The Rudolf Steiner Archive

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.