Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Community Life, Inner Development, Sexuality and the Spiritual Teacher
GA 253

10 September 1915, Dornach

I. Requirements of Our Life together in the Anthroposophical Society

My Dear Friends! Movements such as our spiritual scientific movement have always been fostered in such a way that something that was to be impressed upon the spiritual culture of the times, or on culture in general, was first cultivated on the level of some formal social organization or society. And since the conditions of human interaction are the same today as they have been throughout history, it is also necessary for us, to a certain extent, to cultivate our spiritual scientific strivings within the framework of a formal organization.

Now, it has been the experience of almost all such organizations that it is difficult, at least in actual practice, to understand the concept of the society needed to foster a particular spiritual current like this. Time and again we're presented with evidence that there are very many people who actually do not like having to join a society. They admit that they feel uncomfortable about joining such a society; they would prefer to absorb its spiritual wealth through reading or listening to lectures not bound to any organized society, or through still other means. Only this morning, for example, I received a letter to that effect.

The kinds of reasons people give for taking this position have to be taken seriously. But let me emphasize again that a spiritual movement like this one is of necessity very different in its impulses and its whole way of thinking, feeling, and doing from the thinking, feeling, and doing of the other people around it. Therefore, to introduce such a movement to humanity with no help from a formal organization would be much more difficult than to do this by means of a society whose members are preparing, through their interactions and their ongoing absorption of spiritual scientific thoughts and concepts, to be a kind of tool or instrument for disseminating our spiritual science. As a consequence, however, the concept of a society of this kind has to be taken extremely seriously, because in quite practical terms this society has to become a vehicle for the spiritual current in question.

You need only look at our own Society as an example and examine how different it is from other societies, associations, or organizations that people have called into existence. This difference will be particularly noticeable if you keep one thing in mind. Just suppose that recent events confronting us had made us entertain the thought of disbanding the Anthroposophical Society as such. Let's assume hypothetically that we wanted to dissolve the Society because of problems within it. Now, if the Anthroposophical Society were simply an organization like many others, of course it would be possible to simply dissolve it, set something else up in its place, and eliminate the disgraceful circumstances in the process.

However, our Anthroposophical Society is different in a very significant respect from other organizations or societies founded on the basis of some program with a certain number of points and statutes. That kind of society can be dissolved at any moment. If we were to dissolve the Anthroposophical Society, however, it would not be dissolved in actual fact. As the Anthroposophical Society, as a society existing on behalf of a spiritual scientific movement, we are different from other societies in that our Society is founded, not on a program of abstract and therefore unreal points, but on something very real. Our basis is a real one.

Just look at the fact that each member of the Anthroposophical Society is entitled to have access to our lecture cycles, while other people are not.1In Stuttgart on September 4, 1921, at the first Members' Assembly after World War I, Rudolf Steiner addressed the question of the lecture cycles as follows: “Actually, every member has taken on the responsibility of seeing that the cycles stay within the Society. I am not so concerned about the cycles being read outside the Society; what matters to me is that these cycles in the form in which they were printed stay among people who understand the circumstances, because lack of time kept me from correcting the proofs.” (Mitteilungen des Zentralvorstandes der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, Stuttgart, November 1921, No. 1, p. 27). And in The Course of My Life, GA 28, (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1986): “I would have preferred it if the spoken word could have been left in that form, the members wanted to have the lectures printed privately, and that is why the talks now exist in print. If I had had time to make corrections, there would have been no need for the 'for members only' restriction right from the beginning.” (Chapter XXXV, Anthroposophic Press, 1986).
However, since the members did not feel bound by this responsibility and Steiner's opponents in their writings often showed themselves to be better informed about the lecture cycles than the members themselves, Rudolf Steiner was obliged to lift all restrictions and declare the printed lecture cycles available to the general public at the Christmas Foundation Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in 1923.
That's a very real basis, because dissolving the Anthroposophical Society would do so in name only; it would not do away with the fact that a certain number of people are in possession of these cycles. And it is an equally real fact that a certain number of people are carrying a specific wealth of wisdom in their heads. I cannot tell exactly how great the percentage is of people who have the things we talk about in their heads—in contrast to those who only have them in “visions”—but that's not the important thing as far as the Society is concerned. It remains a reality that a certain wealth of wisdom, a sum total of things that really exist, are present in the hearts and minds of people who have belonged to the Anthroposophical Society until now. That cannot be taken away from them even by dissolving the Society.

So the Anthroposophical Society is different from other societies in that it will not tolerate any figments of the imagination in its organization, but is constructed on the basis of reality. Thus, dissolving it would have absolutely no immediate effect on its continued existence as far as reality is concerned. Our Society compares to other societies and organizations as something real compares to things that are merely thought out. We must keep this weighty difference in mind in order to understand the concept of our Society in the right way. And it is only because a large number of members have counted, more or less consciously, on our Society's solid grounding in reality, on its basis in something more than programmatic points, that we see an institute of higher learning for spiritual science being built on this hill, a building that will further enhance our connection to something real.

It would be possible for some group of dreamers to get together and decide not to wear collars and ties, to wear only sandals on their feet, and perhaps to simplify life in other ways by disregarding certain other social conventions or “prejudices,” as they might call them. (I have chosen a hypothetical example so that no one present needs to feel put on the spot.) Disbanding a group like that would not change anything significant. But we are not simply a group of dreamers; we are different in that we are fully aware of the weight and importance of our grounding in reality.

Without getting into splitting hairs, we also need to distinguish between the concept of a society such as the one in which we develop a specific spiritual teaching, and that of a club or similar organization. We have to admit that the appropriate concept of a such a society eludes many of us when we think about the conditions of our life in this Society, and we are left contemplating the concept of a club or similar organization. In that kind of organization, statutes and conditions are set up that have to be met. In a Society like ours, however, that is not enough. It is different from a club in much more than name only.

In our Society, the important thing, as I have explained several times in the last few weeks, is that the concept of the society really be taken seriously.2See the explanations Steiner gave on August 21 and 22, 1915, printed in Part Two of this volume. This means that all members must be aware that belonging to the Society involves more than simply receiving membership cards and being entitled to call themselves members of the Society. In fact, they are all organs of the Society. Because of that, something subtle and yet very specific has to live among the members, something for which each member should feel a certain responsibility. As individuals, they must be aware of both the obvious and subtler needs and well-being of other members of the Society, and experienced members must be ready and willing to use their experience in supporting those who have joined more recently. These more experienced members do not necessarily have to reveal their experience; after all, what matters is how they apply their experience in daily life.

The word “trust” often comes up in this connection. In the course of a lecture I gave a few weeks ago, I explained that we do not need to have trust in our teachings, because these teachings will try to justify our confidence in them through every single practical measure they give rise to.3August 22, 1915, in Part Two of this volume, p. 144. However, we do need to try to have trust in each other and to make sure that trust is justified. We must try to bring about real connections between members. It goes a long way toward developing the kind of “ideal aura” necessary in a Society such as ours if each experienced member, without snooping around like a spy or a detective—that is, without violating anyone's privacy—can really keep an eye on the ups and downs of only ten other members, and do it without having to tell them they are considered less experienced. Of course, it's impossible to legislate trust; it has to be earned. Our more experienced members need to make a concerted effort to win the trust of those who have been in the Society for only a short time.

Such things have been mentioned often in the course of our Society's years of activity, but it has never been as necessary to speak about them as it is here and now. When members of the Anthroposophical Society were scattered among the rest of the population in various cities, that was a very different state of affairs from so many of us living here on top of each other, on display for everyone else, so to speak. This situation makes it imperative that we take a long and serious look at the basic premises of how we live together in the Society.

Of course, a society such as ours will never be able to please all the people living outside it. It will never be able to prevent some of these people from indulging in all kinds of slander, ridicule, unjustified attacks, and so on. But that's not the point; what I am going to say now is independent of all that. The important thing is that the members of the Society really do everything possible in each single instance to show up the attacks as unjustified and lacking any basis in fact. To do this, we have to look at details, my friends. It's not enough to just pay attention to the major issues in our outer life. We have to be equally aware of the little things.

For instance, if some of our members are sitting among other people on the trolley on the way back to Basel at night, and they talk loudly about every little twinge in their ether body, that is not exactly a crime. If someone criticizes them for it, we might well reply, “So what? Is it all that important?” In fact, however, it is really very important because it puts the dignity and seriousness of our movement in question. Thus, even though such incidents are only trifling matters, they ought to be avoided. We ought to start reforming ourselves wherever that change can have a real effect. Above all, we have to realize that when we talk in front of other people about things only we can understand, those people will not be able to avoid getting wrong impressions.

We can assume that we know what we are talking about when we speak about the ether body, but the people who may be listening do not. They may be in the same situation as a maid whom some of my closer acquaintances know well. This woman worked for anthroposophists, and because she was interested in finding out what anthroposophy was all about, she attended an introductory course given by one of our members, and came home saying, “Well, I learned that I have four bodies, not just one. But I have this tiny little room and a very narrow bed, and now I don't know how all those bodies are going to fit in!” This is a true story. It took place in the house of people I know quite well. So you see, people who hear you talking about all the little twinges of your ether body will naturally think that you're talking about the ether body as if it were a physical body; thus, you are actually leading them astray and keeping them from developing any closer connection to our movement.

That's why it is important for us to learn to take the things we talk about seriously and precisely. Even if they are only minor matters in themselves, they can raise a virtual wall of prejudices around us, and that can and should be avoided. In a society like this, it is important for us to learn to speak really precisely, or else it may gradually become impossible to foster what should be fostered within this Society.

Today I feel compelled to mention a number of things that will probably seem totally superfluous to most of you, simply because the natural response is, “Well, what is that supposed to mean—we need to be precise in our way of speaking? Of course we do.” But just keep your eyes and ears open next time something happens somewhere or other, when something has been said and one person passes it on to the next. If you really pay close attention to whether or not things are being presented accurately, in many instances you will easily notice the deviation from what is strictly accurate. When something someone has heard or seen gets passed on to the next person and then to the next, and so on, what comes out can be a monstrous caricature of what actually happened or was actually said. This experience is all too common in our Society.

We have to take into account that, in a spiritual scientific movement, we can work constructively only if we get used to being exact, to really understanding things precisely. Spiritual science forces us to focus spiritually on things that have nothing to do with the outer physical world, and in order to develop the right relationship to them, we need a counterbalance of some kind. The only suitable counterbalance is to approach things on the physical plane as realistically as possible. After all, accuracy belongs to reality.

Some time ago I gave a public lecture in Munich that really startled a number of people.4“The Origin of Evil in the Light of Spiritual Science,” Munich, March 29, 1914. Only incomplete notes of this lecture are extant. Its subject was the nature of evil. In that lecture, I explained that the forces at work in evil on the physical plane are in a sense nothing else but forces that have been transferred from higher planes of existence to the physical plane. Certain forces that can lead us to recognize and master the spiritual if applied up there in the spiritual world can turn to evil down here in the physical world.

The force that enables us to understand the spiritual world belongs only in the spiritual world; this same force causes all kinds of harm if it is directly and thoughtlessly transferred to the physical plane. For what is the nature of this force? It consists in making one's thinking independent of the physical plane. When this capacity is applied to the physical plane itself, it turns into deceit and dishonesty. Thus, people who were called upon to disseminate spiritual science have always seen great danger in doing so, because what is needed for understanding higher planes of existence is harmful when applied directly to the physical world.

That is why a counterbalance is needed: in order to keep our ability to understand the spiritual world suitably pure and beautiful, we must develop our feeling for truth and exactitude in the physical world as thoroughly as possible. If we do not count on exactitude on the physical plane, then in a so-called occult society certain tendencies developed through spiritual scientific practices immediately mingle inappropriately with the very lowest aspects of the physical plane.

Let's look at ordinary materialistic society in a broader sense of the word. As you know—or you may have heard about it even if you have no firsthand knowledge of it—there are certain social circles where gossip prevails. At least from hearsay, you will be aware that this gossip or tittle-tattle is going on, that it prevails in ordinary materialistic bourgeois society. The quality of this gossip is usually not very high and much can be said against it, but at least for the most part no esoteric contents get mixed up with it. But when gossip is the general rule in an occult society, esoteric ideas are the first to get drawn into it.

I hope it is possible to really talk about things like this in our circle, because it should be possible to say something within our Society without having it immediately spread abroad in places where it is then misunderstood. Our experiences in this regard, however, are also not the best, and if they continue, we will indeed have to organize our Society differently. Things that are said within the Society have to remain in the Society in the strictest sense of the word, because it really must be possible from time to time to say things that could not simply be said casually outside our Society.

Of course, in our Society we often have to talk about the karmic relationships between people. It may well be that such relationships exist—in fact, of course they exist—but if we continually get our views on karma mixed up with our ordinary everyday relationships, we are not taking the concept of truthfulness literally enough, and the result is not only nonsensical but also harmful. Truthfulness is a concept that has to be applied extremely strictly.

I can think of any number of cases in esoteric circles, both inside and outside our Society, where subjective matters that take place as a matter of course on the physical plane have been studded and embellished with esoteric truths. Let me mention one extreme example that may not happen very frequently in our Society, but it is one of the things that can be experienced. Indeed, it has happened numerous times.

Many people have learned about reincarnation, and they have also learned that Christ was alive on Earth at a certain point in time. I have experienced more than once that women who have become aware of these two spiritual facts—reincarnation and Christ's incarnation—have in all seriousness imagined that they have been chosen to give birth to the Christ and have attempted to arrange their lives to make this possible. It is unpleasant to have to mention these things and call a spade a spade, but we must do it to protect the Society, which we can do only if we don't close our eyes to the harm people can cause by applying occult truths on the physical plane.

Granted, the case I just mentioned is extreme, but it has happened not only once, but over and over again. I have described it drastically because things like this happen very frequently on a smaller scale, and it is important to notice the minor instances as well as the more blatant ones. Of course, it is a major issue if someone thinks she is going to give birth to the Christ, because the consequences can be extremely unfortunate. On a smaller scale, however, things like this are happening again and again.

Now, in ordinary bourgeois life, it happens that people fall in love, that a man falls in love with a woman. People simply call it “falling in love,” and that's the plain and simple truth. In esoteric societies men and women also fall in love; the possibility cannot be ruled out, as some of you know from experience. But in that case, what you hear about it is not as simple as, “X has fallen in love with Y.” Ordinary people just say that they're going together, which is usually a very accurate description as outward observation goes. But in esoteric societies, what you hear about it often goes something like this: “Having thoroughly examined my karma, I find that another personality has entered it, and we have realized that karma has destined us to be with each other and to intervene in the destiny of the world in a particular way.”

People fail to notice how much deception has crept in between this assertion and the simple matter of falling in love. This deception has developed in the following way: In bourgeois materialistic society, it's considered quite normal for two people to fall in love. But in an esoteric society, this is often not considered normal; instead, it is something people feel slightly ashamed of. But people do not like to feel ashamed. We don't need to go into why that is the case; there can be any number of reasons. People simply do not like to feel ashamed, so instead, they say that karma has spoken and has to be obeyed. Of course they are not acting out of pure selfishness or pure emotion—far from it; karma has to be obeyed! But if they were truthful, they would just admit that they have fallen in love, and having admitted it, they would find their way through life much more readily than by getting the truth mixed up with all kinds of karmic nonsense. The basic mischief of embellishing personal matters with esoteric truths leads to ever greater harm because it makes people lose their inner sense of limits, the limits we have to accept when we adopt a spiritual scientific philosophy.

This is not to say that we should introduce the worst principles of uncultured circles into our Society. In certain social circles, it is said that being human begins with being a baron. We must not establish our own version of this by saying that being human begins with being either a spiritual scientist or an anthroposophist—with being an “anthropop,” as others are starting to call it. We must not do that. We have to admit that even before we became spiritual scientists, we were people with certain ways of looking at things, people who would have done certain things and abstained from others.

In the very early days of our movement, I pointed out how important it is that we do not use our spiritual scientific views to sink down below our earlier level of moral standards, but that we must rise above it in all respects. That is why I said many years ago that when we entered the Society, each of us was equipped with a certain stock of moral standards and habitual ways of doing things, and that we should allow these habits to remain as they are until some clear and incontrovertible inner necessity compels us to change them. Generally, this happens only much later on. It can be extremely detrimental if, after having learned a little bit from spiritual science, we take what we have learned and use it to excuse or embellish what we do in life. You have to be perfectly clear on one point, my friends, namely that the outer circumstances of our life also come about through karma of a certain kind. And how people out in the world think and act is also a matter of karma.

Now, as you know, I prefer to talk about concrete cases because they are the most telling. For example, the following once happened to me: Not long ago, I was sitting in a barber shop—excuse me for talking about things like this, but what I'm going to tell you is not all that indiscreet or intimate. I was sitting in front of the mirror, so I could see the people as they came and went. The door opened, and in came a man who had on some kind of shoes that were nothing more than pieces of soft leather tied together; above that, he was wearing leggings and some kind of cape-like garment draped at a coquettish angle. In addition, his hair was swept back with some kind of a headband. Coincidentally, as it were, I knew the man very well.5Gustav Gräser, 1879–1958, who became well known as an apostle of nature in the 1920s. Cf. Ulrich Linse, Barfüssige Propheten. Erlöser der zwanziger Jahre, Berlin, 1983. (“Barefoot Prophets: Redeemers of the Twenties”) Rudolf Steiner mentioned Gräser in a letter to Marie von Sivers on January 6, 1906 (in Rudolf Steiner/Marie Steiner-von Sivers, Correspondence and Documents 1901–1925, GA 262, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1988), saying that Gräser had attended a lecture of Rudolf Steiner's and taken part in the discussion afterward.

The barber let go of the razor he had just started to apply to my face and bought something from the man for five pennies. He showed it to me once the man had gone out—it was a poem he had composed himself. It was a simply terrible poem, but that man was going around the streets and stores in that get-up, selling the thing and imagining himself to be infinitely superior to all the people around him. He thought he was following some great ideal, but in reality he was only following an exaggerated and hysterical form of vanity. The basic impulse behind his conduct, his whole way of being, was nothing more than a gross exaggeration of the principle at work among the vainest and most superficial ladies.

But just consider how many among us might once have been tempted—for courtesy's sake, I will not suggest that they might still be tempted today—to say that in his own way, that man was only trying to do the right thing. True enough, but it was still absolute and total nonsense, and bound to make a mess of a person's life if he made it the principle of a lifetime. We have to realize to what extent vanity can be a motivating factor in what people do, and how difficult it is to notice it. If we take seriously what we can gain from spiritual science and accept it with respect, we have to admit that vanity is a very strong force in that man. If we do something or other out of vanity, not to mention other drives and impulses, other people are offended, though not necessarily for the reasons we might suspect. Nonetheless, there is a connection between ourselves and what other people say about us, a connection that is very easy to find if we look carefully. And we can only get beyond things like that if we develop a strict sense of exactitude as a counterbalance, an attitude we also need for understanding esoteric truths.

Although it's only a detail and no major issue, in esotericism it is extremely important to know and to observe, when people are recounting things, whether they are recounting their own observations and thus have a right to be talking about them as facts, or whether they are passing on things they heard from someone else. We must be able to tell the difference. But in hundreds of cases, people say things to others who in turn tell someone else, but in such a way that the person third in line gets the impression that they are not simply passing on something they've heard, but are talking about their own direct experience and have a right to be talking about it as if it were actual fact. This lack of precision is less important in ordinary materialistic society than it is among us. In materialistic circles, it may be pedantic to be so precise in how one speaks, but in our Society, more so than anywhere else, we need to observe such things strictly and exactly. And above all, we need to make a practice of being precise about ourselves.

If any of you need to be convinced of the implications of what I am saying, you are welcome to make the following experiment: Choose some topic—vegetarianism, for example—and observe how certain adherents of spiritual science talk about this topic in the outside world. Make a chart, and each time you hear spiritual scientists telling other people that they are vegetarians, jot down the reasons they give. It will soon become clear that on the subject of vegetarianism, adherents of spiritual science often say absolutely scandalous things to people in the outside world. When the outside world then comes to the conclusion that we are a society of fools, it should come as no great surprise.

In anthroposophical circles, I have frequently mentioned a very simple way of responding to the question of why you are a vegetarian without antagonizing people around you. If someone asks why you are a vegetarian, and you know that person would never eat horse meat, you simply respond with the question, “Well, why don't you eat horse meat?” Now the two of you are on the same footing, and the person who has to give a reason for not eating horse meat will probably not come up with any highly theoretical reasons, but will say something like “The thought of it makes me sick.” Then you can say, “That's just how any meat makes me feel.” And as long as you say this in an appropriately conciliatory way, people will understand your point of view. The main thing is not to let the other person get the impression that you feel superior because of not eating meat. You might still want to add, although only if you can honestly admit it to yourself, that you are too weak to eat meat; you're handicapped when it comes to eating meat. When this question has come up, I myself have often said that a lot of things are simply easier to get through if you don't eat meat. Meat weighs people down, and if you need to use your brain in a precise way, it is simply easier to do if you don't eat meat. In the end, it all comes down to the question of what is easier and more convenient.

I have often emphasized that it is impossible to eat your way into the higher worlds, either through what you eat or through what you abstain from eating. Achieving access to spiritual worlds is a spiritual matter, and both eating and abstaining from food are physical matters. If this were not the case, people might get grotesque ideas about what would happen if they did or did not eat certain foods. It might occur to them to eat salt one week and no salt at all the next week in order to descend to the depths of the elemental world during the week when they were eating salt and come back up again in the course of the week when they were doing without. It's quite possible for people to get stupid ideas like that. In our Society, of course, people will not get ideas that are as stupid as that, but similar things might still occur to them.

But to get back to the subject of vegetarianism, if we are as modest as possible in how we discuss it in the presence of outsiders, we will find that eventually no one will hold the fact that we are vegetarians against us. On the other hand, if we consider vegetarianism to be something to our credit, the outside world will never forgive us for it. And in fact, being vegetarian is not a credit to anyone; it is simply an easy way out.

There are many other similar examples, and we really have to talk about things like this, not to preach morality, but to establish certain basic principles for our life in an esoteric society vis-à-vis the outside world. What it all comes down to is that we need to seriously consider how we relate to the outside world, and the result of our deliberations must be both a bridge and a protective wall between us and the outside, especially in the case of a society like ours. It happens again and again, for instance, that members say to people on the outside, “Dr. Steiner said this and such.” Just put yourself in the place of the person you're talking to, and imagine what it feels like!

For example, if someone says that Dr. Steiner is taking so-and-so's spiritual development in hand, how are outsiders supposed to understand that? What can they possibly imagine except a society of fools who all subordinate themselves to a single individual? That kind of thing really does happen. I cannot even pretend that it does not occur. And just imagine what it means to the outside world. We really must talk about these things from the point of view of how a society should be set up if a spiritual scientific movement like ours is to inhabit it. First and foremost, we must take this spiritual scientific movement seriously, and we must not do anything that could be detrimental to it in the eyes of the outside world.

I will go into this subject more deeply tomorrow, and you will see how intimately this all relates to certain specific impulses of spiritual science. I do not want to simply lecture you sternly; I want to explain how these things relate to the central impulses of spiritual science.

Erster Vortrag

Voraussetzungen und Bedingungen des Zusammenlebens in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft

Meine lieben Freunde! Bewegungen wie unsere geisteswissenschaftliche wurden immer so gepflegt, daß versucht wurde, dasjenige, was der Geisteskultur oder der Kultur überhaupt einzuprägen war, zunächst auf dem Wege einer gesellschaftlichen Vereinigung, einer Gesellschaft zu pflegen. Und so wie eben einmal die Verhältnisse im menschlichen Zusammenleben, in der menschlichen Entwickelung von althergebracht auch heute noch sind, liegt ja eine gewisse Notwendigkeit vor, dasjenige, was wir als unsere geisteswissenschaftlichen Bestrebungen anerkennen, auf dem Wege einer Gesellschaft zu pflegen.

Nun ist es eine Erfahrung, die im Grunde genommen alle solche Gesellschaften gemacht haben, daß der Begriff der Gesellschaft, wie er zur Pflege gerade einer solchen Geistesströmung notwendig ist, nicht leicht, wenigstens praktisch nicht leicht verstanden wird. Denn immer wieder und wiederum erhält man Beweise dafür, daß es sehr viele Menschen gibt - erst heute morgen erhielt ich zum Beispiel einen dahingehenden Brief -, die sagen: sie lieben es eigentlich nicht, sich einer solchen Gemeinschaft anzuschließen, sie möchten das entsprechende Geistesgut lieber auf dem Wege der Lektüre oder durch Anhören von freien, nicht an eine Gesellschaft gebundenen Vorträgen oder auf andere Weise entgegennehmen; es sei ihnen unbehaglich, sich einer solchen Gesellschaft anzuschließen.

Oftmals sind die Gründe, die diese Menschen vorbringen, so, daß man schon etwas auf sie geben kann. Aber man muß doch immer wieder sagen: Wenn eine solche geistige Bewegung - die sich notwendigerweise in ihren Impulsen, in ihrer ganzen Art des Denkens, Fühlens und Wollens stark unterscheidet von dem Denken, Fühlen und Wollen der Menschen der Umwelt - ohne eine solche Gesellschaft in die Menschheit gebracht werden sollte, so wäre dies unendlich viel schwieriger als durch eine Gesellschaft, in der sich die Mitglieder eben in einem entsprechenden Zusammenleben durch das fortwährende Entgegennehmen der geisteswissenschaftlichen Begriffe und Vorstellungen vorbereiten können, um eine Art Instrument, eine Art Werkzeug für die Verbreitung einer solchen Geisteswissenschaft, einer geistigen Strömung zu sein. Daraus aber folgt dann auch, daß der Begriff einer solchen Gesellschaft im höchsten Grade ernst zu nehmen ist, denn sie soll sich eben - und zwar praktisch als ein Instrument für die betreffende geistige Strömung erweisen.

Nun brauchen Sie, meine lieben Freunde, ja nur unsere Gesellschaft als solche ins Auge zu fassen, und Sie werden an unserer Gesellschaft studieren können, wie verschieden sie als Gesellschaft von anderen Gesellschaften oder Vereinen ist, die ins Leben gerufen werden. Sie werden diesen Unterschied bemerken, namentlich dann, wenn Sie einen bestimmten Gedanken ins Auge fassen.

Nehmen Sie einmal an, bestimmte Vorgänge, wie sie ja in der letzten Zeit an unsere Seelen herangetreten sind, könnten uns in irgendeiner Weise den Gedanken nahelegen, die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft als solche aufzulösen. Nehmen wir als Hypothese an, man wolle, weil sich Mißstände in der Gesellschaft ergeben haben, die Gesellschaft auflösen. Nun, wenn die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft ein Verein wie viele Vereine wäre, so könnte man sie selbstverständlich ohne weiteres auflösen und irgend etwas anderes an die Stelle setzen, worin diese Mißstände abgeschafft wären. Aber in etwas Gewichtigem unterscheidet sich eben unsere Anthroposophische Gesellschaft von anderen Vereinen oder Gesellschaften, die sehr häufig gegründet werden auf Grundlage eines Programms mit soundso vielen Programm- und Statutenpunkten. Eine solche Gesellschaft kann man in jedem Augenblick auflösen. Aber, meine lieben Freunde, wenn wir die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft auflösen würden, so wäre sie gar nicht aufgelöst. Wir haben gar nicht so wie andere Gesellschaften und Vereine die Möglichkeit, die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft so ohne weiteres aufzulösen. Denn wir unterscheiden uns als Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, die eine Gesellschaft für eine geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung ist, von anderen Gesellschaften gerade dadurch, daß wir nicht auf Programmpunkte, das heißt nicht auf Irreales, bloß Gedachtes, sondern uns auf Reales begründen, auf einer wirklichen Basis stehen. Und nehmen Sie nur die äußerste reale Basis, die darinnen besteht, daß jedes Mitglied der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft berechtigt ist, unsere Zyklen zu beziehen, während die anderen Menschen nicht dazu berechtigt sind, dann werden Sie sich sagen: In dem Augenblick, wo wir die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft nominell auflösen würden, hätten wir ja die Tatsache, daß soundso viele Menschen unsere Zyklen in Händen haben, nicht aus der Welt geschafft.

Und ein weiteres Reales ist ja, daß soundso viele Menschen ein gewisses Weisheitsgut in ihren Köpfen haben. Ich weiß zwar nicht, wie hoch der Prozentsatz derjenigen ist, die die Dinge, die hier vorgetragen werden, in ihren Köpfen haben, zum Unterschied von denjenigen, die sie nur in «Visionen» haben; aber das ist ja für die Gesellschaft nicht das Wesentliche. Ein anderes Reales also ist das, daß ein gewisses Weisheitsgut, einfach eine Summe von Dingen realer Art in den Herzen, in den Köpfen, in den Seelen derjenigen Menschen sind, die bisher zur Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gehört haben. Das kann ihnen durch eine Auflösung der Gesellschaft nicht weggenommen werden.

Dadurch also unterscheidet sich die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft von anderen Gesellschaften, daß sie in ihrem Gefüge kein Phantastisches duldet, sondern auf einer realen Basis errichtet ist, so daß die Maßnahme der Auflösung an dem realen Bestand, der da ist, augenblicklich nicht das Allergeringste ändern würde. Das Schwerwiegende der Tatsache, daß sich unsere Gesellschaft zu anderen Gesellschaften und Vereinen verhält wie eine Realität zu einem bloß Gedachten, müssen wir uns vor Augen führen, wenn wir den Begriff unserer Gesellschaft in der richtigen Weise fassen wollen. Denn nur dadurch, meine lieben Freunde, daß eine große Anzahl von Mitgliedern gerechnet haben - sei es mehr oder weniger bewußt oder nur dem Gefühle nach — mit dieser soliden, realen, nicht bloß auf Programmpunkten begründeten Basis unserer Gesellschaft, ist dasjenige zustande gekommen, was wir hier auf diesem Hügel sich erheben sehen: der Bau einer geisteswissenschaftlichen Hochschule, durch den wir des weiteren als an ein Reales in einer gewissen Weise gebunden sind. Nicht wahr, wenn sich eine Anzahl Phantasten zusammenfinden und beschließen - ich will, damit niemand getroffen wird, ein Hypothetisches bloß annehmen -, keine Kragen und keine Schlipse zu tragen, vielleicht auch noch in einer anderen Weise das Leben zu vereinfachen, irgendwelche sonstigen sozialen Grundsätze oder — wie sie sie vielleicht nennen - «Vorurteile» nicht einzuhalten, nur in Sandalen zu gehen und dergleichen mehr, so könnte man ja jederzeit wieder auseinandergehen, ohne daß dadurch etwas Wesentliches geändert würde. Aber wir wollen uns von einer Anzahl von Phantasten ja gerade dadurch unterscheiden, daß wir das ganze Schwerwiegende unserer realen Grundlage ins Auge fassen.

Und noch ein weiteres, meine lieben Freunde, ist, daß wir — ohne dabei etwa in Wortklauberei zu verfallen - unterscheiden müssen den Begriff einer Gesellschaft, innerhalb welcher wir unser Geistesgut pflegen wollen, von einem Verein. Und da muß wirklich gesagt werden, daß manchem von uns, wenn er nur über die Bedingungen unseres gesellschaftlichen Daseins nachdenkt, sogleich der Gesellschaftsbegriff entschlüpft und der Vereinsbegriff vor seinem geistigen Auge steht. In einem Verein wird man in der Regel Paragraphen, Bedingungen usw. aufstellen, die beobachtet werden müssen. In einer Gesellschaft wie der unsrigen genügt das nicht. Sie kann sich nicht bloß dem Worte nach von einem Verein unterscheiden. In unserer Gesellschaft handelt es sich darum - und ich habe das schon einmal in den letzten Wochen auseinandergesetzt -, daß wirklich der Begriff der Gesellschaft ernst genommen wird. Das heißt, daß jeder sich bewußt ist, er gehört der Gesellschaft nicht nur insofern an, als er seine Mitgliedskarte erhalten hat und den Titel Mitglied der Gesellschaft führt, sondern daß er ein Glied der Gesellschaft ist. Das begründet aber wirklich durch den Begriff der Gesellschaft selber etwas, was wie ein Unbestimmtes und doch sehr Bestimmtes unter den Mitgliedern leben muß, so leben muß, daß der einzelne es bis zu einer bestimmten Verpflichtung fühlt, daß dieses Unbestimmte und doch Bestimmte lebt. Das heißt, daß der einzelne wirklich ein Auge hat für das nähere oder fernere Wohl der anderen Mitglieder der Gesellschaft und daß derjenige, der ein erfahrenes Mitglied der Gesellschaft ist - was er ja nicht immer zu verraten braucht, nicht wahr, man kann das ganz bei sich behalten, denn es kommt auf die Art und Weise an, wie man die Erfahrungen anwendet und auslebt -, daß derjenige, der ein erfahrenes Mitglied der Gesellschaft ist, mit seiner Erfahrung den weniger Erfahrenen wirklich zur Seite steht.

Es wird so oftmals das Wort «Vertrauen» gebraucht. Ich habe ja in einer Betrachtung, die ich Ihnen in den letzten Wochen geliefert habe, ausgeführt, daß wir zur Lehre kein Vertrauen zu haben brauchen, denn die Lehre wird versuchen, das Vertrauen zu rechtfertigen durch alles einzelne, was sie unternimmt; daß wir aber versuchen müssen, Vertrauen untereinander zu haben und zu rechtfertigen. Wir müssen versuchen, daß wirklich ein reales Band von Mitglied zu Mitglied entsteht. Denken Sie nur, wenn ein erfahrenes Mitglied ohne aufdringlich zu sein, ohne in Detektivmanieren zu verfallen, ohne dabei Spionage zu treiben, also ohne dem anderen zu nahe zu treten — wirklich ein Auge hat für Wohl und Wehe von nur zehn anderen, denen er dabei nicht zu sagen braucht, daß er sie für unerfahrener hält als sich selbst, dann wird schon unendlich viel an einer, ich möchte sagen, «idealen Aura» gearbeitet werden können, die in einer solchen Gesellschaft wie der unsrigen notwendig ist. Vertrauen kann man gewiß niemals dekretieren. Vertrauen muß erworben werden. Und die erfahreneren Mitglieder müßten sich bestreben, solches Vertrauen sich zu erwerben bei denjenigen, die erst kürzere Zeit in unserer Gesellschaft sind.

Solche Dinge wurden ja im Laufe unserer jetzt schon wirklich vieljährigen Anstrengungen öfter ausgesprochen, aber sie waren nie so notwendig auszusprechen als hier an diesem Ort. Denn wenn wir als Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in Städten verstreut sind unter der anderen Bevölkerung, so ist das etwas ganz anderes, als wenn wir hier auf einem Haufen beisammen leben und wie auf dem Präsentierteller der anderen Bevölkerung gegenüberstehen. Da ist es notwendig, daß wir die Grundbedingungen unseres gesellschaftlichen Zusammenlebens wirklich in eindringlichster und ernstester Weise ins Auge fassen.

Das, was ich sage, meine lieben Freunde, wird selbstverständlich ganz unabhängig sein müssen davon, daß eine solche Gesellschaft wie die unsere es den außerhalb der Gesellschaft lebenden Menschen niemals wird recht machen können, daß sie niemals wird vermeiden können, daß sich die außerhalb der Gesellschaft stehenden Menschen in allen möglichen Verleumdungen, Verhöhnungen, in ungerechten Angriffen und so weiter ergehen. Aber darauf kommt es nicht an, sondern darauf, daß die Mitglieder der Gesellschaft wirklich alles dasjenige tun, was in jedem einzelnen Falle die Angriffe von außen eben als ungerechtfertigt erscheinen läßt, was ihnen bereits den Boden unter den Füßen als einen berechtigten entzieht.

Da müssen wir dann schon wirklich einzelnes ins Auge fassen, meine lieben Freunde. Es ist schon einmal notwendig, daß man im äußeren Leben nicht immer bloß auf die Großigkeiten, sondern auch auf die Kleinigkeiten Rücksicht nimmt. Wenn zum Beispiel eine Anzahl von unseren Mitgliedern sich abends zwischen andere Menschen in einen Wagen der elektrischen Bahn setzen und von hier nach Basel hineinfahren und sich laut unterhalten über die verschiedenen Stiche, Zwickungen und Zwackungen in ihrem Ätherleib, so ist das, meine lieben Freunde, gewiß kein moralisches Verbrechen. Jedem, der so etwas tadelt, kann selbstverständlich eingewendet werden: Ja, was ist denn schließlich viel dahinter? - Nun, es ist wirklich sehr viel dahinter, wenn es sich um den Ernst und um die Würde unserer Bewegung handelt, und es sollte, trotzdem es keine Großigkeit, sondern eine Kleinigkeit ist, vermieden werden. Wir sollten vor allen Dingen anfangen da an uns zu reformieren, wo diese Reform reale Wirkungen haben kann. Wir sollten vor allen Dingen uns klar darüber sein, daß wir in dem Augenblick, wo wir nur uns Verständliches unter uns erörtern, wenn andere zuhören können, sich die anderen notwendig törichte Vorstellungen machen müssen von dem, was wir erzählen. Denn nicht wahr, wenn wir vom Ätherleib sprechen - nun, nehmen wir an, wir wissen, von was wir reden, aber der, der zuhört, weiß nicht, wovon wir reden. Der ist manchmal in demselben Fall, meine lieben Freunde, wie ein Dienstmädchen, das einige mir Näherstehende gut kennen und das, weil es unter anthroposophischen Leuten war, ein gewisses Interesse daran hatte zu wissen, was denn da eigentlich getrieben wird. Und so ging es in einen Vorbereitungskurs, der von einem unserer Mitglieder gehalten wurde, und als es dann nach Hause kam, sagte es: Nun, jetzt habe ich gehört, daß ich nicht nur einen Leib habe, sondern daß ich vier Leiber habe. Aber ich habe ja nur ein so ganz schmales Kämmerchen und ein schmales Bett, und nun weiß ich gar nicht, wie ich diese Leiber alle in meinem Bett unterbringen soll! - Es ist eine wahre Geschichte, die in einem mir gar nicht so fernstehenden Hause passiert ist, meine lieben Freunde. Ja, sehen Sie, genauso muß ein Mensch, der Ihnen zuhört, wenn Sie von dem Zwicken und Zwacken des Ätherleibes sprechen, ganz notwendig denken, daß Sie von dem Ätherleib reden wie von einem physischen Leib, und so führen Sie ihn im Grunde genommen irre und verriegeln ihm dadurch die Möglichkeit, überhaupt irgendwie der Bewegung näherzukommen.

Daher ist es wichtig, daß wir an uns selber lernen, die Dinge, von denen wir reden, ernsthaft und genau zu nehmen, denn wenn sie auch an sich wirklich keine Großigkeiten sind, so richten sie trotzdem etwas wie eine Mauer von Vorurteilen um uns herum auf, die vermieden werden könnten und auch sollten. Also, daß wir lernen, wirklich genau zu sprechen, das ist etwas, was ganz notwendig ist in einer solchen Gesellschaft, wenn nicht nach und nach die Unmöglichkeit sich ergeben soll, in der Gesellschaft das pflegen zu können, was in ihr gepflegt werden soll.

Ich bin heute genötigt, eine ganze Anzahl von Dingen zu sagen, die wahrscheinlich den meisten von Ihnen als höchst überflüssig vorkommen werden, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil jeder sagt: Na, was soll denn das jetzt heißen, man soll genau sprechen. - Aber, meine lieben Freunde, machen Sie nur einmal die Augen auf, wenn da oder dort irgend etwas geschieht, irgend etwas gesprochen wird und einer es dem anderen weitererzählt. Wenn Sie darauf achten würden, ob wirklich ganz genau geschildert worden ist, so würden Sie sehr leicht in unzähligen Fällen die Abweichung von der Genauigkeit bemerken können. Wenn nun gar das, was erzählt oder gesehen worden ist, einem weiteren und wieder einem weiteren gesagt worden ist, dann entsteht zuweilen ein richtiges Ungetüm von dem, was wirklich geschehen oder gesagt worden ist. Man kann wirklich gerade innerhalb unserer Gesellschaft darin Erfahrungen haben.

Man muß bedenken, meine lieben Freunde, daß man gerade in einer geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung fruchtbar doch nur wirken kann, wenn man sich Genauigkeit, ein reales genaues Erfassen der Dinge angewöhnt, denn die Geisteswissenschaft zwingt Sie ja dazu, Ihren Geistesblick auf Dinge zu richten, die mit der äußeren physischen Welt nichts zu tun haben. Und um das richtige Verhältnis dazu zu gewinnen, muß man ein Gegengewicht schaffen. Und das kann nur darin bestehen, daß man die Dinge auf dem physischen Plan so real als möglich nimmt, Genauigkeit ist eben ein Teil der Realität.

Ich habe vor einiger Zeit in München einen öffentlichen Vortrag gehalten, über den einzelne Menschen außerordentlich erstaunt waren. Er handelte über das Wesen des Bösen. Ich habe da auseinandergesetzt, wie die Kräfte, die hier auf dem physischen Plan im Bösen walten, gewissermaßen nur von höheren Planen auf den physischen Plan herunterversetzte Kräfte sind; daß gewisse Kräfte, die da oben in der geistigen Welt uns dazu führen können, Geistiges zu erkennen, zu beherrschen, da unten in der physischen Welt zum Bösen werden können. Denn dieselbe Kraft, welche uns befähigt, Verständnis zu gewinnen für die geistige Welt, und von der wir wissen, daß wir in der geistigen Welt mit dieser Kraft des Verständnisses stehenbleiben müssen - dieselbe Kraft muß Unfug, richtigen Unfug hervorrufen, wenn sie gedankenlos unmittelbar auf den physischen Plan übertragen wird. Denn worin muß das Wesen dieser Kraft bestehen, meine lieben Freunde? Es muß darin bestehen, sich in seinem Denken unabhängig zu machen vom physischen Plan. Wendet man aber diese Kraft des Sich-unabhängig-Machens vom physischen Plan auf den physischen Plan selber an, so heißt das lügen und verlogen sein. Deshalb sahen diejenigen, welche Geisteswissenschaftliches zu verbreiten hatten, zu allen Zeiten solche Gefahren in der Verbreitung, weil das, was für das Verständnis der höheren Plane notwendig ist, wenn es unmittelbar übertragen wird in die physische Welt, zu Unfug führen wird. Daher muß gegen dieses ein Gegengewicht herrschen. Es ist also notwendig, um die Verständniskräfte für die geistige Welt rein und schön und tauglich zu haben, daß man für den physischen Plan sein Wahrheitsgefühl, das heißt auch sein Genauigkeitsgefühl, in der allerschärfsten Weise ausbildet. Denn bei allem, was nicht mit der Genauigkeit auf dem physischen Plan rechnet, vermischen sich innerhalb einer sogenannten okkulten Gesellschaft sogleich in ungehöriger Weise gewisse Anlagen, die sich durch die Geisteswissenschaft selber ausbilden, mit dem Niedrigsten, dem Allerniedrigsten des physischen Planes.

Meine lieben Freunde, nehmen Sie eine im weiteren Sinne gewöhnliche materialistische Gesellschaft an. Wie Sie wissen oder vielleicht schon gehört haben, wenn Sie es nicht direkt wissen: Es gibt Gesellschaftskreise, in denen der sogenannte Klatsch oder Tratsch, oder wie man es nennt, herrscht. Wenigstens vom Hörensagen werden manche von Ihnen etwas vom Klatsch oder Tratsch wissen, nicht wahr. Also in einer gewöhnlichen materialistischen Philistergesellschaft herrscht der Tratsch und Klatsch. Er ist ja meistens nicht besonders gut, und es läßt sich manches dagegen einwenden, aber es mischen sich doch wenigstens nicht okkulte Inhalte hinein. Wenn aber in einer okkulten Gesellschaft Klatsch und Tratsch herrscht, dann mischen sich sogleich am liebsten gerade okkulte Inhalte hinein.

Man sollte solche Dinge, wie ich hoffe, in unserem Kreise wirklich besprechen können, denn es sollte auch dieses zu unserer Gesellschaft gehören, daß man noch in der Lage ist, etwas zu sagen, was nicht gleich wieder aus der Gesellschaft hinausgetragen wird, um draußen mißverstanden zu werden. Auch darin haben wir ja hier keine guten Erfahrungen gemacht. Wenn wir solche weiterhin machen müssen, dann muß das eben selbstverständlich zu einer Andersgestaltung unserer Gesellschaft führen. Das, was in der Gesellschaft gesagt wird, muß innerhalb der Gesellschaft im strengsten Sinne bleiben, denn man muß auch zuweilen irgendwelche Worte sagen können, die man nicht so ohne weiteres außerhalb der Gesellschaft sagen würde.

Nun, in unserer Gesellschaft wird und muß selbstverständlich sehr viel von karmischen Zusammenhängen der Menschen gesprochen werden. Die können ja ganz gut bestehen, bestehen auch selbstverständlich, aber wenn sich ohne weiteres immer wieder und wieder die Anschauung über das Karma in die gewöhnlichen Lebensbeziehungen hineinmischen, dann treiben wir Unfug. Wir treiben deshalb wirklich Unfug, weil wir den Wahrheitsbegriff nicht streng genug nehmen, der im allerintensivsten Maße streng genommen werden muß.

Es gibt ja, ich kann schon sagen, zahlreiche Fälle, sowohl in wie auch außerhalb unserer Gesellschaft, in okkulten Kreisen, wo die subjektiven Dinge, die sich selbstverständlich auf dem physischen Plan zutragen, verbrämt, durchsetzt werden mit okkulten Wahrheiten. Ich will gleich einen radikalen Fall nehmen, der ja vielleicht in unserer Gesellschaft nicht sehr verbreitet ist, der aber wirklich eine und nur eine der Erfahrungen auf diesem Gebiet ist und unzählige Male vorgekommen ist. Es haben Leute im Verlaufe ihres Lebens gehört, daß es eine Wiederverkörperung gibt, und sie haben gehört, daß ein Christus gelebt hat. Nun, es ist mir wirklich selber nicht nur einmal vorgekommen, daß Frauen, die diese beiden Tatsachen der geistigen Welt - daß es eine Wiederverkörperung und daß es einen Christus gibt - in sich aufgenommen und nunmehr sich das sehr reale Ideal gebildet haben, sie müßten dazu ausersehen sein, den Christus zu gebären, und nun ihr Leben so eingerichtet haben, daß sie eben suchten, wie sie dazu kommen könnten, den Christus zu gebären. Ja, sehen Sie, solche Dinge beim Namen zu nennen, ist nicht schön; aber man muß es einmal tun, weil ja die Gesellschaft geschützt werden muß und sich nur dann selber schützt, wenn sie die Augen nicht verschließt vor dem Unfug, der mit okkulten Wahrheiten auf dem physischen Plan schr leicht getrieben werden kann. Wahrhaftig, es ist dies ein radikaler Fall, aber es kommt nicht etwa nur einmal, sondern immer wieder und wieder vor. Ich habe ihn radikal charakterisiert, weil er im Kleinen immer wieder vorkommt und es sich ja darum handelt, daß wir nicht immer bloß auf die GroBigkeit zu sehen haben. Dies ist ja zwar eine Großigkeit, weil es zu großem Unfug führt, wenn irgend jemand denkt, er müsse den Christus gebären; aber im Kleinen kommen diese Dinge eben immer wieder und wieder vor.

Nicht wahr, im gewöhnlichen, philiströsen bürgerlichen Leben verlieben sich die Menschen, verliebt sich ein Mann in ein Mädchen. Man nennt’s «Sichverlieben» und man sagt die Wahrheit. In einer okkulten Gesellschaft soll es auch vorkommen, daß sich ein Mann in ein Mädchen verliebt. Es ist wirklich nicht ganz ausgeschlossen nach verschiedenen so möglichen Beobachtungen. Mancher von Ihnen wird doch schon einmal gehört haben, daß es auch vorgekommen ist. Aber man hört nicht immer in einer solchen Gesellschaft: der X hat sich in die Y verliebt. Bei den Bauern heißt es, er geht mit ihr oder sie geht mit ihm. Das ist für dasjenige, was sich dem äußeren Anblick darbietet, zumeist eine sehr genaue Darstellung der Sache. Aber innerhalb okkulter Gesellschaften kann man manchmal hören: Ich habe mein Karma durchforscht, und da ich mein Karma durchforscht habe, ist in dieses Karma hereingetreten eine andere Persönlichkeit; da haben wir dann erkannt, daß wir durch das Karma füreinander bestimmt sind, daß das Karma uns dazu bestimmt hat, in dieser oder jener Weise in das Schicksal der Welt einzugreifen.

Man merkt da nicht, meine lieben Freunde, wieviel an Verlogenheit, angefangen von der einfachen Tatsache des Sichverliebens bis zu dieser Behauptung hin, sich in die ganze Sache hineingemischt hat - an Verlogenheit, die der folgenden Tatsache entspricht. In einer materialistischen Philistergesellschaft gilt es als etwas ganz Normales, daß zwei Leute sich ineinander verlieben. In einer okkulten Gesellschaft gilt es oftmals nicht als etwas Normales, sondern als etwas, dem gegenüber man sich oft sogar ein bißchen schämt. Aber siehe da, das tut man nicht gern. Aus welchen Gründen heraus man keinen Willen zum Sichschämen hat, das braucht ja nicht untersucht zu werden, denn das können hunderterlei Gründe sein. Aber man schämt sich ja überhaupt nicht gern. Statt dessen sagt man: Das Karma hat gesprochen, und dem Karma muß man gehorchen. Selbstverständlich ist man weit davon entfernt, aus bloßem Egoismus, aus bloßen Emotionen heraus dieses oder jenes zu tun, aber dem Karma muß man gehorchen! Wahr wäre man, meine lieben Freunde, wenn man sich gestehen würde, man hat sich halt verliebt. Man würde dann nämlich, wenn man sich die Wahrheit gestehen würde, einen viel sichereren Weg durchs Leben finden, als wenn man die Wahrheit mit allerhand karmischem Unfug verquickt. Denn der Grundunfug, die Dinge des persönlichen Lebens mit okkulten Wahrheiten zu verbrämen, führt zu unzähligen anderen Unfugen; namentlich dadurch, daß man dann keinen innerlichen Gefühlsmaßstab mehr hat für das Einhalten der Grenzen, die uns auferlegt sind dadurch, daß wir uns einer geisteswissenschaftlichen Weltanschauungsströmung zuwenden.

Wir dürfen ja nicht eigentlich die schlechtesten Regeln der Philistergesellschaften in unsere Gesellschaft einführen. Es gibt ja gewisse Gesellschaftskreise, die sagen, der Mensch fängt erst mit dem Baron an. Nicht wahr, wir dürfen das nicht so verkehren, daß wir sagen, der Mensch fängt erst beim Geisteswissenschaftler oder beim Anthroposophen an; beim «Antilopen» sagen die andern jetzt. Das dürfen wir nicht, sondern wir müssen schon zugeben, daß wir, bevor wir Geisteswissenschaftler geworden sind, auch Menschen waren mit ganz bestimmten Anschauungen, die damals dies oder jenes getan und dies oder jenes unterlassen hätten.

Nun habe ich ja schon in sehr frühen Zeiten unserer Bewegung darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß es notwendig ist, durch unsere geisteswissenschaftlichen Ansichten nicht unter das Niveau hinterzusinken, das wir vorher eingehalten haben, sondern daß wir über dieses Niveau hinaufsteigen müssen in jeder Beziehung. Daher sagte ich schon vor vielen Jahren: Wir sind mit einem gewissen Fonds von moralischen Anschauungen, von Lebensusancen ausgerüstet gewesen, bevor wir in die Gesellschaft hineingekommen sind, und diese Lebensusancen sollten wir solange unangetastet lassen, bis uns nun wirklich eine deutliche, kontrollierbare innere Notwendigkeit zwingt, sie zu ändern; und das wird in der Regel sehr spät sein. Es ist von großem Schaden, wenn wir, nachdem wir gerade ein bißchen etwas gelernt haben aus der Geisteswissenschaft, dieses bißchen Gelernte irgendwie zu stark zu einer Verbrämung des Lebens gebrauchen. Man muß sich schon über eines dabei klar sein, meine lieben Freunde: Die Einrichtung des äußeren Lebens ist wirklich auch durch eine Art von Karma entstanden. Und wie die Menschen in der Welt denken, wie sie sich aufführen, das entspricht einem Karma.

Nun, ich rede ja am liebsten immer von konkreten Fällen, weil diese am allerklarsten sprechen. Sehen Sie, mir ist zum Beispiel einmal folgendes passiert. Ich saß vor einiger Zeit einmal in einem Friseurladen - verzeihen Sie die Besprechung solcher Dinge, aber schließlich gar so indiskret, gar so sehr das Intimste berührend ist das, was ich erzählen will, ja nicht. Ich saß vor dem Spiegel und konnte darin sehen, welche Leute hereinkamen. Da ging die Türe auf, und es kam ein Mann herein, welcher eine bloß aus weichem Leder bestehende, nur so zusammengebundene Fußbekleidung trug, dann trikotähnliche anliegende Beinkleider darüber und eine Art von kokett geworfenem mantelartigem Überwurf; außerdem noch etwas wie ein Stirnband, die Haare kühn rückwärts geschwungen. Der sogenannte Zufall wollte es, daß ich den Mann sehr gut kannte. Der Friseur hat mit seinem Rasiermesser, das er gerade an mich angesetzt hatte, eingehalten und dem Mann um fünf Pfennige etwas abgekauft. Es war ein von diesem Mann selbstverfaßtes Gedicht, das mir der Friseur, als der Mann wieder hinausgegangen war, gezeigt hat. Es war ein Scheusal von einem Gedicht, aber der Mann ging damit auf der Straße und in den Läden herum und verkaufte es. Er ging in diesem Aufzug herum und bildete sich ein, unendlich erhaben zu sein über alle anderen Menschen rings um ihn herum. Er bildete sich ein, einem großen Ideal nachzuhängen, aber in Wirklichkeit hängt er nur einer hochgesteigerten hysterischen Eitelkeit nach. Dasjenige, was bei den allerallereitelsten Damen, bei den auf die alleräußersten Äußerlichkeiten gehenden Damen, Prinzip ist, das ist bei diesem Mann aufs allerhöchste gesteigert, ist der Grundimpuls seines ganzen Auftretens, seiner ganzen Art.

Wie viele aber, meine lieben Freunde, sind selbst unter den in unserer Gesellschaft Lebenden vielleicht doch einmal ganz geneigt gewesen - ich will, um höflich zu sein, nicht sagen, daß sie es heute noch sind -, zu sagen: Ja nun, der Mann will in seiner Art doch auch das Richtige. - Das ist ja zwar richtig, aber es ist trotzdem ein kolossaler Unsinn, der das ganze Leben untergräbt, wenn man ihn zur Lebensmaxime machen würde. Man muß sich wirklich darüber klar werden, welche unendlichen Eitelkeitsmotive in einem Menschen sitzen können und wie schwer man diese bemerkt. Und wenn wir dasjenige, was wir aus der Geisteswissenschaft gewinnen können, ernst und würdig nehmen, so müssen wir doch verstehen, daß in einem solchen Manne wirklich starke Kräfte der Eitelkeit liegen. Wir machen dies oder jenes aus Eitelkeit - über andere Impulse will ich gar nicht sprechen -, und andere nehmen daran Anstoß, wenn auch aus ganz anderen Gründen. Deshalb ist aber doch ein Zusammenhang zwischen uns und dem, was die anderen sagen. Und bei einer genauen Prüfung könnten wir den Zusammenhang sehr leicht finden. Aber wir kommen über diese Dinge wirklich nur hinaus, wenn wir uns als Gegengewicht ein Genauigkeitsgefühl, ein striktes Genauigkeitsgefühl aneignen. Und wir brauchen das zum Verständnis der okkultistischen Wahrheiten.

Sehen Sie, es ist ja eine Kleinigkeit, keine Großigkeit, aber es ist gerade im Okkultismus ungeheuer wichtig, zu wissen und zu beachten: Wenn jemand etwas weitererzählt, so ist es notwendig, daß man aus der Erzählung immer genau erkennen kann, ob er die Sache selber beobachtet hat, ob er also ein Recht hat, von einer Tatsache zu sprechen, oder ob es sich um eine Erzählung handelt, die ihm ein anderer gegeben hat. Das muß man genau unterscheiden können. Nun kommt es aber in hunderten und hunderten von Fällen vor, daß sich eine Tatsache einfach so abspielt: Irgend jemand erzählt einem andern etwas, und der andere erzählt das wieder einem andern, aber so, daß der Dritte den Eindruck bekommt: Der hat es nicht erzählt bekommen, sondern hat es selber erlebt, also hat er die Berechtigung, darüber als von einer Tatsache zu sprechen. - Diese Ungenauigkeiten sind in einer materialistischen Philistergesellschaft von einer geringeren Wichtigkeit als in unserer Gesellschaft. In einer materialistischen Philistergesellschaft kann es eine Pedanterie sein, über die Dinge so genau zu reden; aber bei uns muß strikter und genauer beobachtet werden als irgendwo anders. Und vor allen Dingen handelt es sich darum, Genauigkeit gegen uns selber zu pflegen.

Derjenige, der sich von der ganzen Tragweite dessen, was ich sagen will, eine richtige Überzeugung verschaffen will, könnte ja zur Probe einmal das Folgende unternehmen. Er könnte sich ein Thema wählen - nehmen wir zum Beispiel den Vegetarismus - und sich vornehmen, darauf zu achten, wie von gewissen Bekennern der Geisteswissenschaft gegenüber der Außenwelt dieses Thema behandelt wird. Er könnte sich eine Tabelle anlegen, und immer, wenn er hört, wie ein Geisteswissenschaftler von sich sagt, warum er Vegetarier ist, könnte er sich notieren, warum der nach seiner eigenen Anschauung zu den anderen Leuten sagt, daß er Vegetarier ist. Beim nächsten Fall wiederum, und so weiter. Da würde man sich überzeugen können, was für hanebüchene Dinge zum Beispiel in bezug auf den Vegetarismus von Bekennern der Geisteswissenschaft der Außenwelt oftmals dargelegt werden. Und wenn dann die Außenwelt zu dem Urteil kommt: Das ist eine Gesellschaft von Narren -, dann ist das nicht weiter verwunderlich.

Wie oft habe ich es in unseren Kreisen erwähnt, daß man über die Frage, warum man Vegetarier ist, eine ganz einfache Auskunft geben kann, wenn man mit seiner Umgebung zurechtkommen will. Nicht wahr, wenn man gefragt wird, aus welchem Grunde man Vegetarier ist, und weiß, daß man einem Menschen gegenübersteht, der sicherlich kein Pferdefleisch ißt, so stellt man ihm die Gegenfrage: Sieh einmal, warum ißt denn du kein Pferdefleisch? - Jetzt ist er gleich genötigt, sich nach und nach auf denselben Boden zu begeben, auf dem eine Verständigung möglich sein wird. Er wird nämlich, wenn er sagen soll, warum er kein Pferdefleisch ißt, gar nicht sehr theoretische Gründe angeben, sondern meist irgend etwas ähnliches sagen wie: Mir graust davor. - Er wird es ja in verschiedener Weise sagen, aber er wird dies oder etwas ähnliches sagen. Nun kann man ihm darauf erwidern: Sieh, dasselbe Gefühl, das du dem Pferdefleisch gegenüber hast, das habe ich allem Fleisch gegenüber. - Und wenn man das, was ich jetzt auseinandergesetzt habe, nur in einer richtigen, konzilianten Form erörtert, wird man nach und nach schon verstanden. Vor allem darf der Außenstehende, der Fleisch ißt, ja nicht den Eindruck bekommen, daß man sich durch den Nichtgenuß des Fleisches als ein höherer Mensch fühlt. Man könnte noch dazufügen - aber man muß sich diese Wahrheit zuerst selber gestehen -, daß man für das Fleischessen zu schwach ist, daß man in bezug auf das Fleischessen eigentlich ein Krüppel ist. Es ist ja von mir öfter, wenn diese Frage aufgeworfen worden ist, gesagt worden: Wenn man kein Fleisch ißt, so hat man es für manches nur bequemer, man hält manches besser durch. Das Fleisch beschwert einen, und es ist namentlich dann, wenn man sein Gehirn in einer genauen Weise gebrauchen will, viel bequemer, kein Fleisch zu essen. Also es sind im Grunde genommen lauter Bequemlichkeitsgründe. Wie oft habe ich betont, daß man sich nicht in die höheren Welten hinaufessen kann, weder dadurch, daß man dies oder jenes ißt, noch dadurch, daß man dies oder jenes zu essen unterläßt. Das Hineinarbeiten in die geistigen Welten ist eine geistige Angelegenheit, das Essen ist eine physische Angelegenheit, also auch das Unterlassen des Essens. Sonst könnte ja jemand auf den grotesken Gedanken kommen: Wenn man gewisse Speisen nicht ißt, so trete das und das ein, und wenn man gewisse Speisen ißt, so trete dies und jenes ein. Und er könnte auf den grotesken Gedanken kommen, acht Tage lang Salz zu essen und an den darauffolgenden acht Tagen kein Salz zu essen, um in den acht Tagen, in denen er Salz ißt, in die Tiefen der Elementarwelt hinunterzusteigen und in den anderen acht Tagen, in denen er kein Salz ißt, hinaufzusteigen. Es könnte ja vorkommen, daß sich jemand solch eine Torheit in den Kopf setzt. Nun, zu solch großen Torheiten kann es ja selbstverständlich in unserer Gesellschaft nicht kommen, meine lieben Freunde, aber zu Dingen, die diesem ähnlich sind, könnte es doch kommen. Also wenn wir möglichst bescheiden sind in den Erörterungen des Vegetarismus der Außenwelt gegenüber, dann werden wir schon sehen, wie wenig uns nach und nach das übelgenommen werden wird, daß wir Vegetarier sind; wenn wir aber den Vegetarismus uns als ein Verdienst zuschreiben, dann wird uns das die Außenwelt nicht verzeihen. Und ein Verdienst ist es nicht, wenn man Vegetarier ist, sondern es ist ein Bequemlichkeitsmittel.

Und so gibt es manches, meine lieben Freunde. Es ist wirklich notwendig, daß solche Dinge auch einmal besprochen werden, nicht um Moral zu predigen, sondern um gewisse Bedingungen eines Zusammenlebens in einer okkulten Gesellschaft gegenüber der Außenwelt darzulegen. Ja, meine lieben Freunde, alles läuft darauf hinaus, daß wir Überlegungen anstellen müssen über unseren Verkehr mit der Außenwelt, und diese Überlegungen müssen die Brücke, aber zu gleicher Zeit auch die schützende Mauer gegenüber der Außenwelt sein, gerade bei einer solchen Gesellschaft wie der unsrigen. Wenn es immer wieder und wieder vorkommt, daß man zu Leuten in der Außenwelt von mir zum Beispiel sagt: Der Doktor hat dies oder jenes gesagt -, ja, so versetze man sich einmal nicht in sein eigenes, sondern in das Gemüt des anderen, der da zuhört! Wenn jemand zum Beispiel sagt - solche Dinge kommen vor und das sind nun solche, von denen ich nicht einmal scherzweise voraussetzen kann, daß sie in unserer Gesellschaft nicht vorkommen -, also wenn jemand sagt: Der Doktor sorgt für die geistige Entwickelung dieses oder jenes Menschen -, ja was soll sich denn ein Mensch draußen anderes darunter vorstellen, als daß das eine Gesellschaft von närrischen Leuten ist, die sich einem einzigen Menschen unterstellen. Und bedenken Sie doch nur, was das bedeutet, berechtigterweise bedeutet in der Außenwelt! Wir müssen schon einmal über die Dinge von dem Gesichtspunkte aus sprechen, wie eine Gesellschaft beschaffen sein muß, in der eine solche geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung herrschen soll, wie die unsrige es ist. Denn diese geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung müssen wir vor allen Dingen ernst nehmen, der gegenüber wir nichts tun dürfen, was sie in der Welt schädigt.

Ich werde morgen noch etwas tiefer darauf eingehen, und Sie werden sehen, wie innig das alles wirklich mit gewissen geisteswissenschaftlichen Impulsen selber zusammenhängt. Ich will nicht bloße Moralpauken halten, sondern ich will den Zusammenhang mit den innersten Impulsen der Geisteswissenschaft gerade an diesen Dingen einmal erörtern.

First Lecture

Prerequisites and conditions for living together in the Anthroposophical Society

My dear friends! Movements such as our spiritual science movement have always been cultivated in such a way that attempts have been made to cultivate what was to be imprinted on spiritual culture or culture in general, initially by means of a social association, a society. And just as the conditions of human coexistence and human development have always been and still are today, there is a certain necessity to cultivate what we recognize as our spiritual scientific endeavors by means of a society.

Now, it is an experience that basically all such societies have had, that the concept of society, as it is necessary for the cultivation of just such a spiritual current, is not easily understood, at least not easily understood in practical terms. For time and again we receive evidence that there are very many people — just this morning, for example, I received a letter to that effect — who say that they do not really like to join such a community, that they would rather receive the corresponding spiritual knowledge by reading or by listening to free lectures not connected to a society, or in some other way; they feel uncomfortable joining such a society.

Often the reasons these people give are such that one can already give them some credit. But one must say again and again: if such a spiritual movement — which necessarily differs greatly in its impulses, in its whole way of thinking, feeling, and willing, from the thinking, feelings, and will of the people around them — were to be brought into humanity without such a society, it would be infinitely more difficult than through a society in which the members can prepare themselves, in a corresponding coexistence, through the continuous acceptance of spiritual scientific concepts and ideas, to be a kind of instrument, a kind of tool for the dissemination of such spiritual science, a spiritual movement. But it also follows from this that the concept of such a society must be taken very seriously, for it should prove itself to be, in practical terms, an instrument for the spiritual movement in question.

Now, my dear friends, you need only consider our Society as such, and you will be able to study how different it is as a society from other societies or associations that are brought into being. You will notice this difference, especially when you consider a particular idea.

Suppose that certain events, such as those that have recently affected our souls, might in some way suggest to us the idea of dissolving the Anthroposophical Society as such. Let us assume, as a hypothesis, that because of abuses that have arisen in the Society, one might want to dissolve it. Now, if the Anthroposophical Society were an association like many other associations, it could of course be dissolved without further ado and replaced by something else in which these abuses would be abolished. But our Anthroposophical Society differs in one important respect from other associations or societies, which are very often founded on the basis of a program with so many program points and articles of association. Such a society can be dissolved at any moment. But, my dear friends, if we were to dissolve the Anthroposophical Society, it would not be dissolved at all. Unlike other societies and associations, we do not have the option of dissolving the Anthroposophical Society just like that. For we, as the Anthroposophical Society, which is a society for a spiritual scientific movement, differ from other societies precisely in that we are not based on program points, that is, on something unreal, merely imagined, but on something real, on a real basis. And if you take only the most extreme real basis, which is that every member of the Anthroposophical Society is entitled to obtain our cycles, while other people are not entitled to do so, then you will say to yourself: The moment we nominally dissolve the Anthroposophical Society, we would still have the fact that so many people have our cycles in their hands, which we have not eliminated.

And another reality is that so many people have a certain amount of wisdom in their heads. I don't know what percentage of people have the things that are presented here in their heads, as opposed to those who only have them in “visions”; but that is not essential for the Society. Another reality is that a certain wealth of wisdom, simply a sum of things of a real nature, exists in the hearts, minds, and souls of those people who have belonged to the Anthroposophical Society up to now. This cannot be taken away from them by dissolving the Society.

The Anthroposophical Society thus differs from other societies in that it does not tolerate anything fantastical in its structure, but is built on a real basis, so that the measure of dissolution would not change the real inventory that exists at the moment in the slightest. We must bear in mind the seriousness of the fact that our Society relates to other societies and associations as reality relates to mere thought, if we want to understand the concept of our Society in the right way. For it is only because a large number of members have counted on this solid, real basis of our society, which is not based merely on program points, whether more or less consciously or only emotionally, that what we see rising here on this hill has come about: the construction of a spiritual science university, through which we are further bound in a certain way to something real. Isn't it true that if a number of dreamers get together and decide — I want to assume a hypothetical situation so that no one is offended — not to wear collars and ties, perhaps also to simplify their lives in other ways, not to adhere to any other social principles or — as they might call them — “prejudices,” to walk only in sandals, and so on, they could always go their separate ways again without anything essential changing. But we want to distinguish ourselves from a number of dreamers precisely by taking into account the whole seriousness of our real basis.

And another thing, my dear friends, is that we must distinguish—without resorting to quibbling over words—between the concept of a society within which we want to cultivate our intellectual assets and that of an association. And it really must be said that for some of us, when we think about the conditions of our social existence, the concept of society immediately slips away and the concept of an association appears before our mind's eye. In an association, rules, conditions, etc. are usually established that must be observed. In a society like ours, that is not enough. It cannot differ from an association merely in name. In our society, it is important—and I have already discussed this in recent weeks—that the concept of society is taken seriously. This means that everyone is aware that they belong to society not only insofar as they have received their membership card and bear the title of member of society, but that they are a member of society. However, the concept of society itself establishes something that must live among the members as something vague yet very definite, in such a way that the individual feels a certain obligation to ensure that this vague yet definite something lives on. This means that the individual really has an eye for the immediate or distant well-being of the other members of the society and that the experienced member of the society – which he does not always have to reveal, does he? one can keep that entirely to oneself, because it depends on the way in which one applies and lives out one's experiences—that the one who is an experienced member of the society really stands by the less experienced with his experience.

The word “trust” is so often used. In a reflection I shared with you in recent weeks, I explained that we do not need to have trust in the teaching, because the teaching will try to justify trust through everything it undertakes; but that we must try to have trust in each other and justify it. We must try to create a real bond between members. Just think, if an experienced member, without being intrusive, without resorting to detective tactics, without spying, in other words, without offending the other person — really has an eye for the welfare and woes of just ten others, to whom he does not need to say that he considers them less experienced than himself, then an infinite amount of work can be done on an I would like to say, “ideal aura” that is necessary in a society such as ours. Trust can certainly never be decreed. Trust must be earned. And the more experienced members should strive to earn such trust from those who have only been in our society for a short time.

Such things have often been said in the course of our many years of effort, but they have never been so necessary to say as here in this place. For when we as members of the Anthroposophical Society are scattered among the other population in cities, it is quite different from when we live here together in a group and are exposed to the other population as if on a silver platter. It is therefore necessary that we consider the basic conditions of our social coexistence in the most urgent and serious manner.

What I am saying, my dear friends, will of course have to be completely independent of the fact that a society such as ours will never be able to please people living outside the society, that it will never be able to prevent people outside the society from indulging in all kinds of slander, ridicule, unjust attacks, and so on. But that is not what matters. What matters is that the members of the society really do everything that, in each individual case, makes the attacks from outside appear unjustified, which already deprives them of the ground beneath their feet as justified.

We must then really consider each individual case, my dear friends. It is necessary that in our external life we do not always pay attention only to the big things, but also to the little things. If, for example, a number of our members sit down in the evening among other people in a tram car and ride from here to Basel, talking loudly about the various pricks, pinches, and twinges in their etheric bodies, that, my dear friends, is certainly not a moral crime. Anyone who criticizes such behavior can of course be asked: Yes, but what is really behind it? Well, there is actually a great deal behind it when it comes to the seriousness and dignity of our movement, and although it is not a major issue but a minor one, it should be avoided. Above all, we should begin to reform ourselves where this reform can have real effects. Above all, we should be clear that when we discuss things that are only understandable to us, while others can listen in, the others will necessarily form foolish ideas about what we are saying. For isn't it true that when we talk about the etheric body—well, let's assume we know what we are talking about, but the listener does not know what we are talking about. They are sometimes in the same situation, my dear friends, as a maid whom some of my close friends know well and who, because she was among anthroposophical people, had a certain interest in knowing what was actually going on there. And so she went to a preparatory course held by one of our members, and when she came home, she said: Well, now I've heard that I don't just have one body, but that I have four bodies. But I only have a very small room and a narrow bed, and now I don't know how I'm going to fit all these bodies into my bed! This is a true story that happened in a house not far from mine, my dear friends. Yes, you see, when you talk about the twinges and aches of the etheric body, anyone who listens to you will inevitably think that you are talking about the etheric body as if it were a physical body, and so you are basically misleading them and thereby blocking their ability to get any closer to the movement at all.

Therefore, it is important that we learn to take the things we talk about seriously and precisely, because even if they are not really important in themselves, they nevertheless erect something like a wall of prejudice around us that could and should be avoided. So, learning to speak really precisely is something that is absolutely necessary in such a society, if we are not to gradually find it impossible to cultivate in society what should be cultivated in it.

Today I am compelled to say a number of things that will probably seem highly superfluous to most of you, for the simple reason that everyone says: Well, what does that mean, one should speak precisely? But, my dear friends, just open your eyes when something happens here or there, something is said and one person tells another. If you were to pay attention to whether it has really been described very accurately, you would very easily be able to notice countless instances of deviation from accuracy. If what has been told or seen has been passed on to yet another person, and then to another, then sometimes a real monster emerges from what really happened or was said. One can really experience this within our society.

You must remember, my dear friends, that in a spiritual scientific movement, you can only be fruitful if you accustom yourself to accuracy, to a real and precise understanding of things, because spiritual science forces you to direct your spiritual gaze to things that have nothing to do with the outer physical world. And in order to gain the right relationship to this, one must create a counterbalance. And this can only consist in taking things on the physical plane as real as possible; precision is precisely a part of reality.

Some time ago, I gave a public lecture in Munich that astonished some people greatly. It was about the nature of evil. I explained how the forces that operate in evil here on the physical plane are, in a sense, only forces that have been transferred down to the physical plane from higher planes; that certain forces that can lead us to recognize and master the spiritual up there in the spiritual world can become evil down here in the physical world. For the same power that enables us to gain understanding of the spiritual world, and which we know we must retain in the spiritual world, must cause mischief, real mischief, if it is thoughtlessly transferred directly to the physical plane. For what must be the nature of this power, my dear friends? It must consist in making oneself independent of the physical plane in one's thinking. But if one applies this power of making oneself independent of the physical plane to the physical plane itself, that means lying and being deceitful. That is why those who had spiritual science to spread saw such dangers in spreading it at all times, because what is necessary for understanding the higher planes will lead to mischief if it is transferred directly into the physical world. Therefore, a counterweight must prevail against this. In order to have pure, beautiful, and suitable powers of understanding for the spiritual world, it is therefore necessary to develop one's sense of truth, that is, one's sense of accuracy, in the most acute manner possible for the physical plane. For in everything that does not take accuracy on the physical plane into account, certain dispositions that are developed through spiritual science itself immediately mix in an inappropriate way with the lowest, the very lowest of the physical plane within a so-called occult society.

My dear friends, take a materialistic society in the broader sense. As you know, or may have heard if you don't know it directly, there are social circles in which so-called gossip or rumor-mongering, or whatever you call it, prevails. At least from hearsay, some of you will know something about gossip or rumor-mongering, won't you? So, in an ordinary materialistic, philistine society, gossip and rumors prevail. Most of the time, it is not particularly good, and there are many objections to it, but at least there is no occult content mixed in. But when gossip and rumors prevail in an occult society, occult content immediately tends to get mixed in.

I hope that we can really discuss such things in our circle, because it should also be part of our society that we are still able to say something that is not immediately carried out of the society to be misunderstood outside. We have not had good experiences with this either. If we have to continue to do so, then this must naturally lead to a different structure of our society. What is said in society must remain within society in the strictest sense, because sometimes one must be able to say things that one would not readily say outside of society.

Now, in our society, there is and must be a great deal of talk about the karmic connections between people. These may well exist, and of course they do exist, but if the view of karma repeatedly interferes with ordinary life relationships, then we are doing mischief. We are really doing mischief because we are not taking the concept of truth seriously enough, which must be taken very seriously indeed.

I can say that there are numerous cases, both within and outside our society, in occult circles, where subjective things that naturally occur on the physical plane are embellished and interspersed with occult truths. I will take a radical case, which may not be very widespread in our society, but which is really one and only one of the experiences in this field and has occurred countless times. People have heard in the course of their lives that there is reincarnation, and they have heard that a Christ has lived. Well, it has really happened to me more than once that women who have taken in these two facts of the spiritual world—that there is reincarnation and that there is a Christ—have now formed the very real ideal that they must be destined to give birth to the Christ, and have now arranged their lives in such a way that they are seeking how they might come to give birth to the Christ. Yes, you see, it is not pleasant to call such things by their name; but it must be done, because society must be protected, and it can only protect itself if it does not close its eyes to the mischief that can easily be done with occult truths on the physical plane. Truly, this is a radical case, but it does not happen just once, but again and again. I have characterized it as radical because it occurs again and again on a small scale, and it is important that we do not always focus solely on the grossness. This is indeed a grossness, because it leads to great mischief when anyone thinks they must give birth to Christ; but on a small scale, these things occur again and again.

Isn't it true that in ordinary, philistine bourgeois life, people fall in love, a man falls in love with a girl. It is called “falling in love” and it is the truth. In an occult society, it can also happen that a man falls in love with a girl. It is really not entirely out of the question, according to various possible observations. Some of you may have heard that it has happened. But in such a society, one does not always hear: X has fallen in love with Y. Among farmers, they say he is going out with her or she is going out with him. For what is visible to the outside world, this is usually a very accurate description of the situation. But within occult societies, one sometimes hears: “I have examined my karma, and since I have examined my karma, another personality has entered into this karma; we then realized that we are destined for each other through karma, that karma has destined us to intervene in the fate of the world in this or that way.”

You don't realize, my dear friends, how much hypocrisy has crept into the whole thing, from the simple fact of falling in love to this assertion – hypocrisy that corresponds to the following fact. In a materialistic, philistine society, it is considered perfectly normal for two people to fall in love. In an occult society, it is often not considered normal, but rather something to be a little ashamed of. But lo and behold, people don't like to do that. There is no need to examine the reasons why people have no desire to be ashamed, because there could be hundreds of reasons. But one does not like to feel ashamed at all. Instead, one says: Karma has spoken, and one must obey karma. Of course, one is far from doing this or that out of mere selfishness, out of mere emotions, but one must obey karma! It would be true, my dear friends, to admit to oneself that one has simply fallen in love. For if one admitted the truth to oneself, one would find a much surer path through life than if one mixed the truth with all kinds of karmic nonsense. For the fundamental nonsense of embellishing the things of personal life with occult truths leads to countless other forms of nonsense; namely, that we then no longer have an inner emotional yardstick for maintaining the boundaries imposed on us by turning to a spiritual scientific worldview.

We must not introduce the worst rules of philistine societies into our society. There are certain social circles that say that man only begins with the baron. We must not reverse this by saying that human beings only begin with spiritual scientists or anthroposophists; with “antelopes,” as others now say. We must not do that, but must admit that before we became spiritual scientists, we were also human beings with very specific views, who would have done this or that and refrained from doing this or that.

Now, I pointed out very early on in our movement that it is necessary not to sink below the level we had previously maintained through our spiritual scientific views, but that we must rise above this level in every respect. That is why I said many years ago: We were equipped with a certain fund of moral views and ways of life before we entered society, and we should leave these ways of life untouched until a clear, controllable inner necessity forces us to change them; and that will usually be very late. It is very harmful if, after we have learned just a little something from spiritual science, we use this little bit of learning too strongly to embellish our lives. You must be clear about one thing, my dear friends: the structure of our outer life has also been created by a kind of karma. And the way people in the world think and behave corresponds to a karma.

Well, I always prefer to talk about specific cases, because they speak most clearly. You see, for example, the following thing happened to me once. Some time ago, I was sitting in a barber shop—forgive me for discussing such things, but after all, what I want to tell you is not so indiscreet, nor does it touch on anything particularly intimate. I was sitting in front of the mirror and could see the people coming in. The door opened and a man came in wearing footwear made of soft leather, tied together, then tricot-like tight-fitting leg-wear over it and a kind of coquettishly thrown coat-like wrap; as well as something like a headband, his hair boldly swept back. As luck would have it, I knew the man very well. The barber stopped with his razor, which he had just put to me, and bought something from the man for five pennies. It was a poem written by this man himself, which the barber showed me when the man had left. It was a monstrous poem, but the man went around with it on the street and in stores and sold it. He walked around in this attire and imagined himself to be infinitely superior to all the other people around him. He imagined himself to be pursuing a great ideal, but in reality he was only pursuing a highly exaggerated, hysterical vanity. What is a principle among the most vain ladies, among the ladies who are most concerned with outward appearances, is heightened to the highest degree in this man; it is the basic impulse of his entire demeanor, his entire manner.

But how many, my dear friends, even among those living in our society, may once have been inclined—I will not say that they still are today, to be polite—to say: Well, in his own way, the man wants what is right. That is true, but it is nevertheless colossal nonsense that undermines one's whole life if one were to make it one's maxim. One must really realize what infinite motives of vanity can lie within a human being and how difficult it is to notice them. And if we take what we can gain from spiritual science seriously and with dignity, we must understand that there are really strong forces of vanity in such a man. We do this or that out of vanity – I don't even want to talk about other impulses – and others take offense at this, albeit for completely different reasons. But that is why there is a connection between us and what others say. And upon closer examination, we could very easily find the connection. But we can only really overcome these things if we acquire a sense of precision, a strict sense of precision, as a counterbalance. And we need this in order to understand occult truths.

You see, it is a small thing, not a big thing, but it is tremendously important, especially in occultism, to know and to note: When someone recounts something, it is necessary to be able to discern from the story whether they observed the event themselves, and therefore have the right to speak of it as fact, or whether it is a story that someone else told them. It is important to be able to distinguish between the two. Now, in hundreds and hundreds of cases, a fact simply happens as follows: someone tells something to another person, and the other person tells it to yet another person, but in such a way that the third person gets the impression that the second person did not hear it from someone else, but experienced it himself, and therefore has the right to speak of it as a fact. These inaccuracies are of less importance in a materialistic, philistine society than in our society. In a materialistic, philistine society, it may be pedantic to talk about things so precisely, but in our society, we must observe more strictly and precisely than anywhere else. And above all, it is a matter of cultivating precision towards ourselves.

Anyone who wants to gain a proper understanding of the full significance of what I am trying to say could try the following experiment. They could choose a topic—let's take vegetarianism, for example—and resolve to pay attention to how certain adherents of spiritual science deal with this topic in relation to the outside world. They could create a table and, whenever they hear a spiritual scientist say why they are a vegetarian, they could note down why, in their own view, they are telling other people that they are a vegetarian. Then the next time, and so on. This would allow one to see for oneself what outrageous things are often presented to the outside world by adherents of spiritual science, for example in relation to vegetarianism. And if the outside world then comes to the conclusion that this is a society of fools, then that is not surprising.

How often have I mentioned in our circles that one can give a very simple answer to the question of why one is a vegetarian if one wants to get along with one's surroundings. Isn't it true that when you are asked why you are a vegetarian and you know that you are dealing with someone who certainly does not eat horse meat, you ask them the counter-question: “Look, why don't you eat horse meat?” Now they are immediately compelled to gradually move onto the same ground where understanding will be possible. When asked why they don't eat horse meat, they won't give very theoretical reasons, but will usually say something like: “It disgusts me.” They will say it in different ways, but they will say this or something similar. Now you can reply: “Look, I have the same feeling about all meat as you have about horse meat.” And if you discuss what I have just explained in a proper, conciliatory manner, you will gradually be understood. Above all, the outsider who eats meat must not get the impression that by not eating meat, you feel superior. One could add—but one must first admit this truth to oneself—that one is too weak to eat meat, that one is actually crippled when it comes to eating meat. I have often said, when this question has been raised, that if one does not eat meat, one is more comfortable in many ways and can endure many things better. Meat weighs you down, and it is much more comfortable not to eat meat, especially if you want to use your brain in a precise manner. So, basically, there are only reasons of convenience. How often have I emphasized that you cannot eat your way up to the higher worlds, neither by eating this or that, nor by refraining from eating this or that. Working one's way into the spiritual worlds is a spiritual matter; eating is a physical matter, as is refraining from eating. Otherwise, someone might come up with the grotesque idea that if one does not eat certain foods, this or that will happen, and if one eats certain foods, this or that will happen. And they might come up with the grotesque idea of eating salt for eight days and not eating salt for the next eight days, in order to descend into the depths of the elemental world during the eight days when they eat salt and ascend during the other eight days when they do not eat salt. It could happen that someone might get such a foolish idea into their head. Now, such great follies cannot, of course, occur in our society, my dear friends, but things similar to this could happen. So if we are as modest as possible in our discussions of vegetarianism with the outside world, we will see how little we will gradually be resented for being vegetarians; but if we attribute vegetarianism to ourselves as a merit, the outside world will not forgive us. And being a vegetarian is not a merit, but a means of convenience.

And so there are many things, my dear friends. It is really necessary that such things be discussed, not to preach morality, but to explain certain conditions of living together in an occult society in relation to the outside world. Yes, my dear friends, it all boils down to the fact that we must reflect on our dealings with the outside world, and these reflections must be the bridge, but at the same time also the protective wall towards the outside world, especially in a society such as ours. If it happens again and again that people in the outside world say, for example, “The doctor said this or that” – well, put yourself not in your own mind, but in the mind of the other person who is listening! If someone says, for example — such things happen, and these are things that I cannot even jokingly assume do not happen in our society — if someone says, “The doctor is responsible for the spiritual development of this or that person,” what else can a person outside the society imagine but that this is a society of foolish people who submit themselves to a single person? And just consider what that means, justifiably means, in the outside world! We must first discuss things from the point of view of what a society must be like in which a spiritual-scientific movement such as ours is to prevail. For we must take this spiritual-scientific movement seriously above all else, and we must not do anything that could harm it in the world.

I will go into this in more depth tomorrow, and you will see how closely all this is really connected with certain spiritual scientific impulses themselves. I do not want to merely preach morality, but I want to discuss the connection with the innermost impulses of spiritual science precisely in relation to these things.