussed. The name was intended to signify only “The Light-bearer.”
[ 17 ] Although it was at first my intention to work in harmony with the leadership of the Theosophical Society, yet from the beginning I had the feeling that something must originate in anthroposophy which evolves out of its own germ without making itself in any way dependent upon what theosophy causes to be taught. This I could accomplish only by means of such a publication. And what anthroposophy is to-day has really grown out of what I then wrote in that monthly.
[ 18 ] It was thus that the German section was established under the patronage and in the presence of Mrs. Besant. At that time Mrs. Besant delivered a lecture in Berlin on the goal and the principles of theosophy. Somewhat later we requested her to deliver Lectures in a number of German cities. Such was the case in Hamburg, Berlin, Weimar, Munich, Stuttgart, Cologne. In spite of all this – and not by reason of any measures taken by me, but because of the inner necessities of the thing – theosophy failed, and anthroposophy went through an evolution determined by inner requirements.
[ 19 ] Marie von Sievers made all this possible, not only because she made material sacrifices according to her ability, but because she devoted her entire effort to anthroposophy. At first we had to work under conditions truly the most primitive. I wrote the greater part of Luzifer. Marie von Sievers carried on the correspondence. When an issue was ready, we ourselves attended to the wrapping, addressing, stamping, and personally carried the copies to the post office in a laundry basket.
[ 20 ] Very soon Luzifer had so far increased its circulation that a Herr Rappaport, of Vienna, who published a journal called Gnosis, made an agreement with me to combine this with mine into a single publication. Then Luzifer appeared under the title Luzifer-Gnosis. For a long time also Herr Rappaport had a share in the undertaking.
Luzifer-Gnosis made the most satisfactory progress. The publication increased its circulation in a highly satisfactory fashion. Numbers which had been exhausted had to be printed a second time. Nor did it “fail.” But the spread of anthroposophy in a relatively short time took such a form that I was called upon to deliver lectures in many cities. From the single lectures there grew in many cases cycles of lectures. At first I tried to maintain the editorship of Luzifer-Gnosis along with this lecturing; but the numbers could not be issued any longer at the right time – often coming out months later. And so there came about the remarkable fact that a periodical which was gaining new subscribers with every number could no longer be published, solely because of the overburdening of the editor.
[ 21 ] In Lucifer-Gnosis I was able for the first time to publish what became the foundation of anthroposophic work. There first appeared what I had to say about the strivings that the human mind must make in order to attain to its own perceptual grasp upon spiritual knowledge. Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten1Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment. The content of this book appeared in English at first in two volumes: The Way of Initiation, and Initiation and Its Results. came out in serial form from number to number. In the same way was the basis laid for anthroposophic cosmology in serial articles entitled Aus der Akasha-Chronik.2From the Akashic Record.
[ 22 ] It was from what was thus given, and not from anything borrowed from the Theosophical Movement, that the Anthroposophical Movement had its growth. If I gave any attention to the teachings carried on in the Society when I composed my own writings on spiritual knowledge, it was only for the purpose of correcting by a contrasting statement one thing or another in those teachings which I considered erroneous.
[ 23 ] In this connection I must mention something which is constantly brought forward by our opponents, wrapped in a fog of misunderstandings. I need say nothing whatever about this on any inner ground, for it has had no influence whatever on my evolution or on my public activities. As regards all that I have to describe here the matter has remained a purely “private” affair. I refer to my forming “esoteric schools” within the Theosophical Society.
[ 24 ] The “esoteric schools” date back to H. P. Blavatsky. She had created for a small inner circle of the Society a place in which she gave out what she did not wish to say to the Society in general. She, like others who know the spiritual world, did not consider it possible to impart to the generality of persons certain profound teachings.
[ 25 ] All this is bound up with the way in which H. P. Blavatsky came to give her teachings. There has always been a tradition in regard to such teachings which goes back to the ancient mysteries. This tradition was cherished in all sorts of societies, which took strict care to prevent any teaching from permeating outside each society.
[ 26 ] But, for some reason or other, it was considered proper to impart such teaching to H. P. Blavatsky. She then united what she had thus received with revelations which came to her personally from within. For she was a human personality in whom, by reason of a remarkable atavism, the spiritual worked as it had once worked in the leaders of the mysteries, in a state of consciousness which – in contrast with the modern state illuminated by the consciousness-soul – was dreamlike in character. Thus, in the human being, “Blavatsky,” was renewed that which in primitive times was kept secret in the mysteries.
[ 27 ] For modern men there is an infallible method for deciding what portion of the content of spiritual perception can be imparted to wider circles. This can be done with everything which the investigator can clothe in such ideas as are current both in the consciousness-soul itself and also in appropriate form in acknowledged science.
[ 28 ] Such is not the case when the spiritual knowledge does not live in the mind, but in forces lying rather in the subconsciousness. These are not sufficiently independent of the forces active in the body. Therefore the imparting of such teachings drawn from the subconscious may be dangerous; for such teachings can in like manner be taken in only by the subconscious. Thus both teacher and learner are then moving in a region where that which is wholesome for man and that which is harmful must be handled with the utmost care.
[ 29 ] All this, therefore, does not concern anthroposophy, because this lifts all its teachings entirely above the subconscious.
[ 30 ] The inner circle of Blavatsky continued to live in the “esoteric schools.” I had set up my anthroposophic activity within the Theosophical Society. I had therefore to be informed as to all that occurred in the latter. For the sake of this information, and also because I considered a smaller circle necessary for those advanced in anthroposophical spiritual knowledge, I caused myself to be admitted as a member into the “esoteric school.” My smaller circle was, of course, to have a different meaning from this school. It was to represent a higher participation, a higher class, for those who had absorbed enough of the elementary knowledge of anthroposophy. Now I intended everywhere to link up with what was already in existence, with what history had already provided. Just as I did this in regard to the Theosophical Society, I wished to do likewise in reference to the esoteric school. For this reason my “more restricted circle” arose at first in connection with this school. But the connection consisted solely in the plan and not in that which I imparted from the spiritual world. So in the first years I selected as my more restricted circle a section of the esoteric school of Mrs. Besant. Inwardly it was not by any means whatever the same as this. And in 1907, when Mrs. Besant was with us at the theosophical congress in Munich, even the external connection came to an end according to an agreement between Mrs. Besant and myself.
[ 31 ] That I could have learned anything special in the esoteric school of Mrs. Besant is beyond the bounds of possibility, since from the beginning I never participated in the exercises of this school except in a few instances in which my participation was for the sole purpose of informing myself as to what went on there.
There was at that time no other real content in the school except that which was derived from H. P. Blavatsky and which was already in print. In addition to these printed exercises, Mrs. Besant gave all sorts of Indian exercises for progress in knowledge, to which I was opposed.
[ 32 ] Until 1907, then, my more restricted circle was connected, as to its plan, with that which Mrs. Besant fostered as such a circle. But to make of these facts what has been made of them by opponents is wholly unjustifiable. Even the absurd idea that I was introduced to spiritual knowledge entirely by the esoteric school of Mrs. Besant has been asserted.
[ 33 ] In 1903 Marie von Sievers and I again took part in the theosophical congress in London. Colonel Olcott, president of the Theosophical Society, was also present, having come from India. A lovable personality, as to whom, however, it was easy to see how he could become the partner of Blavatsky in the founding, planning, and guiding of the Theosophical Society. For within a brief time the Society had in an external sense become a large body possessing an impressive organization.
[ 34 ] Marie von Sievers and I came closer to Mrs. Besant by reason of the fact that she lived with Mrs. Bright in London and we also were invited for our second London visit to this lovable home. Mrs. Bright and her daughter, Miss Esther Bright, constituted the family; persons who were like an embodiment of lovableness. I look back with inner joy upon the time I was privileged to spend in this home. The Brights were loyal friends of Mrs. Besant. Their endeavour was to knit a closer tie between us and the latter. Since it was then impossible that I should stand with Mrs. Besant in certain things – of which some have already been mentioned here – this gave pain to the Brights, who were bound with bands of steel – utterly uncritical they were – to the leader of the Theosophical Society.
[ 35 ] Mrs. Besant was an interesting person to me because of certain of her characteristics. I observed that she had a certain right to speak from her own inner experiences of the spiritual world. The inner entrance of soul into the spiritual world she did possess. Only this was later stifled by certain external objectives that she set herself.
[ 36 ] To me a person who could speak of the spirit from the spirit was necessarily interesting. But, on the other hand, I was strongly of the opinion that in our age the insight into the spiritual world must live within the consciousness-soul.
[ 37 ] I looked into an ancient spiritual knowledge of humanity. It was dreamlike in character. Men saw in pictures through which the spiritual world revealed itself. But these pictures were not evolved by the will-to-knowledge in full clarity of mind. They appeared in the soul, given to it like dreams from the cosmos. This ancient spiritual knowledge came to an end in the Middle Ages. Man came into possession of the consciousness-soul. He no longer had dream-knowledge. He drew ideas in full clarity of mind by his will-to-knowledge into the soul. This capacity first became a living reality in the sense-world. It reached its climax as sense-knowledge in natural science.
[ 38 ] The present task of spirit-knowledge is to carry the experience of ideas in full clarity of mind into the spiritual world by means of the will-to-knowledge. The knower then has a content of mind which is experienced like that of mathematics. One thinks like a mathematician; but one does not think in numbers or in geometrical figures. One thinks in pictures of the spiritual world. In contrast to the ancient waking dream knowledge of the spirit, it is the fully conscious standing within the spiritual world.
[ 39 ] Within the Theosophical Society one could gain no true relationship to this new knowledge of the spirit. One became suspicious as soon as full consciousness sought to enter the spiritual world. One knew a full consciousness solely for the sense-world. There was no true feeling for the evolving of this to the point of experiencing the spirit. The process was only to the point of a return to the ancient dream consciousness with the suppression of full consciousness. And this turning back was true of Mrs. Besant also. She has scarcely any capacity for grasping the modern form of knowledge of the spirit. But what she said of the world of spirit was, nevertheless, from that world. So she was to me an interesting person.
[ 40 ] Since among the other leaders of the Society also there was present this opposition to fully conscious knowledge of the spirit, my mind could never feel at home in the Society as regards the spiritual. Socially I enjoyed being in these circles; but their temper of mind in reference to the spiritual remained alien to me.
[ 41 ] For this reason I was also hindered from founding my lectures upon my own experience of the spirit. I delivered lectures which anyone could have delivered even though he might have no perception of spirit. This perception found expression in the lectures which I delivered, not at the meetings of branches of the Society, but before those which grew out of what Marie von Sievers and I arranged from Berlin.
[ 42 ] Then arose the Berlin, Munich, and Stuttgart work. Other places joined. Later the content of the Theosophical Society gradually disappeared; and there came into existence that which was congenial to the inner force living in anthroposophy.
[ 43 ] While carrying out the plans together with Marie von Sievers, for the external activities, I elaborated the results of my spiritual perception. On the one hand I had, of course, a fully developed standing – within the spiritual world; but I had in about 1902 – and in the succeeding years also as regards many things – “imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions.” These gradually shaped themselves into what I then gave out publicly in my writings.
[ 44 ] Through the activity developed by Marie von Sievers there came about from a small beginning the philosophical anthroposophical publication business. A small pamphlet based upon notes of a lecture I delivered before the Berlin Free Higher Institute to which I have referred was the first matter thus published. The necessity of getting possession of my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity – which could no longer be distributed by the former publisher – and of attending personally to its distribution gave the second task. We bought the remaining copies and the publisher's rights for this book.
[ 45 ] All this was not easy for us. For we were without any considerable means. But the work progressed, for the very reason that it could not rely upon anything external but solely upon inner spiritual circumstances.
Chapter XXXII
[ 1 ] Es hat für mich etwas Schmerzliches, wenn ich in Betrachtungen, die heute über Anthroposophie angestellt werden, immer wieder Gedanken von der Art lesen muß: der Weltkrieg hat in den Seelen der Menschen Stimmungen erzeugt, die dem Aufkommen von allerlei «mystischen» und ähnlichen Geistesströmungen günstig sind, und wenn dann unter diesen Strömungen auch die Anthroposophie angeführt wird.
[ 2 ] Dem steht gegenüber, daß die anthroposophische Bewegung mit Beginn des Jahrhunderts begründet wurde, und daß seit dieser Begründung in ihr nie etwas Wesentliches getan worden ist, was nicht aus dem inneren Leben des Geistes veranlaßt gewesen wäre. Ich hatte vor zwei und einhalb Jahrzehnten einen Inhalt von geistigen Impressionen in mir. Ich gab ihnen Gestalt in Vorträgen, Abhandlungen und Büchern. Was ich tat, tat ich aus geistigen Impulsen. Im wesentlichen ist jedes Thema aus dem Geiste herausgeholt. Es sind während des Krieges von mir auch Themen besprochen worden, die von den Zeitereignissen veranlaßt waren. Aber dem lag nichts von einer Absicht zugrunde, die Zeitstimmung für Verbreitung der Anthroposophie auszunutzen. Es geschah, weil Menschen gewisse Zeitereignisse von den Erkenntnissen beleuchtet haben wollten, die aus der Geisteswelt kommen.
[ 3 ] Für Anthroposophie ist nie etwas anderes angestrebt worden, als daß sie den Fortgang nehme, der aus ihrer inneren, ihr aus dem Geiste gegebenen Kraft möglich ist. - Für sie ist es so unzutreffend wie nur irgend möglich, wenn man sie so hinstellt, als ob sie aus den dunklen Abgründen der Seelen während der Kriegszeit habe etwas gewinnen wollen. Daß die Zahl derer, die sich für Anthroposophie interessieren, sich nach dem Kriege mehrte, daß die anthroposophische Gesellschaft an Mitgliederzahl wuchs, ist richtig; allein man sollte bemerken, wie alle diese Tatsachen nie etwas an der Fortführung der anthroposophischen Sache im Sinne, wie diese seit dem Beginne des Jahrhunderts sich vollzog, geändert haben.
[ 4 ] Die Gestalt, die aus dem innern Geisteswesen heraus der Anthroposophie zu geben war, hat zunächst sich gegen allerlei Widerstände der Theosophen in Deutschland durchringen müssen.
[ 5 ] Da war vor allem die Frage nach der Rechtfertigung der Geist-Erkenntnis vor der «wissenschaftlichen» Denkart der Zeit. Daß diese Rechtfertigung notwendig sei, davon habe ich in diesem «Lebensgang» öfter gesprochen. Ich nahm die Denkart, die in der Natur-Erkenntnis mit Recht als «wissenschaftlich» galt, und bildete diese für die Geist-Erkenntnis aus. Dadurch wurde die Art der Natur-Erkenntnis allerdings etwas anderes für die Geist-Beobachtung, als sie für die Naturbeobachtung ist; aber den Charakter, wodurch sie als «wissenschaftlich» anzusehen ist, behielt sie bei.
[ 6 ] Für diese Art von wissenschaftlicher Gestaltung der Geist-Erkenntnis hatten diejenigen Persönlichkeiten, die sich im Beginne des Jahrhunderts als die Träger der theosophischen Bewegung betrachteten, weder Sinn noch Interesse.
[ 7 ] Es waren die Persönlichkeiten, die sich um Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden gruppierten. Dieser hatte als persönlicher Freund von H. P. Blavatsky schon in den achtziger Jahren eine theosophische Gesellschaft von Elberfeld aus begründet An dieser Begründung war H.P. Blavatsky selbst beteiligt. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden gab dann in der «Sphinx» eine Zeitschrift heraus, in der die theosophische Weltanschauung zur Geltung kommen sollte. - Die ganze Bewegung versiegte, und zur Zeit, als die deutsche Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft begründet wurde, war nichts davon da, als eine Anzahl von Persönlichkeiten, die aber mich doch als eine Art von Eindringling in ihre Sphäre betrachteten. - Diese Persönlichkeiten warteten auf die «wissenschaftliche Begründung» der Theosophie durch Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Sie waren der Ansicht, daß, bevor diese vorläge, innerhalb deutscher Gebiete auf diesem Felde überhaupt nichts zu geschehen habe. Was ich zu tun begann, erschien ihnen als Störung ihres «Wartens», als etwas durchaus Schädliches. Aber sie zogen sich nicht ohne weiteres zurück, denn Theosophie war doch «ihre» Sache; und wenn etwas in ihr geschah, so wollten sie nicht abseits stehen.
[ 8 ] Was verstanden sie unter der «Wissenschaftlichkeit», die Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden begründen sollte, durch die die Theosophie «bewiesen» werden sollte? Auf Anthroposophie ließen sie sich gar nicht ein.
[ 9 ] Sie verstanden darunter die atomistische Grundlage des naturwissenschaftlichen Theoretisierens und Hypothesenbildens. Die Erscheinungen der Natur wurden «erklärt», indem man «Ur-Teile» der Weltsubstanz sich zu Atomen, diese zu Molekülen gruppieren ließ. Ein Stoff war dadurch da, daß er eine bestimmte Struktur von Atomen in Molekülen darstellte. Diese Denkart betrachtete man als vorbildlich. Man konstruierte komplizierte Moleküle, die die Grundlagen auch für Geist-Wirken sein sollten. Chemische Vorgänge seien die Ergebnisse von Vorgängen innerhalb der Molekularstruktur; für geistige Vorgange müsse Ähnliches gesucht werden.
[ 10 ] Für mich war dieser Atomismus in der Deutung, die er in der «Naturwissenschaft» bekommt, schon innerhalb dieser etwas ganz Unmögliches; ihn ins Geistige übertragen wollen, schien mir eine Denkverirrung, über die man im Ernste nicht einmal sprechen kann.
[ 11 ] Auf diesem Gebiete ist es für meine Art, Anthroposophie zu begründen, immer schwierig gewesen. Man versichert von gewissen Seiten her seit langer Zeit, der theoretische Materialismus sei überwunden. Und in dieser Richtung kämpfe Anthroposophie gegen Windmühlen, wenn sie von Materialismus in der Wissenschaft rede. Mir war dagegen immer klar, daß die Art von Überwindung des Materialismus, von der man da spricht, gerade der Weg ist, ihn unbewußt zu konservieren.
[ 12 ] Mir kam immer wenig darauf an, daß Atome in rein mechanischer oder sonst einer Wirksamkeit innerhalb des materiellen Geschehens angenommen werden. Mir kam es darauf an, daß die denkende Betrachtung von dem Atomistischen - den kleinsten Weltgebilden - ausgeht und den Übergang sucht zum Organischen, zum Geistigen. Ich sah die Notwendigkeit, von dem Ganzen auszugehen. Atome oder atomistische Strukturen können nur Ergebnisse von Geistwirkungen, von organischen Wirkungen sein. - Von dem angeschauten Urphänomen, nicht von einer Gedankenkonstruktion, wollte ich im Geiste der Goethe'schen Naturbetrachtung den Ausgang nehmen. Tief überzeugend war es mir immer, was in Goethes Worten liegt, daß das Faktische schon Theorie sei, daß man hinter diesem nichts suchen solle. Aber das bedingt, daß man für die Natur das hinnimmt, was die Sinne geben, und das Denken auf diesem Gebiete nur dazu benützt, von den komplizierten, abgeleiteten Phänomenen (Erscheinungen), die sich nicht übersehen lassen, zu den einfachen, zu den Urphänomenen zu kommen. Da merkt man dann, daß man es in der Natur wohl mit Farben- und anderen Sinnesqualitäten zu tun hat, innerhalb deren Geist wirksam ist; man kommt aber nicht zu einer atomistischen Welt hinter der sinnenfälligen. Was von Atomismus Geltung haben kann, gehört eben der Sinneswelt an.
[ 13 ] Daß nach dieser Richtung ein Fortschritt im Natur-Begreifen geschehen ist, kann anthroposophische Denkart nicht zugeben. Was sich etwa in Ansichten wie der Mach'schen, oder was sich neuerdings auf diesem Gebiete zeigt, sind zwar Ansätze zum Verlassen des Atom- und Molekülkonstruierens; sie zeigen aber, daß sich dieses Konstruieren in die Denkweise so tief eingegraben hat, daß man mit seinem Verlassen alle Realität verliert. Mach hat nur noch von Begriffen als von ökonomischen Zusammenfassungen der Sinneswahrnehmungen, nicht mehr von etwas gesprochen, was in einer Geist-Realität lebt. Und den Neueren geht es nicht anders.
[ 14 ] Deshalb ist, was da als Bekämpfung des theoretischen Materialismus auftritt, nicht weniger weit von dem geistigen Sein, in dem Anthroposophie lebt, entfernt, als es der Materialismus vom letzten Drittel des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts war. Was damals von Anthroposophie gegen die naturwissenschaftlichen Denkgewohnheiten vorgebracht worden ist, gilt heute nicht in abgeschwächtem, sondern in verstärktem Maße.
[ 15 ] Die Darstellungen dieser Dinge könnten wie theoretisierende Einschübe in diesen «Lebensgang» erscheinen. Für mich sind sie es nicht; denn was in diesen Auseinandersetzungen enthalten ist, das war für mich Erlebnis, stärkstes Erlebnis, viel bedeutsamer, als was von außen je an mich herangetreten ist.
[ 16 ] Sogleich bei der Begründung der deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft erschien es mir als eine Notwendigkeit, eine eigene Zeitschrift zu haben. So begründeten denn Marie von Sivers und ich die Monatsschrift «Luzifer». Der Name wurde damals selbstverständlich in keinen Zusammenhang gebracht mit der geistigen Macht, die ich später als Luzifer, den Gegenpol von Ahriman, bezeichnete. So weit war damals der Inhalt der Anthroposophie noch nicht ausgebildet, daß von diesen Mächten schon härte die Rede sein können. - Es sollte der Name einfach «Lichtträger» bedeuten.
[ 17 ] Obwohl es zunächst meine Absicht war, im Einklang mit der Leitung der Theosophischen Gesellschaft zu arbeiten, hatte ich doch vom Anfange an die Empfindung: in Anthroposophie muß etwas entstehen, das aus seinem eigenen Keim sich entwickele, ohne irgendwie sich, dem Inhalte nach, abhängig zu stellen von dem, was die Theosophische Gesellschaft lehren ließ. - Das konnte ich nur durch eine solche Zeitschrift. Und aus dem, was ich in dieser schrieb, ist ja in der Tat das herausgewachsen, was heute Anthroposophie ist.
[ 18 ] So ist es gekommen, daß gewissermaßen unter dem Protektorate und der Anwesenheit von Mrs. Besant die deutsche Sektion begründet wurde. Damals hat Mrs. Besant auch einen Vortrag über Ziele und Prinzipien der Theosophie in Berlin gehalten. Wir haben Mrs. Besant dann etwas später aufgefordert, Vorträge in einer Reihe von deutschen Städten zu halten. Es kamen solche zustande in Hamburg, Berlin, Weimar, München, Stuttgart, Köln. - Trotz alldem ist nicht durch irgend welche besondere Maßnahmen meinerseits, sondern durch eine innere Notwendigkeit der Sache das Theosophische versiegt, und das Anthroposophische in einem von inneren Bedingungen bestimmten Werdegang zur Entfaltung gekommen.
[ 19 ] Marie von Sivers hat das alles dadurch möglich gemacht, daß sie nicht nur nach ihren Kräften materielle Opfer gebracht, sondern auch ihre gesamte Arbeitskraft der Anthroposophie gewidmet hat. - Wir konnten wirklich anfangs nur aus den primitivsten Verhältnissen heraus arbeiten. Ich schrieb den größten Teil des «Luzifer». Marie von Sivers besorgte die Korrespondenz. Wenn eine Nummer fertig war, dann besorgten wir selbst das Fertigen der Kreuzbänder, das Adressieren, das Bekleben mit Marken und trugen beide persönlich die Nummern in einem Waschkorbe zur Post
[ 20 ] Der «Luzifer» erfuhr bald insofern eine Vergrößerung, als ein Herr Rappaport in Wien, der eine Zeitschrift «Gnosis» herausgab, mir den Vorschlag machte, diese mit der meinigen zu einer zu gestalten. So erschien denn der «Luzifer» dann als «Lucifer-Gnosis». Rappaport trug auch eine Zeitlang einen Teil der Ausgaben. «Lucifer-Gnosis» nahm den allerbesten Fortgang. Die Zeitschrift verbreitete sich in durchaus befriedigender Weise. Es mußten Nummern, die schon vergriffen waren, sogar zum zweiten Male gedruckt werden. Sie ist auch nicht «eingegangen». Aber die Verbreitung der Anthroposophie nahm in verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit die Gestalt an, daß ich persönlich zu Vorträgen in viele Städte gerufen wurde. Aus den Einzelvorträgen wurden in vielen Fällen Vortragszyklen. Anfangs suchte ich das Redigieren von «Lucifer-Gnosis» neben dieser Vortragstätigkeit noch aufrecht zu erhalten. Aber die Nummern konnten nicht mehr zur rechten Zeit erscheinen, manchmal um Monate zu spät. Und so stellte sich denn die merkwürdige Tatsache ein, daß eine Zeitschrift, die mit jeder Nummer an Abonnenten gewann, einfach durch Überlastung des Redakteurs nicht weiter erscheinen konnte.
[ 21 ] In der Monatsschrift «Lucifer-Gnosis» konnte ich zur ersten Veröffentlichung bringen, was die Grundlage für anthroposophisches Wirken wurde. Da erschien denn zuerst, was ich über die Anstrengungen zu sagen harte, die die menschliche Seele zu machen hat, um zu einem eigenen schauenden Erfassen der Geist-Erkenntnis zu gelangen. «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten? » erschien in Fortsetzungen von Nummer zu Nummer. Ebenso ward der Grund gelegt zur anthroposophischen Kosmologie durch die fortlaufenden Aufsätze «Aus der Akasha-Chronik».
[ 22 ] Aus dem hier Gegebenen, und nicht aus irgend etwas von der Theosophischen Gesellschaft Entlehntem erwächst die anthroposophische Bewegung. Dachte ich bei meinen Niederschriften der Geist-Erkenntnisse an die in der Gesellschaft üblichen Lehren, so war es nur, um dem oder jenem, das mir in diesen Lehren irrtümlich erschien, korrigierend gegenüberzutreten.
[ 23 ] In diesem Zusammenhang muß ich etwas besprechen, das von gegnerischer Seite, in einen Nebel von Mißverständnissen gehüllt, immer wieder vorgebracht wird. Aus inneren Gründen brauchte ich gar nicht darüber zu reden, denn es hat weder auf meinen Entwickelungsgang noch auf meine öffentliche Wirksamkeit einen Einfluß gehabt. Und gegenüber allem, was ich hier zu schildern habe, ist es eine rein «private» Angelegenheit geblieben. Es ist meine Aufnahme in die innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft bestehende «Esoterische Schule».
[ 24 ] Diese «Esoterische Schule» ging auf H.P. Blavatsky zurück. Diese hatte für einen kleinen inneren Kreis der Gesellschaft eine Stätte geschaffen, in der sie mitteilte, was sie in der allgemeinen Gesellschaft nicht sagen wollte. Sie hielt es wie andere Kenner der geistigen Welt nicht für möglich, gewisse tiefere Lehren der Allgemeinheit mitzuteilen.
[ 25 ] Nun hängt all das zusammen mit der Art, wie H.P. Blavatsky zu ihren Lehren gekommen ist. Es gab ja immer eine Tradition über solche Lehren, die auf alte Mysterien-Schulen zurückgehen. Diese Tradition wird in allerlei Gesellschaften gepflegt, die streng darüber wachen, daß von den Lehren aus den Gesellschaften nichts hinausdringe.
[ 26 ] Aber von irgend einer Seite wurde es für angemessen gehalten, an H.P. Blavatsky solche Lehren mitzuteilen. Sie verband dann, was sie da erhielt, mit Offenbarungen, die ihr im eigenen Innern aufgingen. Denn sie war eine menschliche Individualität, in der das Geistige durch einen merkwürdigen Atavismus wirkte, wie es einst bei den Mysterien-Leitern gewirkt hat, in einem Bewußtseinszustand, der gegenüber dem modernen von der Bewußtseinsseele durchleuchteten ein ins Traumhafte herabgestimmter war. So erneuerte sich in dem «Menschen Blavatsky» etwas, das in uralter Zeit in den Mysterien heimisch war.
[ 27 ] Für den modernen Menschen gibt es eine irrtumsfreie Möglichkeit, zu entscheiden, was von dem Inhalte des geistigen Schauens weiteren Kreisen mitgeteilt werden kann. Mit Allem kann das geschehen, das der Forschende in solche Ideen kleiden kann, wie sie der Bewußtseinsseele eigen und wie sie ihrer Art nach auch in der anerkannten Wissenschaft zur Geltung kommen.
[ 28 ] Nicht so steht die Sache, wenn die Geist-Erkenntnis nicht in der Bewußtseinsseele lebt, sondern in mehr unterbewußten Seelenkräften. Diese sind nicht genügend unabhängig von den im Körperlichen wirkenden Kräften. Deshalb kann für Lehren, die so aus unterbewußten Regionen geholt werden, die Mitteilung gefährlich werden. Denn solche Lehren können ja nur wieder von dem Unterbewußten aufgenommen werden. Und Lehrer und Lernender bewegen sich da auf einem Gebiete, wo das, was dem Menschen heilsam, was schädlich ist, sehr sorgfältig behandelt werden muß.
[ 29 ] Das alles kommt für Anthroposophie deshalb nicht in Betracht, weil diese ihre Lehren ganz aus der unbewußten Region heraushebt.
[ 30 ] Der innere Kreis der Blavatsky lebte in der «Esoterischen Schule» fort. - Ich hatte mein anthroposophisches Wirken in die Theosophische Gesellschaft hineingestellt. Ich mußte deshalb informiert sein über alles, was in derselben vorging. Um dieser Information willen und darum, weil ich für Vorgeschrittene in der anthroposophischen Geist-Erkenntnis selbst einen engeren Kreis für notwendig hielt, ließ ich mich in die «Esoterische Schule» aufnehmen. Mein engerer Kreis sollte allerdings einen andern Sinn als diese Schule haben. Er sollte eine höhere Abteilung, eine höhere Klasse darstellen für diejenigen, die genügend viel von den elementaren Erkenntnissen der Anthroposophie aufgenommen hatten. - Nun wollte ich überall an Bestehendes, an historisch Gegebenes anknüpfen. So wie ich dies mit Bezug auf die Theosophische Gesellschaft tat, wollte ich es auch gegenüber der «Esoterischen Schule» machen. Deshalb bestand mein «engerer Kreis» auch zunächst in Zusammenhang mit dieser Schule. Aber der Zusammenhang lag nur in den Einrichtungen, nicht in dem, was ich als Mitteilung aus der Geist-Welt gab. So nahm sich mein engerer Kreis in den ersten Jahren äußerlich wie eine Abteilung der «Esoterischen Schule» von Mrs. Besant aus. Innerlich war er das ganz und gar nicht. Und 1907, als Mrs. Besant bei uns am theosophischen Kongreß in München war, hörte nach einem zwischen Mrs. Besant und mir getroffenen Übereinkommen auch der äußere Zusammenhang vollständig auf.
[ 31 ] Daß ich innerhalb der «Esoterischen Schule» der Mrs. Besant hätte etwas Besonderes lernen können, lag schon deshalb außer dem Bereich der Möglichkeit, weil ich von Anfang an nicht an Veranstaltungen dieser Schule teilnahm, außer einigen wenigen, die zu meiner Information, was vorgeht, dienen sollten. Es war ja in der Schule damals kein anderer wirklicher Inhalt als derjenige, der von H.P. Blavatsky herrührt, und der war ja schon gedruckt. Außer diesem Gedruckten gab Mrs. Besant allerlei indische Übungen für den Erkenntnisfortschritt, die ich aber ablehnte.
[ 32 ] So war bis 1907 mein engerer Kreis in einem auf die Einrichtung bezüglichen Sinne in einem Zusammenhang mit dem, was Mrs. Besant als einen solchen Kreis pflegte. Aber es ist ganz unberechtigt, aus diesen Tatsachen heraus das zu machen, was Gegner daraus gemacht haben. Es wurde geradezu die Absurdität behauptet, ich wäre zu der Geist-Erkenntnis überhaupt nur durch die esoterische Schule von Mrs. Besant geführt worden.
[ 33 ] 1903 nahmen dann Marie von Sivers und ich wieder an dem Theosophischen Kongreß in London teil. Da war denn auch aus Indien Colonel Olcott, der Präsident der Theosophischen Gesellschaft, erschienen. Eine liebenswürdige Persönlichkeit, der man noch ansah, wie sie durch Energie und eine außerordentliche organisatorische Begabung der Blavatsky Genosse sein konnte in der Begründung, Einrichtung und Führung der Theosophischen Gesellschaft. Denn nach außen hin war diese Gesellschaft in kurzer Zeit zu einer großen Körperschaft mit einer vorzüglichen Organisation geworden.
[ 34 ] Marie von Sivers und ich traten für kurze Zeit Mrs. Besant dadurch näher, daß diese in London bei Mrs. Bright wohnte und wir für unsere späteren Londoner Besuche auch in dieses liebenswürdige Haus eingeladen wurden. Mrs. Bright und deren Tochter, Miß Esther Bright, waren die Hausleute. Persönlichkeiten wie die verkörperte Liebenswürdigkeit. Ich denke an die Zeit, die ich in diesem Hause verbringen durfte, mit innerlicher Freude zurück. Brights waren gegenüber Mrs. Besant treuergebene Freunde. Ihr Bestreben war, das Band zwischen dieser und uns enge zu knüpfen. Als es dann unmöglich wurde, daß ich mich an die Seite von Mrs. Besant in gewissen Dingen - von denen einige hier schon besprochen sind - stellte, da war das auch zum Schmerze von Brights, die mit eisernen Banden kritiklos an der geistigen Leiterin der Theosophischen Gesellschaft festhielten.
[ 35 ] Für mich war Mrs. Besant durch gewisse Eigenschaften eine interessante Persönlichkeit. Ich bemerkte an ihr, daß sie ein gewisses Recht habe, von der geistigen Welt aus ihren eigenen inneren Erlebnissen zu sprechen. Das innere Herankommen an die geistige Welt mit der Seele, das hatte sie. Es ist dies nur später überwuchert worden von äußerlichen Zielen, die sie sich stellte.
[ 36 ] Für mich mußte ein Mensch interessant sein, der aus dem Geiste heraus vom Geiste redete. - Aber ich war andrerseits streng in meiner Anschauung, daß in unserer Zeit die Einsicht in die geistige Welt innerhalb der Bewußtseinsseele leben müsse.
[ 37 ] Ich schaute in eine alte Geist-Erkenntnis der Menschheit. Sie hatte einen traumhaften Charakter. Der Mensch schaute in Bildern, in denen die geistige Welt sich offenbarte. Aber diese Bilder wurden nicht durch den Erkenntniswillen in voller Besonnenheit entwickelt. Sie traten in der Seele auf, ihr aus dem Kosmos gegeben wie Träume. Diese alte Geist-Erkenntnis verlor sich im Mittelalter. Der Mensch kam in den Besitz der Bewußtseinsseele. Er hat nicht mehr Erkenntnis-Träume. Er ruft die Ideen in voller Besonnenheit durch den Erkenntniswillen in die Seele herein. - Diese Fähigkeit lebt sich zunächst aus in den Erkenntnissen über die Sinneswelt. Sie erreicht ihren Höhepunkt als Sinnes-Erkenntnis innerhalb der Naturwissenschaft.
[ 38 ] Die Aufgabe einer Geist-Erkenntnis ist nun, in Besonnenheit durch den Erkenntniswillen Ideen-Erleben an die geistige Welt heranzubringen. Der Erkennende hat dann einen Seelen-Inhalt, der so erlebt wird wie der mathematische. Man denkt wie ein Mathematiker. Aber man denkt nicht in Zahlen oder geometrischen Figuren. Man denkt in Bildern der Geist-Welt. Es ist, im Gegensatz zu dem wachträumenden alten Geist-Erkennen, das vollbewußte Drinnenstehen in der geistigen Welt.
[ 39 ] Zu diesem neueren Geist-Erkennen konnte man innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft kein rechtes Verhältnis gewinnen. Man war mißtrauisch, sobald das Vollbewußtsein an die geistige Welt heranwollte. Man kannte eben nur ein Vollbewußtsein für die Sinnenwelt. Man hatte keinen rechten Sinn dafür, dieses bis in das Geist-Erleben fortzuentwickeln. Man ging eigentlich doch darauf aus, mit Unterdrückung des Vollbewußtseins, zu dem alten Traumbewußtsein wieder zurückzukehren. Und dieses Rückkehren war auch bei Mrs. Besant vorhanden. Sie hatte kaum eine Möglichkeit, die moderne Art der Geist-Erkenntnis zu begreifen. Aber was sie von der Geist-Welt sagte, war doch aus dieser heraus. Und so war sie für mich eine interessante Persönlichkeit.
[ 40 ] Weil auch innerhalb der andern Führerschaft der Theosophischen Gesellschaft diese Abneigung gegen vollbewußte Geist-Erkenntnis vorhanden war, konnte ich mich in bezug auf das Geistige in der Gesellschaft nie mit der Seele heimisch fühlen. Gesellschaftlich war ich gerne in diesen Kreisen; aber deren Seelenverfassungen gegenüber dem Geistigen blieben mir fremd.
[ 41 ] Ich war deswegen auch abgeneigt, auf den Kongressen der Gesellschaft in meinen Vorträgen aus meinem eigenen Geist-Erleben heraus zu reden. Ich hielt Vorträge, die auch jemand hätte halten können, der keine eigene Geist-Anschauung hatte. Diese lebte sofort auf in den Vorträgen, die ich nicht innerhalb des Rahmens der Veranstaltungen der Theosophischen Gesellschaft hielt, sondern die herauswuchsen aus dem, was Marie von Sivers und ich von Berlin aus einrichteten.
[ 42 ] Da entstand das Berliner, das Münchener, das Stuttgarter usw. Wirken. Andere Orte schlossen sich an. Da verschwand allmählich das Inhaltliche der Theosophischen Gesellschaft; es erstand, was seine Zustimmung fand durch die innere Kraft, die im Anthroposophischen lebte.
[ 43 ] Ich arbeitete, während in Gemeinschaft mit Marie von Sivers die Einrichtungen für die äußere Wirksamkeit getroffen wurden, meine Ergebnisse der geistigen Schauung aus. Ich hatte ja auf der einen Seite zwar ein vollkommenes Drinnenstehen in der Geist-Welt; aber ich hatte etwa 1902, und für vieles auch noch die folgenden Jahre zwar Imaginationen, Inspirationen und Intuitionen. Doch schlossen sich diese erst allmählich zu dem zusammen, was dann in meinen Schriften vor die Öffentlichkeit trat.
[ 44 ] Durch die Tätigkeit, die Marie von Sivers entfaltete, entstand ganz aus dem Kleinen heraus der philosophischanthroposophische Verlag. Eine kleine Schrift aus Nachschriften von Vorträgen zusammengestellt, die ich in der hier erwähnten Berliner freien Hochschule hielt, war ein erstes Verlagswerk. Die Notwendigkeit, meine «Philosophie der Freiheit», die durch ihren bisherigen Verleger nicht mehr verbreitet werden konnte, zu erwerben und selbst für die Verbreitung zu sorgen, gab ein zweites. Wir kauften die noch vorhandenen Exemplare und die Verlagstechte des Buches auf. - Das alles war für uns nicht leicht. Denn wir waren ohne erhebliche Geldmittel.
[ 45 ] Aber die Arbeit ging vorwärts, wohl gerade deshalb, weil sie sich auf nichts Äußerliches, sondern allein auf den inneren geistigen Zusammenhang stützen konnte.
Chapter XXXII
[ 1 ] There is something painful for me when I repeatedly have to read thoughts of this kind in reflections on anthroposophy today: the world war has created moods in people's souls that are favorable to the rise of all kinds of "mystical" and similar spiritual currents, and when anthroposophy is then also cited among these currents.
[ 2 ] In contrast to this is the fact that the anthroposophical movement was founded at the beginning of the century, and that since this foundation nothing essential has ever been done in it that was not prompted by the inner life of the spirit. Two and a half decades ago I had a content of spiritual impressions within me. I gave them form in lectures, treatises and books. What I did, I did from spiritual impulses. Essentially, every topic is drawn from the spirit. During the war, I also discussed topics that were prompted by contemporary events. But there was no intention to exploit the mood of the times to spread anthroposophy. It happened because people wanted certain contemporary events to be illuminated by the insights that come from the spiritual world.
[ 3 ] Anthroposophy has never striven for anything other than that it should take the course that is possible from its inner power given to it by the spirit. - It is as inaccurate as it is possible to make it out as if it had wanted to gain something from the dark abysses of souls during the war. That the number of those interested in anthroposophy increased after the war, that the anthroposophical society grew in membership, is true; but it should be noted how all these facts have never changed anything in the continuation of the anthroposophical cause in the sense in which it has been carried out since the beginning of the century.
[ 4 ] The form that was to be given to anthroposophy out of the inner spiritual being initially had to prevail against all kinds of resistance from the theosophists in Germany.
[ 5 ] There was above all the question of the justification of the knowledge of the spirit before the "scientific" way of thinking of the time. That this justification is necessary is something I have spoken about several times in this "Lebensgang". I took the way of thinking that was rightly considered "scientific" in the knowledge of nature and developed it for the knowledge of the spirit. As a result, the way of knowing nature became something different for the observation of the spirit than it is for the observation of nature; but it retained the character by which it is to be regarded as "scientific".
[ 6 ] For this kind of scientific organization of the knowledge of the spirit, those personalities who regarded themselves as the bearers of the theosophical movement at the beginning of the century had neither sense nor interest.
[ 7 ] These were the personalities who grouped themselves around Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. As a personal friend of H. P. Blavatsky, he had already founded a theosophical society from Elberfeld in the 1980s. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden then published a journal, the "Sphinx", in which the theosophical world view was to be presented. - The whole movement petered out, and at the time when the German section of the Theosophical Society was founded, there was nothing of it but a number of personalities who, however, regarded me as a kind of intruder into their sphere. - These personalities were waiting for the "scientific justification" of Theosophy by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. They were of the opinion that nothing at all had to be done in this field within German territories before this was available. What I began to do seemed to them to be a disturbance of their "waiting", something quite harmful. But they did not withdraw without further ado, because Theosophy was "their" cause after all; and if something happened in it, they did not want to stand on the sidelines.
[ 8 ] What did they understand by the "scientificity" that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden was supposed to establish, through which Theosophy was to be "proven"? They didn't get involved in anthroposophy at all.
[ 9 ] They understood this to mean the atomistic basis of scientific theorizing and hypothesizing. The phenomena of nature were "explained" by allowing "primordial parts" of the world's substance to group themselves into atoms and these into molecules. A substance existed because it represented a certain structure of atoms in molecules. This way of thinking was regarded as exemplary. Complicated molecules were constructed, which were also supposed to be the basis for the workings of the spirit. Chemical processes were the results of processes within the molecular structure; something similar had to be sought for mental processes.
[ 10 ] For me, this atomism in the interpretation that it receives in "natural science" was already something quite impossible within this; wanting to transfer it into the spiritual seemed to me an aberration of thought that one cannot even talk about in earnest.
[ 11 ] In this area it has always been difficult for my way of justifying anthroposophy. For a long time, certain people have been asserting that theoretical materialism has been overcome. And in this sense anthroposophy is tilting at windmills when it talks about materialism in science. It was always clear to me, however, that the kind of overcoming of materialism that they are talking about is precisely the way to preserve it unconsciously.
[ 12 ] I always cared little about atoms being assumed to be purely mechanical or otherwise effective within material events. It was important to me that the thinking consideration starts from the atomistic - the smallest world formations - and seeks the transition to the organic, to the spiritual. I saw the necessity of starting from the whole. Atoms or atomistic structures can only be results of spiritual effects, of organic effects. - In the spirit of Goethe's view of nature, I wanted to start from the observed original phenomenon, not from a thought construction. I was always deeply convinced by Goethe's words that the factual is already theory, that one should not search behind it. But this implies that one accepts for nature what the senses give, and uses thinking in this field only to get from the complicated, derived phenomena (appearances), which cannot be overlooked, to the simple, to the primal phenomena. Then one notices that in nature one is dealing with color and other sensory qualities, within which spirit is active; but one does not arrive at an atomistic world behind the sensory world. What can be valid from atomism belongs to the sensory world.
[ 13 ] Anthroposophical thinking cannot admit that progress has been made in the understanding of nature in this direction. What can be seen in views such as Mach's, or what has recently emerged in this field, are indeed approaches to abandoning the construction of atoms and molecules; but they show that this construction has become so deeply ingrained in the way of thinking that all reality is lost when it is abandoned. Mach spoke only of concepts as economic summaries of sensory perceptions, no longer of something that lives in a spirit-reality. And the newer ones are no different.
[ 14 ] Therefore, what appears as a fight against theoretical materialism is no less far removed from the spiritual being in which anthroposophy lives than was the materialism of the last third of the nineteenth century. What anthroposophy put forward then against the scientific habits of thought applies today not to a lesser but to a greater extent.
[ 15 ] The descriptions of these things could appear to be theorizing insertions in this "course of life". For me they are not; for what is contained in these arguments was for me experience, the strongest experience, much more significant than what ever came to me from outside.
[ 16 ] As soon as the German section of the Theosophical Society was founded, it seemed necessary to me to have my own journal. So Marie von Sivers and I founded the monthly magazine "Luzifer". At the time, the name was of course not associated with the spiritual power that I later referred to as Lucifer, the antithesis of Ahriman. The content of anthroposophy had not yet been developed to such an extent that it would have been possible to speak of these powers. - The name should simply mean "light bearer".
[ 17 ] Although it was initially my intention to work in harmony with the leadership of the Theosophical Society, from the very beginning I had the feeling: In anthroposophy something must arise that develops from its own germ, without somehow making itself dependent, in terms of content, on what the Theosophical Society had taught. - I could only do that through such a journal. And what I wrote in this journal has indeed grown out of what is today Anthroposophy.
[ 18 ] That is how the German Section came to be founded under Mrs. Besant's protectorate and presence. At that time Mrs. Besant also gave a lecture on the aims and principles of Theosophy in Berlin. A little later we invited Mrs. Besant to give lectures in a number of German cities. These were given in Hamburg, Berlin, Weimar, Munich, Stuttgart and Cologne. - In spite of all this, it was not through any special measures on my part, but through an inner necessity of the matter that the Theosophical came to an end, and the Anthroposophical came to unfold in a development determined by inner conditions.
[ 19 ] Marie von Sivers made all this possible by not only making material sacrifices to the best of her ability, but also by devoting all her labor to Anthroposophy. - In the beginning we were really only able to work from the most primitive conditions. I wrote the largest part of "Lucifer". Marie von Sivers took care of the correspondence. When a number was finished, we took care of making the cross ribbons, addressing, sticking stamps on and both personally carried the numbers to the post office in a washing basket
[ 20 ] The "Lucifer" was soon enlarged when a Mr. Rappaport in Vienna, who published a magazine called "Gnosis", suggested that I merge it with mine. So "Lucifer" then appeared as "Lucifer-Gnosis". Rappaport also carried some of the issues for a while. "Lucifer-Gnosis" made the best possible progress. The magazine spread in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Issues that were already out of print even had to be printed a second time. Nor did it "die out". But the spread of anthroposophy took the form in a relatively short time that I was personally called to give lectures in many cities. In many cases, the individual lectures became lecture cycles. In the beginning I tried to maintain the editing of "Lucifer-Gnosis" alongside this lecture activity. But the issues could no longer appear at the right time, sometimes months too late. And so the strange fact arose that a magazine that was gaining subscribers with every issue could no longer be published simply because the editor was overworked.
[ 21 ] In the monthly magazine "Lucifer-Gnosis" I was able to publish for the first time what became the basis for anthroposophical work. There I first published what I had to say about the efforts the human soul has to make in order to achieve its own visual grasp of the knowledge of the spirit. "How does one attain knowledge of the higher worlds? " appeared in installments from number to number. Likewise, the foundation for anthroposophical cosmology was laid by the continuous essays "From the Akashic Chronicle".
[ 22 ] The anthroposophical movement grew out of what is given here, and not from anything borrowed from the Theosophical Society. In my writings on the knowledge of the spirit, I thought of the teachings customary in the Society only in order to correct what seemed to me to be erroneous in these teachings.
[ 23 ] In this context, I must discuss something that is repeatedly put forward by the opposing side, shrouded in a fog of misunderstanding. For internal reasons, I do not need to talk about it, because it has had no influence on either my development or my public effectiveness. And compared to everything I have to describe here, it has remained a purely "private" matter. It is my admission to the "Esoteric School" existing within the Theosophical Society.
[ 24 ] This "Esoteric School" went back to H.P. Blavatsky. She had created a place for a small inner circle of society in which she communicated what she did not want to say in general society. Like other connoisseurs of the spiritual world, she did not consider it possible to communicate certain deeper teachings to the general public.
[ 25 ] Now all this is related to the way H.P. Blavatsky arrived at her teachings. There has always been a tradition of such teachings going back to ancient mystery schools. This tradition is maintained in all kinds of societies, which keep a strict watch to ensure that nothing of the teachings leaks out of the societies.
[ 26 ] But from some quarter it was deemed appropriate to communicate such teachings to H.P. Blavatsky. She then connected what she received with revelations that arose within herself. For she was a human individuality in whom the spiritual worked through a strange atavism, as it had once worked in the Mystery Guides, in a state of consciousness which, in contrast to the modern one illuminated by the Consciousness Soul, was a dreamlike one. Thus something was renewed in the "Blavatsky Man" that had been native to the Mysteries in ancient times.
[ 27 ] For modern man there is an error-free possibility of deciding what of the content of spiritual vision can be communicated to wider circles. This can be done with everything that the researcher can clothe in such ideas as are peculiar to the soul of consciousness and as they also come into their own in recognized science.
[ 28 ] This is not the case when the knowledge of the spirit does not live in the conscious soul, but in more subconscious powers of the soul. These are not sufficiently independent of the forces at work in the physical. That is why the communication of teachings which are thus drawn from subconscious regions can be dangerous. For such teachings can only be taken up again by the subconscious. And teacher and learner are moving in an area where what is beneficial and what is harmful must be treated very carefully.
[ 29 ] All this is out of the question for anthroposophy because it lifts its teachings entirely out of the unconscious region.
[ 30 ] The inner circle of Blavatsky lived on in the "Esoteric School". - I had placed my anthroposophical work in the Theosophical Society. I therefore had to be informed about everything that was going on within it. For the sake of this information and because I considered it necessary for those who were advanced in the anthroposophical knowledge of the spirit to have a closer circle, I allowed myself to be admitted to the Esoteric School. However, my inner circle was to have a different purpose than this school. It was to be a higher department, a higher class for those who had absorbed enough of the elementary insights of anthroposophy. - Now I wanted to tie in everywhere with what already existed, with what was historically given. Just as I did this with regard to the Theosophical Society, I also wanted to do it with regard to the "Esoteric School". That's why my "inner circle" was initially connected to this school. But the connection lay only in the institutions, not in what I gave as communication from the spirit world. So in the early years my inner circle looked outwardly like a section of Mrs. Besant's "Esoteric School". Inwardly it was not that at all. And in 1907, when Mrs. Besant was with us at the Theosophical Congress in Munich, the outward connection also ceased completely following an agreement between Mrs. Besant and myself.
[ 31 ] It was beyond the realm of possibility that I could have learned anything special within Mrs. Besant's "Esoteric School", because from the very beginning I did not take part in events of this school, except for a few that were intended to inform me about what was going on. There was no real content in the school at that time other than that which came from H.P. Blavatsky, and that was already in print. Apart from this printed material, Mrs. Besant gave all kinds of Indian exercises for the progress of knowledge, but I rejected them.
[ 32 ] So up to 1907 my inner circle was in a sense related to what Mrs. Besant regarded as such a circle. But it is quite unwarranted to make of these facts what opponents have made of them. The absurdity has been asserted that I was only led to the knowledge of the spirit by Mrs. Besant's esoteric school.
[ 33 ] In 1903, Marie von Sivers and I again took part in the Theosophical Congress in London. Colonel Olcott, the President of the Theosophical Society, was there from India. He was an amiable personality, whose energy and extraordinary organizational talent enabled him to be a comrade of Blavatsky in the founding, establishment and leadership of the Theosophical Society. For outwardly, this society had become a large body with an excellent organization in a short time.
[ 34 ] Marie von Sivers and I became close to Mrs. Besant for a short time because she was staying with Mrs. Bright in London and we were invited to this lovely house for our later visits to London. Mrs. Bright and her daughter, Miss Esther Bright, were the landladies. Personalities like that embodied kindness. I think back on the time I was allowed to spend in this house with inner joy. The Brights were devoted friends to Mrs. Besant. They endeavored to make the bond between her and us a close one. When it became impossible for me to take Mrs. Besant's side in certain matters - some of which have already been discussed here - it was also to the pain of the Brights, who clung uncritically to the spiritual leader of the Theosophical Society with iron bands.
[ 35 ] For me, Mrs. Besant was an interesting personality because of certain qualities. I noticed in her that she had a certain right to speak of the spiritual world from her own inner experiences. She had an inner approach to the spiritual world with her soul. This was only later overgrown by external goals that she set herself.
[ 36 ] For me, a person who spoke of the spirit out of the spirit had to be interesting. - But on the other hand, I was strict in my view that in our time, insight into the spiritual world had to live within the consciousness soul.
[ 37 ] I looked into an old spiritual realization of mankind. It had a dreamlike character. Man saw in images in which the spiritual world revealed itself. But these images were not developed through the will to knowledge in full contemplation. They appeared in the soul, given to it from the cosmos like dreams. This ancient spiritual knowledge was lost in the Middle Ages. Man came into possession of the soul of consciousness. He no longer has dreams of knowledge. He calls the ideas into the soul in full deliberation through the will to know. - This faculty first expresses itself in the knowledge of the sense world. It reaches its peak as sense knowledge within the natural sciences.
[ 38 ] The task of spiritual cognition is now to prudently bring the experience of ideas to the spiritual world through the will to cognize. The cognizer then has a soul content that is experienced in the same way as the mathematical content. One thinks like a mathematician. But you do not think in numbers or geometric figures. One thinks in images of the spirit world. It is, in contrast to the waking dreaming old spirit cognition, the fully conscious standing inside the spiritual world.
[ 39 ] The Theosophical Society was unable to establish a proper relationship with this newer spirit-recognition. They were suspicious as soon as full consciousness tried to approach the spiritual world. They only knew a full consciousness for the sense world. There was no real sense of developing this further into the spiritual experience. The idea was actually to return to the old dream-consciousness by suppressing the full consciousness. And this return was also present in Mrs. Besant. She had hardly any possibility of understanding the modern way of spirit-knowledge. But what she said about the spirit world was out of it. And so she was an interesting personality for me.
[ 40 ] Because this aversion to fully conscious spirit knowledge was also present within the other leadership of the Theosophical Society, I could never feel at home with the soul in relation to the spiritual in the Society. Socially, I liked being in these circles; but their soul's attitude towards the spiritual remained alien to me.
[ 41 ] I was therefore also reluctant to speak from my own spiritual experience in my lectures at the society's congresses. I gave lectures that could also have been given by someone who had no personal view of the spirit. This immediately came to life in the lectures, which I did not give within the framework of the events of the Theosophical Society, but which grew out of what Marie von Sivers and I set up from Berlin.
[ 42 ] That's where the Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, etc., came from. work. Other places followed. Gradually the content of the Theosophical Society disappeared; there arose that which found its approval through the inner force that lived in anthroposophy.
[ 43 ] I worked out the results of my spiritual vision while the arrangements for external activity were being made with Marie von Sivers. On the one hand, I had a complete inner standing in the spirit world; but I did have imaginations, inspirations and intuitions around 1902, and for many of the following years as well. However, these only gradually coalesced into what then came before the public in my writings.
[ 44 ] Through the activities that Marie von Sivers developed, the philosophical-anthroposophical publishing house emerged entirely from the small. A small publication compiled from transcripts of lectures that I gave at the Berlin Free University mentioned here was a first publishing work. The need to acquire my "Philosophy of Freedom", which could no longer be distributed by its previous publisher, and to ensure its own distribution, gave rise to a second. We bought up the remaining copies and the publishing rights to the book. - None of this was easy for us. Because we were without considerable funds.
[ 45 ] But the work progressed, probably precisely because it could not rely on anything external, but solely on the inner spiritual context.