Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century
GA 254

11 October 1915, Dornach

Lecture II

On this occasion I should like to be allowed to include certain personal references among matters of objective history, because what must be added to the subject dealt with in the lecture yesterday is necessary for our study today and after careful consideration I believe it is right to include more details.

I want, first of all, to speak of a particular experience connected with our Movement. You know that outwardly we began by linking ourselves—but outwardly only—with the Theosophical Society and that we founded the so-called German Section of that Society in the autumn of 1902, in Berlin. In the course of the year 1904 we were visited in various towns of Germany by prominent members of the Theosophical Society, and the episode from which I want to start occurred during one of these visits. The first edition of my book Theosophy had just been published—in the spring of 1904—and the periodical Lucifer-Gnosis was appearing. In that periodical I had published articles dealing with the problem of Atlantis and the character of the Atlantean epoch. These articles were afterwards published as a separate volume entitled Unsere atlantischen Vorfahren (Our Atlantean Forefathers).1Dr. Steiner's articles in Lucifer-Gnosis are collected in the book entitled Aus der Akasha-Kronik. The book was published in English translation by Rudolf Steiner Publications Inc., New York, 1959, with the title Cosmic Memory. The articles contained a number of communications about the Atlantean world and the earlier, so-called Lemurian epoch. Several articles of this kind had therefore already appeared, and just at the time when the members of the Theosophical Society were visiting us a number of the periodical containing important communications was ready, and had been sent to subscribers. A member highly respected in the Theosophical Society had read these articles dealing with Atlantis, and asked me a question. And it is this question which I want to mention as a noteworthy experience in connection with what was said in the lecture yesterday.

This member of the Theosophical Society, who at the time of its founding by Blavatsky had taken part in most vital proceedings, a member, therefore, who had shared to the full in the activities of the Society, put the question: “By what means was this information about the world of Atlantis obtained?”—The question was very significant because until then this member was acquainted only with the methods by which such information was obtained in the Theosophical Society, namely, by means of a certain kind of mediumistic investigation. Information already published in the Theosophical Society at that time was based upon investigations connected in a certain respect with mediumship. That is to say, someone was put into a kind of mediumistic state—it could not be called a trance but was a mediumistic state—and conditions were established which made it possible for the person, although not in the state of ordinary consciousness, to communicate certain information; about matters beyond the reach of ordinary consciousness. That is how the communications had been made at that time and the member of the Theosophical Society in question who thought that information about prehistoric events could be gained only in this way, enquired what personality we had among us whom we could use as a medium for such investigations.

As I had naturally refused to adopt this method of research and had insisted from the outset upon strictly individual investigation, and as what I had discovered at that time was the result entirely of my own, personal research, the questioner did not understand me at all, did not understand that it was quite a different matter from anything that had been done hitherto in the Theosophical Society. The path I had appointed for myself, however, was this: To reject all earlier ways of investigation and—admittedly by means of super-sensible perception—to investigate by making use only of what can be revealed to the one who is himself the investigator.

In accordance with the position I have to take in the spiritual Movement, no other course is possible for me than to carry into strict effect those methods of investigation which are suitable for the modern world and for modern humanity. There is a very significant difference, you see, between the methods of investigation practised in Spiritual Science and those that were practised in the Theosophical Society. All communications received by that Society from the spiritual world—including for example, those given in Scott-Elliot's book on Atlantis—came entirely in the way described, because that alone was considered authoritative and objective. In this connection, the introduction of our spiritual-scientific direction of work was, from the very beginning something entirely new in the Theosophical Society. It took thorough account of modern scientific methods which needed to be elaborated and developed to make ascent to the spiritual realms possible.

This discussion was significant. It took place in the year 1904, and showed how great the difference was between what is pursued in Spiritual Science and what was being pursued by the rest of the Theosophical Society; it showed that what we have in Spiritual Science was unknown in the Theosophical Society at that time and that the Theosophical Society was continuing the methods which had been adopted as a compromise between the exotericists and the esotericists. Such was the inevitable result of the developments I described in the lecture yesterday. I said that seership gradually died away and that there remained only a few isolated seers in whom mediumistic states could be induced and from whom some information might be obtained. In this way, “Occult Orders”, as they were called, came into being, Orders in which there were, it is true, many who had been initiated, but no seers. Among the prevailing materialism these Orders were faced with the necessity of having to cultivate and elaborate methods which had long been in vogue, and instruments for research had to be sought among persons in whom mediumistic faculties—that is to say, atavistic clairvoyance—could still be developed and produce some result. In these circles there were far-reaching teachings and, in addition, symbols. Those, however, who wished to engage in actual research were obliged to rely on the help of persons possessed of atavistic clairvoyance. These methods were then continued in a certain way in the Theosophical Society, and the compromise of which I spoke yesterday really amounted to nothing else than that in the Lodges and Orders experiments were made whereby spiritual influences might be projected into the world. The desire was to demonstrate that influences from the spiritual world are exercised upon man.

Procedures adopted in esoteric schools had therefore been brought into action. This attempt was a fiasco, for whereas it had been expected that through the mediums genuine spiritual laws prevailing in the surrounding world would be brought to light, the only result was that nearly all the mediums fell into the error of supposing that everything emanated from the dead, and they embellished it into communications alleged to have been made to them by the dead. This led to a very definite consequence.—If the older members among you will think back to the earliest period of the Theosophical Society and study the literature produced under its aegis, you will find that the astral world—that is to say, the life immediately after death—was described in books by Mrs. Besant which merely reproduced what is contained in Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine or was to be read in books by Leadbeater. This was also the origin of everything that was given out concerning man's life between death and a new birth.

If you compare what is said in my book Theosophy about the Soul-world and the Spirit-world—to begin with, people were always trying to refute it but I think that today a sufficient number are able to think objectively on the subject—you will find very considerable differences, precisely because in regard to these domains too the methods of investigation were different. For all the methods of research employed in the Theosophical Society, even including those used for investigating the life of the dead, originated from the procedures of which I have spoken.

So you see, what the Theosophical Society had to offer the world to begin with was in a certain respect a continuation of the attempt made by the occultists previously. In what other respect this was not the case we shall hear in a moment. Taken as a whole, however, it was a continuation of the attempt which, since the middle of the nineteenth century, had been the outcome of the compromise made between the exotericists and the esotericists, except that later on things were made rather more esoteric by the Theosophical Society. Whereas the previous attempt had been to present the mediums to the world, the members of the Theosophical Society preferred to work in their inner circle only and to give out merely the results. That was an important difference, for there people were going back to a method of investigation established as a universal custom by the various Orders before the middle of the nineteenth century. I bring this forward because I must sharply emphasise the fact that with the advent of our Spiritual Science an entirely new method, one which takes full account of the work and attitude of modern science, was introduced into the occult Movement.

Now as I told you, the compromise reached between the exotericists and the esotericists to convince the materialistic world through mediums of all types that a spiritual world exists, had been a fiasco, a fiasco inasmuch as the mediums always spoke of a world which under the existing conditions simply could not be accessible to them, namely, the world of the dead. The mediums spoke of inspirations alleged to have been received from a world in which the dead are living. The situation was that the attempt made by the exotericists and the esotericists had not achieved the result they had really desired.

How had such a state of affairs come about? What was the outcome of the remarkable attempt that had been made as a result of the compromise? The outcome was that initiates of a certain kind had wrested the power from the hands of those who had made the compromise. The initiates of the extreme left-wing had taken possession of the proceedings which had been countenanced in the way described. They acquired great influence, because what was obtained through the mediums did not spring from the realm of the dead at all, but from the realm of the living—from initiates who had put themselves either in distant or close rapport with the mediums. Because everything was brought about through these initiates and through the mediums, it was coloured by the theories of those who wished to get the mediums under their control. The desire of those among the exotericists and esotericists who had made the compromise was to bring home to men that there is indeed a spiritual world. That is what they wanted to impress. But when those who thought themselves capable of holding the guiding reins let them slip, the occultists of the extreme left-wing took possession of them and endeavoured by means of the mediums—if I may use this tautology—to communicate their theories and their views to the world.

For those who had made the compromise for the good of humanity, the position was disastrous, because they felt more and more strongly that false teachings about the super-sensible were being brought into the world.—Such was the position in the development of occultism in the forties, fifties and even in the sixties of the nineteenth century.

As long as deliberation still continued in the circles of honest occultists, the situation was sinister. For the further the occultists inclined to the left, the less were they concerned to promote that which alone is justifiable, namely, the universal-human. In occultism a man belongs to the “left” when he tries to achieve some ultimate goal with the help of what he knows in the way of occult teaching. A man belongs to the “right” in occultism when he desires that goal purely for its own sake. The middle party were in favour of making exoteric the esoteric knowledge needed in our time to promote the interests of humanity universal. But those who belong to the extreme “left” are those who combine special aims of their own with what they promulgate as occult teaching. A man is on the “left” to the extent to which he pursues special aims, leads people to the spiritual world, gives them all kinds of demonstrations of it, and instils into them in an illicit way, promptings that simply help to bring these special aims to fulfilment. The leading circle of modern initiates was faced with this situation. It was realised that the control had fallen into the hands of people who were pursuing their own special aims.—Such was the state of affairs confronting the esotericists and the exotericists who had made the compromise referred to.

Then it was “heard”—the expression may not be quite exact but absolutely exact words cannot be found because one is dependent on external language and intercourse among occultists is different from anything that external language is capable of describing—it was “heard” that an event of importance for the further continuation of spiritual development on the Earth must be at hand. I can describe this event only in the following way.—In the research carried on by the individual Orders, they had preferred for a long time to make less use of female mediums. In the strict Orders, where it was desired to take the right standpoint, no female mediums were ever used for obtaining revelations from the spiritual worlds.

Now the female organism is adapted by nature to preserve atavistic clairvoyance longer than the male organism. Whereas male mediums were becoming almost unknown, female mediums were still to be found and a great number were used while the compromise still held. But now there came into the occultists' field of observation a personality who possessed mediumistic faculties in the very highest degree. This was Madame H. P. Blavatsky, a personality very specially adapted through certain subconscious parts of her organism to draw a great deal, a very great deal, from the spiritual world. And now think of what possibilities this opened up for the world! At one of the most crucial points in the development of occultism, a personality appeared who through the peculiar nature of her organism was able to draw many, many things from the spiritual world by means of her subconscious faculties.

An occultist who at that time was alert to the signs of the times could not but say to himself: Now, at the right moment, a personality has appeared who through her peculiar organic constitution can produce the very strongest evidence of ancient, traditional teaching existing among us in the form of symbols only. It was emphatically the case that here was a personality who simply because of her organic make-up afforded the possibility of again demonstrating many things which for a long time had been known only through tradition. This was the fact confronting the occultists just after the fiasco which had led to a veritable impasse. Let us be quite clear on the point: Blavatsky was regarded as a personality from whom, as out of an electrically-charged Leyden jar, the electric sparks—occult truths—could be produced.

It would lead too far if I were to tell you of all the intermediate links, but certain matters of importance must be mentioned. A really crucial moment had arrived which I can indicate in the following way; although expressed somewhat symbolically, it is in strict accordance with the facts.—The occultists of the right-wing, who in conjunction with the middle party had agreed to the compromise, could say to themselves: It may well be that something very significant can be forthcoming from this personality. But those belonging to the left-wing could also say with assurance: It is possible to achieve something extremely effective in the world with the help of this personality!—And now a veritable battle was waged around her, on the one side with the honest purpose of having much of what the initiates knew, substantiated; on the other side, for the sake of far-reaching, special aims.

I have often referred to the early periods in the life of H. P. Blavatsky, and have shown that, to begin with, attempts were made to get a great deal of knowledge from her. But in a comparatively short time the situation rapidly changed, owing to the fact that she soon came into the sphere of those who belonged, as it were, to the left. And although H. P. Blavatsky was very well aware of what she herself was able to see—for she was especially significant in that she was not simply a passive medium, but had a colossal memory for everything that revealed itself to her from the higher worlds—nevertheless she was inevitably under the influence of certain personalities when she wanted to evoke manifestations from the spiritual world. And so she always made reference to what ought really to have been left aside—she always referred to the “Mahatmas”. They may be there in the background but this is not a factor when it is a question of furthering the interests of humanity.

And so it was not long before H. P. Blavatsky was having to face a decision. A hint came to her from a quarter belonging to the side of the left that she was a personality of key importance. She knew very well what it was that she saw, but she was not aware of how significant she was as a personality. This was first disclosed to her by the left-wing. But she was fundamentally honest by nature and after this hint had been given her from a quarter of which, at the beginning, she could hardly have approved, because of her fundamental honesty, she tried on her side to reach a kind of compromise with an occult Brotherhood in Europe. Something very fine might have resulted from this, because through her great gift of mediumship she would have been able to furnish confirmations of really phenomenal importance in connection with what was known to the initiates from theories and symbolism. But she was not only thoroughly honest, she was also what is called in German a “Frechdachs”—a “cheeky creature”. And that she certainly was! She had in her nature a certain trait that is particularly common in those inclined to mediumship, namely, a lack of consistency in external behaviour. Thus there were moments when she could be very audacious and in one of these fits of audacity she imposed on the occult Brotherhood which had decided to make the experiment with her, terms which could not be fulfilled. But as she knew that a great deal could be achieved through her instrumentality, she decided to take up the matter with other Brotherhoods. And so she approached an American Brotherhood. This American Brotherhood was one where the majority had always wavered between the right and the left, but at all events had the prospect of discovering things of tremendous significance concerning the spiritual worlds.

Now this was the period when intense interest was being taken in H. P. Blavatsky by other Brothers of the left. Already at that time these left-wing Brothers had their own special interests. At the moment I do not propose to speak about these interests. If it were necessary, I could do so at some future time. For the present it is enough to say that they were Brothers who had their special interests, above all, interests of a strongly political character; they envisaged the possibility of achieving something of a political nature in America by means of persons who had first been put through an occult preparation. The consequence was that at a moment when H. P. Blavatsky had already acquired an untold amount of occult knowledge through having worked with the American Lodge, she had to be expelled from it, because it was discovered that there was something political in the background. So things couldn't continue.

The situation was now extremely difficult, tremendously difficult. For what had been undertaken in order to call the world's attention to the existence of a spiritual world, had in a certain respect to be withdrawn by the serious occultists because it had been a fiasco. It was necessary to show that no reliance could be placed on what was being presented by Spiritualism, in spite of the fact that it had many adherents. It was only materialistic, it was sheer dilettantism. The only scholarly persons who concerned themselves with it were those who wanted to get information in an external, materialistic way about a spiritual world. In addition, H. P. Blavatsky had made it clear to the American Lodge on her departure that she had no intention whatever of withholding from the world what she knew. And she knew a great deal, for she was able to remember afterwards what had been conveyed through her. She had any amount of audacity!

Good advice is costly, as the saying goes. What was to be done? And now something happened to which I have referred on various occasions, for parts of what I am saying today in this connection I have said in other places. Something that is called in occultism “Occult imprisonment” was brought about.2See inter alia: Man in the Light of Occultism, Theosophy and Philosophy, lecture 7 and lecture 10; Earthly and Cosmic Man, lecture 1; Earthly and Cosmic Man, lecture 1; The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, lecture 4; Things of the present and past in the Spirit of Man, lecture 5. (The last two lecture-courses are not yet printed but are available in translation as typescripts.) See also Notes at end of Lecture Five. H. P. Blavatsky was put into occult imprisonment. Through acts of a kind that can be performed only by certain Brothers—and are performed, moreover, only by Brotherhoods who allow themselves to engage in illicit arts—through certain acts and machinations they succeeded in compelling H. P. Blavatsky to live for a time in a world in which all her occult knowledge was driven inwards. Think of it in this way.—The occult knowledge was in her aura; as the result of certain processes that were set in operation, it came about that for a long time everything in this aura was thrown back into her soul. That is to say, all the occult knowledge she possessed was to be imprisoned; she was to be isolated as far as the outer world and her occultism were concerned.

This happened at the time when H. P. Blavatsky might have become really dangerous through the spreading of teachings which are among the most interesting of all within the horizon of the Occult Movement. Certain Indian occultists now came to know of the affair, occultists who on their part tended strongly towards the left, and whose prime interest it was to turn the occultism which could be given to the world through H. P. Blavatsky in a direction where it could influence the world in line with their special aims. Through the efforts of these Indian occultists who were versed in the appropriate practices, she was released from this imprisonment within her aura; she was free once again and could now use her spiritual faculties in the right way.

From this you can get an idea of what had taken place in this soul, and of what combination of factors all that came into the world through H. P. Blavatsky, was composed. But because certain Indian occultists had gained the merit of freeing her from her imprisonment, they had her in their power in a certain respect. And there was simply no possibility of preventing them from using her to send out into the world that part of occultism which suited their purposes. And so something very remarkable was “arranged”—if I may use a clumsy word. What was arranged can be expressed approximately as follows.—The Indian occultists wanted to assert their own special aims in opposition to those of the others, and for this purpose they made use of H. P. Blavatsky. She was given instructions to place herself under a certain influence, for in her case the mediumistic state had always to be induced from outside—and this also made it possible to bring all kinds of things into the world through her.

About this time she came to be associated with a person who from the beginning had really no directly theosophical interests but a splendid talent for organisation, namely, Colonel Olcott. I cannot say for certain, but I surmise that there had already been some kind of association at the time when Blavatsky belonged to the American Lodge. Then, under the mask, as it were, of an earlier individuality, there appeared in the field of Blavatsky's spiritual vision a personality who was essentially the vehicle of what it was desired from India to launch into the world. Some of you may know that in his book People from the Other World, Colonel Olcott has written a great deal about this individuality who now appeared in H. P. B.'s field of vision under the mask of an earlier individuality designated as Mahatma Kut-Humi. You know, perhaps, that Colonel Olcott has written a very great deal about this Mahatma Kut-Humi, among other things that in the year 1874 this Mahatma Kut-Humi had declared what individuality was living in him. He had indicated that this individuality was John King by name, a powerful sea-pirate of the seventeenth century. This is to be read in Olcott's book People from the Other World.

In the Mahatma Kut-Humi, therefore, we have to do with the spirit of a bold sea-pirate of the seventeenth century who then, in the nineteenth century, was involved in significant manifestations made with the help of H. P. Blavatsky and others too. He brought tea-cups from some distance away, he let all kinds of records be produced from the coffin of H. P. B.'s father,3Note by translator. Presumably by means of the process known in spiritualism as “precipitation”. and so forth. From Colonel Olcott's account, therefore, it must be assumed that these were deeds of the bold pirate of the seventeenth century.

Now Colonel Olcott speaks in a remarkable way about this John King. He says that perhaps here one had to do, not with the spirit of this pirate but possibly with the creation of an Order which, while depending for its results upon unseen agents, has its existence among physical men. According to this account, Kut-Humi might have been a member of an Order which engaged in practices such as I have described and the results of which were to be communicated to the world through H. P. Blavatsky but bound up with all kinds of special interests. These were that a specifically Indian teaching should be spread in the world.

This was approximately the situation in the seventies of the nineteenth century. We therefore have evidence of very significant happenings which must be seen in a single framework when we are considering the whole course of events in the Occult Movement. It was this same John King who, by means of “precipitation”, produced Sinnett's books, the first one, Letters about the Occult World and, especially, Esoteric Buddhism.

This book Esoteric Buddhism came into my hands very shortly after publication—a few weeks in fact—and I could see from it that efforts were being made, especially from a certain quarter, to give an entirely materialistic form to the spiritual teachings. If you were to study Esoteric Buddhism with the insight you have acquired in the course of time, you would be astonished at the materialistic forms in which facts are there presented. It is materialism in its very worst forms. The spiritual world is presented in an entirely materialistic way. No one who gets hold of this book can shake himself free from materialism. The subject-matter is very subtle but in Sinnett's book one cannot get away from materialism, however lofty the heights to which it purports to carry one. And so those who were now H. P. B.'s spiritual “bread-givers”—forgive the materialistic analogy—not only had special aims connected with Indian interests, but they also made trenchant concessions to the materialistic spirit of the age. And the influence which Sinnett's book had upon very large numbers of people shows how correctly they had speculated.4See notes at the end of Lecture Five. I have met scientists who were delighted with this book because everything fitted in with their stock-intrade and yet they were able to conceive of the existence of a spiritual world. The book satisfied all the demands of materialism and yet made it possible to meet the need for a spiritual world and to acknowledge its existence.

Now you know that in the further development of these happenings, H. P. Blavatsky wrote The Secret Doctrine in the eighties of the nineteenth century, and in 1891 she died. The Secret Doctrine is written in the same style as Esoteric Buddhism, except that it puts right certain gross errors which any occultist could at once have corrected. I have often spoken about the peculiar features of Blavatsky's book and need not go into the matter again now. Then, on the basis of what had come about in this way, the Theosophical Society was founded and, fundamentally speaking, retained its Indian trend. Although no longer with the intensity that had prevailed under the influence of John King, the Indian trend persisted. What I have now described to you was, as it were, a new path which made great concessions to the materialism of the age, but was nevertheless intended to show humanity that a spiritual world as well as the outer, material world must be taken into account.

Many details would have to be added to what I have now said, but time is too short. I will go on at once to show you how our spiritual-scientific Movement took its place in the Movement which was already in existence.

You know that we founded the German Section of the Theosophical Society in October, 1902. In the winters of both 1900 and 1901 I had already given lectures in Berlin which may be called “theosophical” lectures, for they were held in the circle and at the invitation of the Berlin Theosophists. The first lectures were those which ultimately became the book entitled, Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens (translated into English with the title, Mysticism and Modern Thought). These lectures were given to a circle of Members of the Theosophical Society, of which I myself was not then a member. It must be borne in mind at the outset that one had to do with teaching that was already widespread and had led numbers of people to turn their minds to the spiritual world. Thus all over the world there were people who to a certain extent were prepared and who wanted to know something about the spiritual world. Of the things I have told you today they knew nothing, had not the slightest inkling of them. But they had a genuine longing for the spiritual world, and for that reason had attached themselves to the Movement in which this longing could be satisfied. And so in this Movement there were to be found persons whose hearts were longing for knowledge of the spiritual world.

You know that in a grotesque and ludicrous way I was taxed with having made a sudden turn-about from an entirely different world-view which had been presented in my book Welt- and Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert.5The content of this book is included in Die Rätsel der Philosophie. The first part had appeared in February 1900, and the second part in the following October. I was taxed with having suddenly changed sides and having gone over to Theosophy. Now I have often told you that not only had Sinnett's book, for example, come into my hands immediately after its publication, but that I had also had close associations with the young Theosophical Society in Vienna. It is right that you should understand what the circumstances were at the time, and I want also to give you a very brief; objective view of the antecedents of the German Section. There were people in the Theosophical Society who longed to know of the spiritual world, and I had given lectures in their circle. These were the lectures on Mysticism and the Mystics which I gave in a small room in the house of Count Brockdorff. At that time I was not myself a member. The preface to the printed volume containing these lectures is dated September 1901. In the summer of 1901 I had collected the lectures given the previous winter, into the book published in September 1901 under the title Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichin Geistlebens.6Translated with the title, Mysticism and Modern Thought. (Anthroposophical Publishing Co., London and Anthroposophic Press, New York, 1925.)

I will read the first lines of the preface to this book:

“What is stated in this work formed the content of lectures given by me last winter in the Theosophical Library in Berlin. I was invited by Count and Countess Brockdorff to speak on mysticism to an audience seriously interested in the subject. Ten years earlier I should not have ventured to comply with such a request. Not that the world of ideas which I am now bringing to expression was not already within me. This world of ideas is presented in my The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, published by Emil Felber, Berlin, 1894.—But to express this world of ideas as I am doing today and so to make it the basis of study as in this present book, requires something quite different from a mere firm conviction of its intellectual truth. It requires intimate communion with this world of ideas such as can be achieved only after many years. Only now, after this intimate communion has been vouchsafed to me, do I venture to speak in the way that will be apparent in this book.”

Now you can conceive why I had allowed the contents of lectures given in very different circles to find a place in an occult movement. In the first edition of the book Welt-and Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, the following is contained in the chapter about Schelling I quote from the first edition, which was dedicated to Ernst Haeckel and was published in February, 1900. I will read a few passages from the book of which people have said that it sprang from a world-view quite different from that presented in the book on Mysticism.—

“Now there are two possible ways of describing a being which is at the same time Spirit and Nature. The one is: I exhibit the laws of nature which are active in Reality. Or, I show how the spirit acts in order to come to these natural laws. One and the same thing guides me in both cases. The one shows me conformity to law as it is active in nature; the other shows me what the spirit does in order to represent to itself this same conformity to law. In the one case I pursue natural science, in the other spiritual science. How these two are connected, Schelling describes in an interesting way. He says: ‘The necessary tendency of all natural science is to ascend from nature to intelligence. This and nothing else underlies the endeavour to bring theory into natural phenomena. The highest perfection of natural science would be the complete spiritualisation of all natural laws into laws of observation and thought. Phenomena (the material) must completely vanish, and laws alone (the formal )remain. Hence it happens that the more conformity to law is brought into nature herself the more the veils vanish, phenomena themselves become more spiritual and finally disappear altogether. Optical phenomena are nothing more than a geometry whose lines are drawn by light, and the light itself is already an ambiguous materiality. In the phenomena of magnetism all traces of matter are lost, and in those of gravity, which even the natural scientist is only able to accept as a direct spiritual operation—an effect at a distance—nothing remains but its laws, whose transactions are in the vastness of the mechanism of the celestial movements. The perfect theory of nature would be that by virtue of which nature as a whole is resolved into an intelligence. The lifeless and unconscious products of nature are only nature's abortive attempts to reflect herself; so-called lifeless nature is, however, an unripe intelligence, hence in its phenomena the intelligent character still peeps through, but without consciousness. Nature only reaches her highest aim—to become herself wholly object—in her highest and final reflection, which is none other than Man, or more generally, what we call Reason, through which nature first completely returns into herself, and by which it becomes manifest that she, nature, is originally identical with what is known in us as intelligence and consciousness.’ ”

And referring further to Schelling, I say a little later:

“To Schelling, with his progressive thought, the study of the world was the study of God, or Theosophy. He already stood completely on this ground when, in 1809, he brought out his Philosophic Enquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom and allied Matters. All questions concerning conceptions of the world now come to him in a new light. If all things are divine, how comes it that there is evil in the world, since God can only be perfect Goodness? If the soul of man is in God, how comes it that she follows her own self-seeking interests? And if it is God who acts in me, how can I, who therefore in no wise act as an independent being, yet be called free?”

This view of the world is not put aside.—And I say further:

“With such views, Schelling proved himself to be the boldest, most courageous of those philosophers who allowed themselves to be stimulated by Kant into adopting an idealistic view of the world. Under the influence of this stimulus, man has relinquished philosophising about things lying beyond what the human senses alone and the thought concerning such observations, utter. Men try to rest content with what lies within the field of observation and thought. But whereas Kant drew from this the inevitable conclusion that man can know nothing of things ‘beyond’, his successors declared: As observation and thought indicate nothing divine in that ‘beyond’, they are themselves the divine. Among those who declared this, Schelling was the most forceful. Fichte gathered everything into selfhood; Schelling extended selfhood over everything. He did not, like Fichte, wish to show that selfhood is everything, but, on the contrary, that everything is selfhood. And Schelling had the courage to declare not only the ego's content of ideas to be divine, but the whole human spirit-personality. He not only made the human Reason divine, but the content of human life a divine, personal entity. One calls an explanation of the world Anthropomorphism which, starting from man, imagines that underlying the whole course of the world there is a being who guides that course as man guides his own actions. Those, too, who postulate a general cosmic Intelligence as the basis of events, they too explain the world in the anthropomorphic sense. For this cosmic Intelligence is none other than the human Reason which has been made general and universal. When Goethe says: ‘Man never realises how anthropomorphic he is’, his mind is engrossed with the thought that concealed anthropomorphisms are contained in the simplest utterances we make about nature. When we say, ‘a body rolls further because another has struck it’, we form such an idea from out of our ego. We strike a body and it rolls on. If we see that a ball moves towards another and this other rolls on further, we think of the striking of the second by the first as analogous to the striking effect which we ourselves exercise. Ernst Haeckel spoke the anthropomorphic dogma: ‘divine world-creation and divine world-government resemble the mechanical productions of an ingenious technician or engineer and the State-administration of a wise ruler. The Lord God as Creator, Sustainer and Ruler of the Cosmos is here conceived as thoroughly human in his thinking and acting.’ Schelling had the courage to lead anthropomorphism to its ultimate consequences. He declared man and his whole life-content to be divine; and as not only the rational belongs to this life-content, but also the irrational, he was able also to explain the existence of irrationality in the world. To this end he had to extend the rational views of the reasoning mind by adding another, whose origin does not lie in thinking. This—in his opinion—higher view, he calls ‘Positive Philosophy’. ‘This’, he says, ‘is the really free philosophy; anyone who does not desire it may leave it alone; I leave everyone free; I say only that if anyone desires, for instance, to ascertain the actual course of things, to have a free world-creation and so forth, he can succeed only along the path of a philosophy such as this. If rationalistic philosophy satisfies him and he desires nothing further, let him content himself with that, but he must give up trying to find in rationalistic philosophy what unfortunately it cannot have within it, namely, the real God and the reality underlying the course of things, and a free relationship of God to the world.’ Negative philosophy will ‘remain pre-eminently the philosophy for the schools, Positive philosophy, the philosophy for life. Only through both together will there come the consecration that man may expect from philosophy. It is well known that the Eleusinian Initiates distinguished the Lesser and the Greater Mysteries; the Lesser were a preparation for the Greater. ... Positive philosophy is the necessary consequence of Negative philosophy when this is rightly understood. It may therefore be said: In Negative philosophy the Lesser Mysteries are celebrated, in Positive philosophy the Greater.’

This chapter of my book closed with the passage:

“If the inner life is declared to be divine, it seems inconsistent to confine ourselves to one part of it. Schelling did not fall into this inconsistency. When he said that to explain nature is to create nature, he indicated the direction of his own view of life. If the reflective study of nature is a repetition of her creation, the basic character of his creation must correspond to that of human action; it must be an act of free spiritual activity, not one like a geometrical necessity. But we cannot recognise a free creation through laws of Reason; it must reveal itself through different means.”

I was writing a history of world-views held in the nineteenth century. I could not go any further than this, for what prevailed at the time in advancing evolution were purely dilettante attempts which had no influence upon the progress of philosophical research. Such matters could not form part of this book. But Theosophy, in so far as it is carried into earnest thinking—that you find in the chapter on Schelling.

The second part of the book, which deals, firstly, with Hegel, is dated October, two. It was then that I had just begun to give the lectures referred to, and in September, 1901, the book on Mysticism had already been published. Truly it is not for the sake of emphasising personal matters but in order to help you to make an unprejudiced judgment that I should like to refer you to a criticism of the book Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert which appeared on 15th December, 1901 in the journal of the German Freethinkers' Alliance, The Free-Thinker. Here, after an introduction and a remark to the effect that there had been no readable presentation of the development of thought in the nineteenth century, it continues:

“Especially in the domain of philosophy in which disputes can be carried on in appropriate words, many sins are committed in popular writings. The ‘Watchers of Zion’ and organisations of every kind, with their learned cliques to which unfortunately so many university tutors belong, are much to blame.”

Quotation of the folllowing extract is made only in order to point out the good-will with which the book was received at the time:

“So much the more must we welcome the fact that Dr. Rudolf Steiner, an author well known as a modern thinker and protagonist, has undertaken the task of giving the German public an objective presentation of the spiritual conflicts waged in Germany in the nineteenth century concerning views and conceptions of the world.”

Then, after an extract from the book, a remarkable statement follows and I must read it to you in full. The writer of this review regrets the absence of something in the book, and expresses this in the following words:

“Although the spiritualism of Du Prel and the anchoretic original Christianity of Tolstoi are useless for cultural activity based on the thought of evolution, yet symptomatically they have a value not to be overlooked. The same may be said of Neo-Buddhism (Theosophy), which has developed a terminology of its own, a sort of mystic jargon. A psychology of the modern belief in spirits by a man of the mental calibre of Steiner would be decidedly welcome. The language of his book is easy to comprehend. None of the yard-long passages of the academic philosopher disturbs the enjoyment of the reader.”

This was written in November 1901, shortly after I had begun to give the theosophical lectures in Berlin. It can truly be said that there was then a demand, a public demand, that I should speak about the aim and purpose of Theosophy. It was not a matter of arbitrary choice but, as the saying goes, a clear call of karma.

In the winter of 1900-1901, I gave the lectures on Mysticism, and in that of 1901-1902 those dealing with the Greek and Egyptian Mysteries in rather greater detail. These lectures were subsequently printed in the book Christianity as Mystical Fact7Second English edition (revised) 1972. (Rudolf Steiner Press, London) (published in the summer of 1902).

The greater part of Mysticism and Modern Thought was at once translated into English, still before I was a member of the Theosophical Society. I could tell you a great deal of importance, but time does not permit of it now; it may be told another time. One thing, however, I must add.

You see clearly that nowhere in the course of things was there any kind of sudden jump; one thing led to the other quite naturally. At the beginning of the course of lectures on the Greek and Egyptian Mysteries—again held in Count Brockdorff's library—and indeed also at the time of the second series I had some opportunity of hearing about matters which were not so very serious at that time, but which eventually led to things which have been spoken of here as “mystical eccentricities”.

So in the year 1901-1902, I spoke on the Greek and Egyptian Mysteries and these lectures were attended by the present Frau Dr. Steiner. She had also heard the lecture I had given in the Theosophical Society during the winter of 1900 on Gustav Theodor Fechner. It was a special lecture, not forming part of the other series. Frau Dr. Steiner had therefore already been present at some of the lectures I gave during that time. It would be interesting to relate a few details here—but these may be omitted; they merely add a little colour to the incident. If necessary, they can be told on another occasion.

After having been away for a time, Frau Dr. Steiner returned to Berlin from Russia in the autumn, and with an acquaintance of Countess Brockdorff was present at the second course of lectures given in the winter of 1901–1902. After one of the lectures on the Greek Mysteries, this acquaintance came to me and said—well, something of the kind just alluded to! This lady subsequently became a more and more fanatical adherent of the Theosophical Society and was later given a high position in the Order founded to wait for the Second Coming of Christ. At the time of which I am speaking, she came to me after the lecture on the Greek Mysteries and, adopting the air of a really profound initiate of the Theosophical Society about to give evidence of her initiation, said: “You have spoken of Mysteries; but they are still in existence. There are still secret societies. Are you aware of that?”

After a subsequent lecture on the same subject, she came to me again and said: “One sees that you still remember quite well what you were taught when you were in the Greek Mysteries!” That is something which, carried a little farther, borders on the chapter deserving the title of “mystical eccentricities”.

In the autumn of 1901, this lady organised a tea-party. Frau Dr. Steiner always speaks of it as the “chrysanthemum tea” because there were so many of these flowers in the room. The invitation came from this acquaintance of Countess Brockdorff and I often thought that she wanted—well, I don't quite know what it was! The day chosen for the founding of the Theosophical Society was one of special importance for this lady. She may have wanted to enlist me as a co-worker on her own lines, for she put out feelers and was often very persistent—but nothing of any account came of it. I should like, however, just to relate a conversation that took place in the autumn of 1901 between the present Frau Dr. Steiner and myself on the occasion of that “chrysanthemum tea”, when she asked whether it was not urgently necessary to call to life a spiritual-scientific Movement in Europe. In the course of the conversation I said in unambiguous terms: “Certainly it is necessary to call such a Movement to life. But I will ally myself only with a Movement that is connected exclusively with Western occultism and cultivates its development.” And I also said that such a Movement must link on to Plato, to Goethe, and so forth. I indicated the whole programme which was then actually carried out.

In this programme there was no place for unhealthy activities, but naturally a few people with such tendencies came; they were people who were influenced by the Movement of which I have spoken. But from the conversation quoted at the beginning of this lecture, which I had with a member of the English Theosophical Society, you will see that a complete rejection of everything in the nature of mediumship and atavism was implicit in this programme.

The path we have been following for long years was adopted with full consciousness. Although elements of mediumistic and atavistic clairvoyance have not been absent, there has been no deviation from this path, and it has led to our present position.

I had, of course, to rely on finding within the Theosophical Movement people who desired and were able to recognise thoroughly healthy methods of work. The invariable procedure of those who did not desire a Movement in which a healthy and strict sense of scientific responsibility prevails, has been to misrepresent the aim we have been pursuing, in order to suit their own ends. The very history of our Movement affords abundant evidence that there has been no drawing back from penetrating into the highest spiritual worlds, to the extent to which they can now, by grace, be revealed to mankind; but that on the other hand, whatever cannot be attained along a healthy path, through the right methods for entering the spiritual worlds, has been strictly rejected. Those who recognise this and who follow the history of the Movement do not need to take it as a mere assurance, for it is evident from the whole nature of the work that has been going on for years. We have been able to go very, very much further in genuine investigation of the spiritual world than has ever been possible to the Theosophical Society. But we take the sure, not the unsure, paths. This may be said candidly and freely.

I have always refused to have anything to do with forms of antiquated occultism, with any Brotherhoods or Communities of that kind in the domain of esotericism. And it was only under the guarantee of complete independence that I worked for a time in a certain connection with the Theosophical Society and its esoteric procedures, but never in the direction towards which it was heading. Already by the year 1907 everything really esoteric had completely vanished from the Theosophical Society, and later happenings are sufficiently well known to you. It has also happened that Occult Brotherhoods made proposals to me of one kind or another. A certain highly-respected Occult Brotherhood suggested to me that I should participate in the spreading of a kind of occultism calling itself ‘Rosicrucian’, but I left the proposal unanswered, although it came from a much-respected Occult Movement. I say this in order to show that we ourselves are following an independent path, suited to the needs of the present age, and that unhealthy elements are inevitably regarded by us as being undesirable in the extreme.

Zweiter Vortrag

Bei der heutigen Betrachtung möchte ich bitten, Persönliches mit Sachlichem untereinandergemischt geben zu dürfen, weil das, was ich an die gestrige Auseinandersetzung anzuknüpfen habe, gerade das ist, was die heutige Betrachtung notwendig machen wird und von dem ich nach sorgfältiger Erwägung glauben muß, daß es richtig ist, es heute hier genauer auseinanderzusetzen.

Ich möchte ausgehen von einem ganz bestimmten Erlebnis, das mit unserer Bewegung zusammenhängend ist. Sie wissen ja: in äußerlicher Weise haben wir unsere Bewegung damit begonnen, daß wir anknüpften — aber eben in äußerlicher Weise anknüpften - an die sogenannte Theosophische Gesellschaft, und daß wir die sogenannte Deutsche Sektion innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft im Herbst 1902 in Berlin gegründet haben. Nun hatten wir dann im Laufe des Jahres 1904 einen Besuch in verschiedenen Städten Deutschlands von angesehenen Mitgliedern der Theosophischen Gesellschaft, der Theosophical Society. In die Zeit dieses Besuches fällt das Erlebnis, von dem ich ausgehen werde. Es war dazumal von mir bereits erschienen, im Frühling 1904, mein Buch «Theosophie», und begründet war die Zeitschrift «LuzitferGnosis». Und ich hatte in der Zeitschrift «Luzifer-Gnosis» bis zu einem gewissen Punkt die Artikel veröffentlicht, die über das Atlantisproblem, über die Beschaffenheit des atlantischen Zeitalters handelten. Es ist dann auch das, was ich in diesen Artikeln in «Luzifer-Gnosis» veröffentlicht habe, in einem Sonderabdruck erschienen mit dem Titel: «Unsere atlantischen Vorfahren.» Wenn Sie sich erinnern, so werden Sie finden, daß darinnen eine Anzahl von Mitteilungen gemacht worden sind über die Beschaffenheit der atlantischen Welt; sie wurden auch noch zurückgeführt in «Luzifer-Gnosis» auf die Beschaffenheit des sogenannten lemurischen Zeitalters. Also eine größere Anzahl von Artikeln dieser Art war erschienen, und gerade als dazumal die Mitglieder der Theosophical Society bei uns waren, war eines dieser Hefte, das bedeutungsvolle Mitteilungen zu bringen hatte, abgeschlossen und wurde an die Abonnenten verschickt. Es war dies gerade in den Tagen, als diese Theosophen da waren. Eine in der Theosophical Society sehr angesehene Persönlichkeit las in dem Hefte damals auch diese Mitteilungen über die atlantische Welt und stellte dann an mich eine Frage. Und diese Frage ist es, was ich als bemerkenswertes Erlebnis zusammen mit dem Gestrigen erwähnen will.

Dieses Mitglied der Theosophical Society, das gerade in der Zeit, als die Gesellschaft durch Blavatsky gegründet worden ist, die allerwichtigsten Angelegenheiten mitgemacht hatte, das also ganz darinnen stand in dem Betriebe der Theosophical Society, das stellte, nachdem es die Mitteilungen über die atlantische Welt gelesen hatte, die Frage: Auf welche Weise sind denn diese Mitteilungen über die atlantische Welt eigentlich zustande gekommen? — Diese Frage schloß sehr viel und sehr Bedeutungsvolles ein, denn jenes Mitglied kannte bis dahin nur die Art und Weise, wie solche Mitteilungen in der Theosophical Society zustande gekommen waren. Sie waren nämlich zustande gekommen dadurch, daß man in der Theosophical Society zu einer Art mediumistischer Forschung gegriffen hatte. Man hatte sich bei den Mitteilungen, die dazumal schon in der Theosophical Society veröffentlicht waren, auf Forschungen gestützt, die in gewisser Beziehung etwas mit mediumistischen Forschungen zu tun haben. Das heißt, es wurde eine Persönlichkeit in eine Art von mediumistischen Zustand gebracht, man kann nicht sagen Trance, aber in eine Art von mediumistischen Zustand, und es wurden dann auch die Bedingungen hergestellt, die es möglich machten, daß die Persönlichkeit, die sich nicht im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein befand, doch Mitteilungen machte über dasjenige, was man mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein nicht erreichen kann. Auf diesem Wege waren die Mitteilungen in jener Zeit zustande gekommen, und das betreffende Mitglied der Theosophical Society meinte, daß Mitteilungen über vorgeschichtliche Ereignisse nur auf diesem Wege gewonnen werden und fragte daher, welche Persönlichkeit wir unter uns hätten, die wir in dieser Weise als ein Medium für solche Forschungen benützen können.

Da ich ablehnen mußte, auf diesem Wege zu forschen und streng auf dem Boden des individuellen Forschens stand, und da ich dazumal schon alles lediglich durch eigenes persönliches Forschen gefunden hatte, so verstand mich die betreffende Persönlichkeit überhaupt nicht. Sie verstand nicht, um was es sich da handelte, sie verstand nicht, daß es sich um etwas anderes handelte als um das, was man in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft bisher getan hatte. Das war aber der Weg, der mir vorgeschrieben war: alles, was vorheriger Forschungsweg war, abzulehnen, und wenn auch mit Mitteln übersinnlicher Anschauungen, so doch so zu forschen, wie man forscht, wenn man sich nur desjenigen bedient, was als Offenbarung gegeben werden kann der Persönlichkeit, die zugleich die Forscherpersönlichkeit ist.

Es ist nach alledem, wie ich in die spirituelle Bewegung einzugreifen habe, nichts anderes möglich, als in strengster Weise diese Ihnen oft geschilderte, für die moderne Welt und für die gegenwärtige Menschheit zweifellos notwendige Forschungsmethode geltend zu machen. Sie sehen: Bedeutsames trennt die ganze Forschungsmethode der Geisteswissenschaft von den Wegen, die in der Theosophical Society eingeschlagen worden sind. Denn alles, was sie an Mitteilungen aus der geistigen Welt hatten, zum Beispiel auch die in dem Buche Scott-Elliots über die Atlantis, ist durchaus auf dem vorhin geschilderten Wege zustande gekommen, weil man dies als allein maßgebend, weil allein objektiv, betrachtet hatte. In dieser Beziehung war also das Einfügen unserer geisteswissenschaftlichen Richtung von Anfang an etwas gegenüber den Methoden der Theosophical Society völlig Neues. Es war etwas, das ganz und gar mit den modernen wissenschaftlichen Methoden rechnete, die nur so weit auszubilden waren, daß damit hinaufgestiegen werden konnte in die geistigen Gebiete.

Gerade diese Besprechung ist bedeutsam. Sie hat im Jahre 1904 stattgefunden und zeigte, daß zwischen dem, was hier in der Geisteswissenschaft getrieben wird und dem, was in der übrigen Theosophical Society getrieben wurde, ein großer Unterschied bestand; daß es das, was wir in der Geisteswissenschaft haben, damals nicht gab, sondern daß die Theosophische Gesellschaft die Methode fortsetzte, die hervorgegangen war als Kompromiß zwischen den Exoterikern und den Esoterikern. Das ist überhaupt das notwendige Ergebnis des Entwickelungsganges, den ich gestern geschildert habe. Ich sagte: Allmählich hörte das Sehertum auf, und es gab nur noch vereinzelte Fälle von Sehern, die man mediumistisch machen konnte und aus denen man etwas gewinnen konnte. So hatten sich sogenannte okkulte Orden gebildet, die zwar sehr viele Eingeweihte hatten, aber keine Seher. Die hatten sich allmählich überhaupt erst die Methoden herausbilden müssen — die schon lange gang und gäbe waren im materialistischen Zeitalter -, und sie hatten sich die Forschungsinstrumente erst verschaffen müssen dadurch, daß man nach solchen Persönlichkeiten suchte, in denen noch mediumistische Fähigkeiten, das heißt, atavistisches Hellsehen zu entwickeln war, um so aus ihnen etwas herauszubekommen. Man hatte ausgebreitete Lehren und auch Symbole. Aber wenn man wirklich forschen wollte, so war man darauf angewiesen, solche Persönlichkeiten mit atavistischem Hellsehen zu Hilfe zu nehmen. Diese Methode wurde dann in der Theosophical Society in gewisser Weise auch fortgesetzt, und der Kompromiß, von dem ich gestern gesprochen habe, bestand im wesentlichen aus nichts anderem, als daß man in den Logen, in den verschiedenen Orden solche Experimente gemacht hat, durch welche man geistige Einflüsse in die Welt hineinprojizierte; so daß man den Menschen zeigen konnte oder wollte: Es gibt Einflüsse aus der geistigen Welt auf die Menschen.

Was man also in esoterischen Schulen getrieben hatte, das hatte man so herausgeholt. Dieser Versuch machte Fiasko. Denn während man erwartet hatte, daß durch das Medium wirklich spirituelle Gesetze herauskämen, die in der Umgebung herrschen, hat man nichts anderes erreicht, als daß die Medien fast alle dem Irrtume verfallen waren, daß das, was ihnen gegeben war, von den Toten stamme; daß sie also das Bestreben hatten, das ihnen Gegebene umzufrisieren in Mitteilungen, die ihnen von Toten zugekommen wären. Das bedingte dann eine ganz bestimmte Konsequenz. Wenn die älteren Mitglieder unter Ihnen zurückdenken an die ersten Zeiten der theosophischen Bewegung und die Literatur betrachten, die da noch unter diesem Einflusse der Theosophical Society gegeben worden ist, da werden Sie wissen, daß die astrale Welt, das heißt unmittelbar nach dem Tode, in Büchern von Frau Besant beschrieben wurde, die aber nur das wiedergaben, was in der «Geheimlehre» von der Blavatsky stand, oder was in den Büchern von Leadbeater zu lesen war. Daraus stammte auch alles das, was über das Leben der Menschen zwischen dem Tode und einer neuen Geburt gegeben war.

Wenn Sie nun damit vergleichen, was ich in meiner «Theosophie» geben mußte, was da über das Seelenland und über das Geisterland gegeben worden ist - man wollte das in der ersten Zeit immer abstreiten, aber ich glaube, es werden sich heute schon genügend Menschen finden, die objektiv darüber denken können -, dann werden Sie ganz beträchtliche Unterschiede finden, eben weil die Forschungsmethoden auch für diese Gebiete verschieden waren. Denn alle Forschungsmethoden, die die Theosophical Society hatte, führten auf jene Methoden zurück, von denen ich gesprochen habe; auch die Methoden, die angewendet wurden, um das Leben der Toten zu erforschen.

Sie sehen also, daß dasjenige, was zunächst die Theosophical Society der Welt gab, in gewisser Beziehung eine Fortsetzung des Versuches der Okkultisten war. In welch anderer Beziehung es dies nicht war, wollen wir gleich hören. Aber im ganzen war es die Fortsetzung des Versuches, der schon von der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts ab durch einen Kompromiß der Exoteriker und Esoteriker zustande gekommen war; nur daß später durch die Theosophical Society die Sache etwas esoterischer gemacht worden ist. Während man vorher versucht hatte, das Medium vor die Welt hinzustellen, haben die Mitglieder der Theosophical Society es vorgezogen, das nur im inneren Kreise zu tun und dann nur die Ergebnisse mitzuteilen. Das ist ein wesentlicher Unterschied, denn man ging damit zurück auf eine Forschungsmethode, welche die verschiedenen Orden vor der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts als allgemeine Gepflogenheit anerkannt hatten. Ich muß das hervorheben, weil ich einmal scharf betonen muß, daß mit dem Hineinsetzen unserer geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung eben eine ganz neue, mit den Gesinnungen der modernen Wissenschaft absolut rechnende Methode in die okkulte Bewegung eingeführt worden ist.

Nun sagte ich Ihnen: der Kompromiß zwischen den Exoterikern und den Esoterikern, durch allerlei Medien die materialistische Welt zu überzeugen, daß es eine geistige Welt gibt, habe Fiasko erlitten. Man sah das Fiasko daran, daß die Medien immer von einer Welt sprachen, die ihnen unter den vorhandenen Verhältnissen gar nicht zugänglich sein konnte: von der Welt der Toten. Sie sprachen von Eingebungen, die sie aus einer Welt, in der die Toten leben, empfangen haben wollten. Nun stand die Sache so, daß die Exoteriker und die Esoteriker sahen, daß der Versuch, den sie gemacht hatten, nicht zu dem führte, was sie eigentlich gewollt hatten.

Wodurch nun ist das zustande gekommen, was da vorging? Ich meine, was hat sich da eigentlich gezeigt durch diesen merkwürdigen Versuch, der durch den geschilderten Kompromiß zustande gekommen war? Es hat sich gezeigt, daß eine bestimmte Sorte von Eingeweihten gewissermaßen das Heft aus den Händen gerissen haben denjenigen, die den Kompromiß eingegangen waren. Die sehr weit nach links stehenden Eingeweihten hatten sich der Bewegung bemächtigt, die protegiert worden ist in der Art, wie ich es Ihnen geschildert habe. Sie erlangten einen großen Einfluß, weil alles, was durch die Medien zustande kam, nicht aus dem Reiche der Toten herrührte, sondern aus dem Reiche der Lebendigen, die zu gleicher Zeit die Initiatoren waren, die sich mit den Medien in Fern- oder Nahrapport setzten. Weil das alles durch diese Initiatoren und durch die Medien zustande gebracht wurde, hatte es die Färbung der Theorien derer, die sich dieser Medien bemächtigen wollten. Diejenigen unter den Exoterikern und Esoterikern, die den Kompromiß geschlossen hatten, haben den Menschen beibringen wollen: Seht, es ist noch eine geistige Welt da! — Das hat man ihnen beibringen wollen. Als aber dann denen, die glaubten das Leitseil führen zu können, das Leitseil entglitt, bemächtigten sich jene sehr weit nach links stehenden Okkultisten desselben und versuchten, ihre Theorien, ihre Anschauungen durch das Mittel der Medien, wenn ich diese Tautologie gebrauchen darf, der Welt mitzuteilen.

Nun war eigentlich für diejenigen, die zum Heile der Menschheit diesen Kompromiß geschlossen hatten, die Sache eine sehr fatale. Immer mehr und mehr fühlten sie: es werden im Grunde genommen immer mehr falsche Lehren über das Übersinnliche in die Welt gebracht. Das war die Lage in der Entwickelung des Okkultismus etwa in den vierziger, fünfziger Jahren, sogar noch in den sechziger Jahren des verflossenen 19. Jahrhunderts.

Nun war man aber, während man noch nachdachte in den Kreisen der ehrlichen Okkultisten, in einer fatalen Lage. Denn je weiter die Okkultisten nach links standen, desto weniger waren sie darauf bedacht, nur das zu bringen, was man bringen kann: nämlich das Allgemein-Menschliche, «Links» ist man im Okkultismus, wenn man etwas als Endzweck erreichen will mit Hilfe dessen, was man als okkulte Lehre vertritt. «Rechts» ist man im Okkultismus, wenn man ihn nur um seiner selbst willen verbreitet. Die Mittelpartei kommt eben darauf hinaus, das Esoterische, das in unserer Zeit notwendig ist für das allgemeine Menschliche, exoterisch zu machen. Diejenigen aber, die ganz nach links stehen, sind solche, die Sonderzwecke verbinden mit dem, was sie als okkulte Lehre verbreiten. Man steht links in dem Maße, als man Sonderzwecke verfolgt, die Menschen in die geistige Welt führt, ihnen allerlei Kundgebungen aus der geistigen Welt gibt und in einer unrichtigen Weise in sie hineinpflanzt, was nur zur Realisierung von solchen Sonderzwecken dienen soll. Vor einer solchen Lage also war die Leitung der modernen Eingeweihten. Sie sahen die Sache in den Händen von Leuten, die Sonderzwecke verfolgten. Vor dieser Sachlage standen die Esoteriker und Exoteriker, die den angedeuteten Kompromiß geschlossen hatten.

Da hörte man — wenn ich dieses Wort spreche, ist es vielleicht nicht ganz genau, aber man kann die Worte nicht genau wählen, weil wir an die äußere Sprache gebunden sind und der Verkehr unter den Okkultisten etwas anderes ist, als es die äußere Sprache zu bezeichnen fähig ist —, daß ein bedeutsames Ereignis für die weitere Fortsetzung der Geistesentwickelung auf der Erde bevorstehen müsse, und dieses Ereignis war nichts anderes als das, was ich in der folgenden Weise schildern muß. Man hatte es bei den Forschungsmethoden der einzelnen Orden vorgezogen, bis in die späteren Zeiten hinein, so gut man eben konnte, weibliche Medien weniger zu benützen. In den strengen Orden, die auf dem richtigen Standpunkte stehen wollten, hat man überhaupt keine weiblichen Medien benutzt zu Offenbarungen aus der geistigen Welt.

Nun ist das schon so, daß der weibliche Organismus durch seine Organisation länger geeignet ist, atavistisches Hellsehen zu bewahren als der männliche Organismus. Während die männlichen Medien sehr auf dem Aussterbe-Etat standen, waren weibliche Medien immerhin noch vorhanden, und man hat sich einer großen Zahl weiblicher Medien bedient auch bei dem in Rede stehenden Kompromiß. Jetzt trat aber eine Persönlichkeit in den Gesichtskreis der Okkultisten, die im ausgesprochensten Maße medial war. Das war Frau H. P. Blavatsky, eine Persönlichkeit, die ganz besonders geeignet war, durch gewisse unterbewußte Glieder ihres Organismus viel, sehr viel aus der geistigen Welt herauszuholen. Nun machen wir uns einmal klar, was eigentlich dadurch möglich war für die Welt. Gerade in einem der wichtigsten Zeitpunkte für die okkulte Entwickelung trat eine Persönlichkeit in die Welt herein, die durch die eigentümliche Art ihres Organismus nur so gespickt war mit allen Möglichkeiten, das Mannigfaltigste aus der geistigen Welt durch ihre unterbewußten Fähigkeiten herauszuholen.

Der Okkultist, der dazumal seine Zeit betrachtete, mußte sich sagen: Nun erscheint im richtigen Moment eine Persönlichkeit, die uns durch die eigentümliche Beschaffenheit ihres Organismus die schärfsten Beweise geben kann für dasjenige, was uralte überlieferte Lehre ist, was bei uns nur in Symbolen existiert. — Im allerhöchsten Maße war das der Fall, daß eine Persönlichkeit da war, die einfach durch ihre Organisation die Möglichkeit bot, vieles von dem, was die Zeit schon längst nicht mehr auf andere Weise als durch Überlieferung wußte, wiederum zu beweisen. Vor diesem Faktum stand man, gerade nachdem man Fiasko gemacht hatte, nachdem man so in eine Sackgasse gekommen war. Das müssen wir durchaus festhalten: man stand Blavatsky gegenüber als einer Persönlichkeit, aus der man, wie aus einer elektrisch geladenen Leidener Flasche die elektrischen Funken, okkulte Wahrheiten herausholen konnte.

Nun würde es zu weit führen, wenn ich alle Zwischenglieder erzählen wollte, aber einiges Wichtige muß ich doch angeben. Es handelte sich darum, daß ein wirklich bedeutungsvoller Moment da war, den ich etwa so schildern kann, es ist mehr symbolisch ausgedrückt, trifft aber ganz den Tatbestand. Diejenigen Okkultisten, die auf der rechten Seite standen, in Verbindung mit der Mittelpartei, also diejenigen, die den Kompromiß geschlossen hatten, konnten sich sagen: Nun ist es möglich, etwas sehr Bedeutsames herauszubekommen aus dieser Persönlichkeit. — Die aber, die auf der Seite der Linken standen, konnten sich sagen: Nun ist es möglich, in intensivster Weise etwas in der Welt zu erreichen mit Hilfe dieser Persönlichkeit! — Und jetzt entstand wirklich ein Ringen, ein wirkliches Ringen um diese Persönlichkeit, auf der einen Seite in der ehrlichen Absicht, vieles, was die Eingeweihten wußten, bestätigt zu finden, auf der anderen Seite um mächtiger Sonderzwecke willen.

Auf die erste Periode im Leben von H. P. Blavatsky habe ich öfter hingedeutet und gezeigt, wie es wirklich so war, daß man versucht hat, zunächst aus ihr vieles herauszubekommen. Aber die Sache wurde verhältnismäßig recht bald anders, und das kam dadurch, daß H. P. Blavatsky verhältnismäßig bald in die Sphäre derjenigen kam, die gewissermaßen auf dem linken Flügel standen. Und obwohl H. P. Blavatsky sehr gut wußte, was sie selber schauen konnte - sie war dadurch auch besonders bedeutsam, daß sie nicht bloß ein passives Medium war, sondern eine ungeheuer starke Erinnerung hatte für alles, was sich ihr aus den höheren Welten kundgab -, so mußten allerdings doch gewisse Persönlichkeiten auf sie einen Einfluß haben, wenn sie Kundgebungen aus der geistigen Welt hervorrufen wollte. Deshalb beruft sie sich immer auf das, was eigentlich wegbleiben müßte, auf die Mahatmas. Die können ja dahinterstehen, darauf kommt es aber nicht an, wenn es gilt, die Menschheit zu fördern.

H.P. Blavatsky stand also verhältnismäßig bald vor einer Entscheidung. Von einer Seite, die der Linken angehörte, bekam sie Wind davon, daß sie eine wichtige Persönlichkeit sei. Sie wußte wohl, was sie schaute, aber die ganze Bedeutung ihrer Persönlichkeit kannte sie nicht. Sie wurde ihr erst enthüllt von der linken Seite. Sie war im Innersten ihres Wesens trotzdem eine grundehrliche Natur und versuchte es zunächst, nachdem sie Wind bekommen hatte von jener Seite, die ihr anfangs kaum gefallen haben dürfte — eben weil sie eine grundehrliche Natur war -, ihrerseits eine Art Kompromiß zu schließen mit einer okkulten Brüderschaft in Europa. Es hätte etwas sehr Schönes herauskommen können, weil sie durch ihre große mediumistische Gabe wirklich phänomenal bedeutsame Bestätigungen hätte liefern können für das, was die Eingeweihten aus der Theorie und aus dem Symbolismus heraus kannten. Sie war aber nicht nur eine grundehrliche Natur, sondern auch, was man im Deutschen einen Frechdachs nennt. Das war sie schon. Sie hatte einen gewissen Grundzug im Wesen, der zum Medialen neigenden Persönlichkeiten besonders eigen ist: nämlich eine Ungleichartigkeit in ihrem äußeren Auftreten. Sie hatte also Momente, wo sie sehr frech werden konnte. Und da hatte sie in einer solchen Anwandlung von Frechdachsigkeit der okkulten Brüderschaft, die entschlossen war, das Experiment zu machen, Bedingungen gestellt, die unerfüllbar waren. Und da sie wußte, daß durch sie vieles zustande kommen konnte, entschloß sie sich, es noch mit anderen Brüderschaften aufzunehmen. So kam sie an eine amerikanische Brüderschaft. Diese amerikanische Brüderschaft ist eine solche gewesen, bei der fortwährend die Majorität zwischen rechts und links geschwankt hat, die aber jedenfalls vor der Möglichkeit stand, ungeheuer Bedeutsames über die geistigen Welten herauszubekommen.

Nun fällt in diese Zeit zugleich die intensivste Anteilnahme von seiten anderer linksstehender Brüder an H. P. Blavatsky. Diese Brüder der linken Seite hatten schon dazumal ihre Sonderinteressen. Ich will mich über diese Sonderinteressen nicht besonders aussprechen. Wenn es nötig werden sollte, so könnte ich das in der Zukunft einmal sagen. Für jetzt mag es genügen, zu sagen, es waren Brüder, die Sonderinteressen hatten, vor allen Dingen starke politische Sonderinteressen, denen die Möglichkeit vorleuchtete, etwas Politisches in Amerika zu vollbringen mit Leuten, die man zuerst in okkulter Weise präpariert hatte. Die Folge davon war; daß in einem Moment, wo H. P. Blavatsky eine Unsumme von okkultem Wissen dadurch schon erobert hatte, daß sie mit jener amerikanischen Loge zusammengearbeitet hatte, also im Zusammenhang gewesen war mit der amerikanischen Loge, sie aus der betreffenden Loge herausgeworfen werden mußte, weil man entdeckte, daß da etwas Politisches nun dahintersteckte. Also es ging nicht mehr.

Jetzt war die Situation erst recht eine schwierige, eine ungeheuer schwierige. Denn das, was unternommen worden war, um die Welthinzuweisen auf eine geistige Welt, das mußte in gewisser Weise, weil es Fiasko gemacht hatte, von den ernsten Okkultisten zurückgenommen werden. Es mußte gezeigt werden, daß nichts darauf zu geben sei, was der Spiritismus vorbrachte, obgleich er viele Anhänger hatte. Er war nur materialistisch und ein äußerster Dilettantismus. Nur solche Gelehrte beschäftigten sich damit, die in äußerlich materialistischer Weise Kunde von einer geistigen Welt bekommen wollten. Außerdem hatte Blavatsky die amerikanische Loge merken lassen bei ihrem Abgange, daß sie keineswegs gewillt war, über das, was sie wußte — und sie wußte viel, weil sie sich nachträglich an das, was bei ihr zustande gekommen war, erinnern konnte -, der Welt gegenüber zu schweigen. Sie hatte eine ganze Menge von Frechdachsigkeit!

Nun war, wie man sagt, guter Rat teuer. Was war nun zu tun? Und jetzt kam etwas zustande, was ich auch verschiedentlich schon angedeutet habe; denn Stücke von dem, was ich heute im Zusammenhange sage, habe ich da und dort immer wieder gesagt. Es kam das zustande, was man im Okkultismus nennt: okkulte Gefangenschaft. H. P. Blavatsky wurde in okkulte Gefangenschaft gesetzt. Diese besteht darin, daß durch gewisse Dinge, die nur gemacht werden können von gewissen Brüdern — und die nur Brüderschaften machen, die sich auf eigentlich nichterlaubte Künste einlassen —, daß also durch gewisse Künste und Machenschaften erzielt wurde, H.P.Blavatsky in gewisser Zeit in einer Welt leben zu lassen, die all ihr okkultes Wissen nach innen warf.

AltName

Wenn Sie sich denken, das wäre - symbolisch gezeichnet - Blavatsky und in ihrer Aura wäre das okkulte Wissen, so wurde durch gewisse Vorgänge erzielt, daß für lange Zeit hindurch, was in dieser Aura lebte, in ihre Seele zurückgeworfen wurde. Also alles das, was sie an okkulterm Wissen hatte, sollte eingesperrt werden; sie sollte abgeschlossen werden in bezug auf die äußere Welt und in bezug auf ihren Okkultismus.

Das ist zustande gekommen in der Zeit, in der also H.P.B. hätte recht gefährlich werden können durch die Verbreitung der Dinge, die gerade zu den allerinteressantesten gehören am Horizonte der okkultistischen Bewegung. Nun erfuhren von dieser Sache gewisse indische Okkultisten, die ihrerseits wieder sehr der linken Seite zuneigten, die vor allen Dingen ein Interesse daran hatten, den Okkultismus, der durch H.P.B. in die Welt kommen konnte, so zu drehen, daß er im Sinne dessen, was diese indischen Okkultisten als Sonderinteressen hatten, wirken konnte in der Welt. Durch die Bemühungen dieser indischen Okkultisten, die die entsprechenden Praktiken kannten, kam es zustande, daß ihr wieder weggenommen wurde diese Einsperrung, daß sie wiederum frei wurde, so daß sie jetzt ihre geistigen Kräfte wieder richtig gebrauchen konnte, daß diese nicht mehr zurückgeworfen wurden.

Sie sehen daraus schon, was alles in dieser Seele im Grunde genommen vorgegangen war, und aus was für Bestandstücken das zusammengesetzt war, was durch diese Persönlichkeit in die Welt kam. Aber dadurch, daß sich gewisse indische Okkultisten das Verdienst erworben hatten, sie frei zu machen von der Einsperrung, hatten sie sie auch in gewisser Beziehung in der Hand, und es war gar nicht möglich, etwas dagegen zu tun, daß diese indischen Okkulktisten die Persönlichkeit Blavatsky dazu benützten, jenen Teil des Okkultismus in die Welt zu schikken, welcher ihnen genehm war. So kam etwas ganz Merkwürdiges zustande. Es wurde gewissermaßen — wenn ich den groben Ausdruck benutzen darf — etwas arrangiert. Das, was arrangiert wurde, kann ich ungefähr in folgender Weise ausdrücken. Die indischen Okkultisten wollten gegen die Sonderbestrebungen, die die anderen hatten, ihre eigenen Sonderbestrebungen geltend machen und bedienten sich dazu Frau Blavatskys. H.P.B. war angewiesen darauf, einen Einfluß von außen her zu bekommen: die mediumistische Stimmung mußte bei ihr immer von außen erzeugt werden. Daher war es auch möglich, allerlei durch sie in die Welt zu bringen.

Um diese Zeit geschah die Vereinigung von H.P.B. mit jener Persönlichkeit, die im Grunde genommen direkt theosophische Interessen von Anfang an nicht hatte, aber eine mit ausgezeichnetem Organisationstalent begabte Persönlichkeit war: nämlich mit Olcott. Ich kann es nicht bestimmt sagen, aber ich vermute, daß schon eine gewisse Verbindung in der Zeit bestanden hatte, als H.P.B. der amerikanischen Loge angehört hatte. Dann trat, gewissermaßen unter der Maske einer früheren Individualität, eine Persönlichkeit in den geistigen Gesichtskreis der H.P.B., die im wesentlichen der Träger desjenigen war, was man von Indien aus in die Welt lancieren wolite. Einige von Ihnen wissen vielleicht, daß gerade Colonel Olcott in seinem Buche «People from the other world» über diese Individualität viel geschrieben hat, die jetzt in den Gesichtskreis von H.P.B.trat unter der Maske einer früheren Individualität, die bezeichnet worden ist als Mahatma Koot Hoomi. Sie wissen vielleicht, daß Olcott über diesen Mahatma Koot Hoomi viel, viel geschrieben hat, darunter auch jenes, daß im Jahre 1874 sich dieser Mahatma Koot Hoomi darüber aussprach, welche Individualität in ihm wohne. Er gab an, eigentlich John King zu heißen und die Individualität eines im 17. Jahrhundert mächtigen Seeräubers gewesen zu sein. Das steht in dem Buche «People from the other world» von Colonel Olcott. Also hätte man es zu tun in dem Mahatma Koot Hoomi mit dem Spirit eines im 17. Jahrhundert glänzenden Seeräubers, der dann im 19. Jahrhundert das besorgt hatte, was besorgt worden ist an bedeutsamen Phänomenen mit Hilfe des Mediums H.P.B, und auch sonstiger. Er hat Teetassen gebracht von weither, er hat allerlei Dokumente aus dem Sarge des verstorbenen Vaters von H.P.B. erscheinen lassen und dergleichen mehr. Man mußte also nach des Colonel Olcotts Aussage annehmen, daß das die Tat des im 17. Jahrhundert glänzenden Seeräubers gewesen wäre.

Nun sprach sich schon Colonel Olcott in merkwürdiger Weise über diesen John King aus. Er sagt, daß man es vielleicht gar nicht zu tun habe mit dem Spirit jenes Seeräubers, sondern vielleicht mit dem Geschöpfe eines Ordens, der unter den physischen Menschen als sichtbarer Orden besteht, während er in betreff seiner Resultate von Unsichtbaren abhängig ist. Es wäre also Mahatma Koot Hoomi Mitglied gewesen eines Ordens, der während seines Lebens jene Dinge trieb, wie ich sie beschrieben habe, und die auf dem Wege durch H.P.B. der Welt mitgeteilt werden sollten, aber mit allen möglichen Sonderinteressen verknüpft. Diese bestanden darinnen, daß man insbesondere eine indische Lehre zu verbreiten sich gedrängt fühlte.

So lag also jetzt die Sache etwa in den siebziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sie sehen also sehr bedeutsame Vorgänge, die man aber im Zusammenhange betrachten muß, wenn man den ganzen Hergang der okkultistischen Bewegung ins Auge faßt. Dieser selbe John King ist derjenige, welcher auf dem Wege der Präzipitation zustande gebracht hat die Bücher von Sinnett, sowohl das erste Buch, die «Briefe über die okkulte Welt», wie auch namentlich das Buch «Esoterischer Buddhismus».

Dieses Buch «Der Esoterische Buddhismus» fiel mir in die Hand, eigentlich sehr kurze Zeit nachdem es erschienen war, nur einige Wochen danach, und ich konnte dazumal aus diesem Buche ersehen, wie man im Grunde genommen bemüht war, namentlich von einer gewissen Seite her, der spirituellen Lehre eine ganz materialistische Form zu geben. Denn wenn Sie sich mit all dem Rüstzeug, das Sie im Laufe der Zeit nun gewonnen haben, über den «Esoterischen Buddhismus» hermachten, so würden Sie erstaunt sein über die materialistischen Formen, in denen die Dinge da mitgeteilt werden. Man hat es zu tun mit einer der schlimmsten Formen des Materialismus. Es wird da die geistige Welt geradezu materialistisch dargestellt. Keiner, der nur das Buch «Esoteriischer Buddhismus» in die Hand bekommt, kann sich aus dem Materialismus erheben. Der Stoff wird da wohl recht sehr verfeinert, aber man kommt bei dem Buche von Sinnett aus dem Materiellen gar nicht heraus, wenn man auch noch so hoch hinaufklettert. So daß also nicht nur das der Fall war, daß jene, die jetzt die geistigen Brotgeber —- verzeihen Sie das materialistische Gleichnis - von H.P.B. waren, nicht nur im indischen Sinne Sonderinteressen hatten, sondern auch die schärfsten Konzessionen an den materialistischen Zeitgeist machten. Und wie richtig sie spekulierten, konnte man an dem Einflusse sehen, den das Buch von Sinnett auf sehr viele Menschen hatte. Ich habe Naturforscher kennengelernt, die entzückt waren von dem Buche von Sinnett, weil alles in ihren Kram hineinpaßte und sie dabei dennoch eine geistige Welt denken konnten. Das Buch kam allen Bedürfnissen des Materialiismus entgegen und gab doch die Möglichkeit, den Bedürfnissen nach der geistigen Welt zu genügen, eine geistige Welt zuzugestehen.

Nun wissen Sie, daß gerade unter der weiteren Entwickelung dieser Vorgänge H.P.B. - es war Ende der achtziger Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts - ihre «Geheimlehre» geschrieben hat und dann im Jahre 1891 gestorben ist. Diese «Geheimlehre» ist ganz in dem Stile gehalten wie der «Esoterische Buddhismus», nur daß ganz grobe Fehler, die jeder Okkultist sogleich korrigieren konnte, in der «Geheimlehre» richtiggestellt worden sind. Ich habe öfter gesprochen über die Eigentümlichkeiten der Blavatskyschen «Secret Doctrine». Das brauche ich also in diesem Zusammenhang nicht zu wiederholen. Dann ist auf Grundlage dessen, was auf diese Art zustande gekommen ist, die Theosophical Society gegründet worden und hat im Grunde genommen ihren indischen Charakter beibehalten, wenn auch in einer nicht mehr so intensiven Weise, wie es noch unter dem Einflusse des John King war; aber der indische Einfluß, die indische Färbung blieb die ganze Zeit über. Es war also dieses, was ich Ihnen jetzt geschildert habe, gewissermaßen ein neuer Weg, der stark mit dem Materialismus des Zeitalters rechnete, aber geeignet sein sollte, die Menschheit darauf hinzuweisen, daß man es mit einer geistigen Welt und nicht nur mit der äußeren materiellen Welt zu tun hat.

Nun würden sich viele Einzelheiten - aber wir haben dazu nicht die Zeit - an das anschließen müssen, was ich jetzt erzählt habe. Aber ich will gleich darauf kommen, Ihnen zu zeigen, wie sich unsere geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung, wie wir sie nennen, hineinstellen mußte in die Bewegung, die nun einmal da war.

Sie wissen, daß wir im Oktober 1902 die Deutsche Sektion der Theosophical Society begründet haben. Nun hatte ich bereits seit dem Winter 1900, auch im Winter 1901, in Berlin Vorträge gehalten, die man eben theosophische Vorträge nennen kann, denn siewaren auch in dem Kreise der Berliner Theosophen gehalten, das heißt derjenigen Theosophen, die mich eingeladen hatten, diese Vorträge zu halten. Die ersten Vorträge waren die, welche zu dem Buche geworden sind «Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens». Diese waren in einem Kreise von Mitgliedern der Theosophischen Gesellschaft gehalten, deren Mitglied ich damals nicht war. Wir wollen zunächst festhalten, daß man es zu tun hatte mit einer ausgebreiteten Lehre, einer Lehre, die die Menschen dafür gewonnen hatte, eine Hinlenkung auf die geistige Welt zu haben. Es gab also gewissermaßen in der ganzen Welt präparierte Leute, die etwas von der geistigen Welt wissen wollten. Von dem, was ich Ihnen heute erzählt habe, wußten diese Menschen nichts, sie hatten keine Ahnung davon. Sie hatten eine ehrliche Sehnsucht nach der geistigen Welt und hatten sich aus dieser Sehnsucht heraus derjenigen Bewegung angeschlossen, in der eine solche Sehnsucht gestillt werden konnte. Man fand also in dieser Bewegung diejenigen Herzen, die sich sehnten nach einer Erkenntnis der geistigen Welt.

Nun wissen Sie, daß mir in einer grotesk komischen Weise vorgeworfen wird, daß ich eine plötzliche Schwenkung gemacht hätte aus einer ganz anderen Weltanschauung heraus, die zuletzt in meinem Buche «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im 19. Jahrhundert» ausgesprochen worden ist. Der erste Teil erschien im Februar 1900 und der zweite Teil erschien im Oktober 1900. Es wird mir vorgeworfen, daß ich eine Schwenkung gemacht hätte zur theosophischen Richtung hin. Ich habe Ihnen oftmals erzählt, daß nicht nur das der Fall war, daß mir zum Beispiel das Buch von Sinnett gleich nach seinem Erscheinen in die Hand gefallen war, sondern daß ich auch intime Beziehungen gehabt hatte mit der ganz jungen Wiener Theosophischen Gesellschaft. Sie müssen die Zeitverhältnisse heute zusammenfassen; und ich möchte noch in Kürze Ihnen eine Möglichkeit geben, auf diese, ich möchte sagen, Vorgeschichte der Deutschen Sektion in offener, objektiver Weise hinzuschauen. Es gab darinnen Menschen, die Sehnsucht hatten nach der geistigen Welt, und in ihrem Kreise hatte ich die Vorträge gehalten. Das waren die Vorträge, die ich in dem kleinen Raume bei Graf Brockdorff gehalten habe über die Mystik und über die Mystiker. Ich selber war dazumal nicht Mitglied. Die Vorrede zu dem Drucke dieser Vorträge ist datiert: September 1901. Ich habe also das, was dazumal im Winter 1900/1901 an Vorträgen gehalten worden ist, im Sommer 1901 zusammengestellt, und das Buch ist dann unter dem Titel «Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens» im September erschienen.

Sie müssen nun die ersten Worte des Vorwortes dieses Buches nehmen. Ich will sie Ihnen vorlesen:

«Was ich in dieser Schrift darstelle, bildete vorher den Inhalt von Vorträgen, die ich im verflossenen Winter in der theosophischen Bibliothek zu Berlin gehalten habe. Ich wurde von Gräfin und Graf Brockdorff aufgefordert, über die Mystik vor einer Zuhörerschaft zu sprechen, der die Dinge eine wichtige Lebensfrage sind, um die es sich dabei handelt. - Vor zehn Jahren hätte ich es noch nicht wagen dürfen, einen solchen Wunsch zu erfüllen. Nicht als ob damals die Ideenwelt, die ich heute zum Ausdruck bringe, noch nicht in mir gelebt hätte. Diese Ideenwelt ist schon ganz in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» (Berlin 1894, Emil Felber) enthalten. Um aber diese Ideenwelt so auszusprechen, wie ich es heute tue, und sie so zur Grundlage einer Betrachtung zu machen, wie es in dieser Schrift geschieht, dazu gehört noch etwas ganz anderes, als von ihrer gedanklichen Wahrheit felsenfest überzeugt sein. Dazu gehört ein intimer Umgang mit dieser Ideenwelt, wie ihn nur viele Jahre des Lebens bringen können. Erst jetzt, nachdem ich diesen Umgang genossen habe, wage ich, so zu sprechen, wie man es in dieser Schrift wahrnehmen wird.»

Nun können Sie sich denken, warum ich das, was ich in den verschiedensten Kreisen als Vorträge gehalten habe, habe einlaufen lassen in eine okkulte Bewegung. Schon im ersten Bande meiner «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen» steht in dem Kapitel über Schelling folgendes. Ich zitiere nach der ersten Auflage, die Ernst Haeckel gewidmet war und im Februar 1900 erschienen ist. Daraus werde ich einige Stellen vorlesen, die also in einem Buche geschrieben sind, von dem gesagt wird, daß es aus einer ganz anderen Weltanschauung entsprungen sei als dasjenige, was in der «Mystik» steht:

Seite 80: «Nun gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten, das eine Wesen, das Geist und Natur zugleich ist, zu beschreiben. Die eine ist: ich zeige die Naturgesetze auf, die in Wirklichkeit tätig sind. Oder ich zeige, wie der Geist es macht, um zu diesen Gesetzen zu kommen. Beide Male leitet mich eines und dasselbe. Das eine Mal zeigt mir die Gesetzmäßigkeit, wie sie in der Natur wirksam ist; das andere Mal zeigt mir der Geist, was er beginnt, um sich dieselbe Gesetzmäßigkeit vorzustellen. In dem einen Falle treibe ich Natur-, in dem anderen Geisteswissenschaft. Wie diese beiden zusammengehören, beschreibt Schelling in anziehender Weise: «Die notwendige Tendenz aller Naturwissenschaft ist, von der Natur aufs Intelligente zu kommen. Dies und nichts anderes liegt dem Bestreben zugrunde, in die Naturerscheinungen Theorie zu bringen. Die höchste Vervollkommnung der Naturwissenschaft wäre die vollkommene Vergeistigung aller Naturgesetze zu Gesetzen des Anschauens und des Denkens. Die Phänomene (das Materielle) müssen völlig verschwinden und nur die Gesetze (das Formelle) bleiben. Daher kommt es, daß, je mehr in der Natur selbst das Gesetzmäßige hervorbricht, desto mehr die Hülle verschwindet, die Phänomene selbst geistiger werden und zuletzt völlig aufhören. Die optischen Phänomene sind nichts anderes als eine Geometrie, deren Linien durch das Licht gezogen werden, und dieses Licht selbst ist schon zweideutiger Materialität. In den Erscheinungen des Magnetismus verschwindet schon alle materielle Spur, und von den Phänomenen der Schwerkraft, welche selbst Naturforscher nur als unmittelbar geistige Einwirkung — Wirkung in die Ferne — «begreifen zu können glaubten, bleibt nichts zurück als ihr Gesetz, dessen Ausführung im Großen der Mechanismus der Himmelsbewegungen ist. Die vollendete Theorie der Natur würde diejenige sein, kraft welcher die ganze Natur sich in eine Intelligenz auflöste. Die toten und bewußtlosen Produkte der Natur sind nur mißlungene Versuche der Natur, sich selbst zu reflektieren, die sogenannte tote Natur aber überhaupt eine unreife Intelligenz, daher in ihren Phänomenen noch bewußtlos schon der intelligente Charakter durchblickt. Das höchste Ziel, sich selbst ganz Objekt zu werden, erreicht die Natur erst durch die höchste und letzte Reflexion, welche nichts anderes als der Mensch, oder allgemeiner das ist, was wir Vernunft nennen, durch welche zuerst die Natur vollständig in sich selbst zurückkehrt, und wodurch offenbar wird, daß die Natur ursprünglich identisch ist mit dem, was in uns als Intelligentes und Bewußtes erkannt wird.>»

Und in weiterer Anknüpfung an Schelling sage ich dann Seite 85:

«Mit seinem fortschreitenden Denken wurde für Schelling die Weltbetrachtung zur Gottesbetrachtung oder Theosophie. Vollständig stand er schon auf dem Boden einer solchen Gottesbetrachtung, als er 1809 seine «Philosophischen Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit und die damit zusammenhängenden Gegenstände herausgab. Alle Weltanschauungsfragen rückten sich ihm jetzt in ein neues Licht. Wenn alle Dinge göttlich sind: wie kommt es, daß es Böses in der Welt gibt, da Gott doch nur die vollkommene Güte sein kann? Wenn die Seele des Menschen in Gott ist: wie kommt es, daß sie doch ihre selbstsüchtigen Interessen verfolgt? Und wenn Gott es ist, der in mir handelt: wie kann ich, der ich also gar nicht als selbständiges Wesen handle, dennoch frei genannt werden?»

Diese Weltanschauung wird nicht abgelehnt. —- Und weiter sage ich Seite 90:

«Mit solchen Anschauungen hat Schelling sich als den kühnsten und mutigsten derjenigen Philosophen erwiesen, die sich von Kant zu einer idealistischen Weltanschauung haben anregen lassen. Das Philosophieren über Dinge, die jenseits dessen liegen, was die menschlichen Sinne beobachten, und was das Denken über die Beobachtungen aussagt, hat man, unter dem Einflusse dieser Anregung, aufgegeben. Man suchte sich mit dem zu bescheiden, was innerhalb Beobachtung und Denken liegt. Während aber Kant aus der Notwendigkeit solchen Bescheidens geschlossen hat, man könne über jenseitige Dinge nichts wissen, erklärten die Nach-Kantianer: da Beobachtung und Denken auf kein jenseitiges Göttliches hindeuten, sind sie selbst das Göttliche. Und von denen, die solches erklärten, war Schelling der energischste. Fichte hat alles in die Ichheit hereingenommen; Schelling hat die Ichheit über alles ausgebreitet. Er wollte nicht wie jener zeigen, daß die Ichheit alles, sondern umgekehrt, daß alles Ichheit sei. Und Schelling hatte den Mut, nicht nur den Ideengehalt des Ich für göttlich zu erklären, sondern die ganze menschliche Geistpersönlichkeit. Er machte nicht nur die menschliche Vernunft zu einer göttlichen, sondern den menschlichen Lebensinhalt zu der göttlichen, persönlichen Wesenheit. Man nennt eine Welterklärung Anthropomorphismus, die vom Menschen ausgeht und sich vorstellt, daß dem Weltenlauf im ganzen eine Wesenheit zugrunde liegt, die ihn so lenkt, wie der Mensch seine eigenen Handlungen lenkt. Auch derjenige erklärt die Welt anthropomorphisch, der den Ereignissen eine allgemeine Weltvernunft zugrunde legt. Denn diese allgemeine Weltvernunft ist nichts anderes als die menschliche Vernunft, die zur allgemeinen gemacht wird. Wenn Goethe sagt: «Der Mensch begreift niemals, wie anthropomorphisch er ist, so denkt er daran, daß in den einfachsten Aussprüchen, die wir über die Natur tun, versteckte Anthropomorphismen enthalten sind. Wenn wir sagen, ein Körper rollt weiter, weil ihn ein anderer gestoßen hat, so bilden wir eine solche Vorstellung von unserem Ich aus. Wir stoßen einen Körper, und er rollt weiter. Wenn wir nun sehen, daß eine Kugel sich gegen eine andere bewegt, und diese dann weiterrollt, so stellen wir uns vor, die erste habe die zweite gestoßen, analog der stoßenden Wirkung, die wir selbst ausüben. Ernst Haeckel findet, das anthropomorphische Dogma «vergleicht die Weltschöpfung und Weltregierung Gottes mit den Kunstschöpfungen eines sinnreichen 'Technikers oder Maschinen-Ingenieurs und mit der Staatsregierung eines weisen Herrschers. Gott der Herr als Schöpfer, Erhalter und Regierer der Welt wird dabei in seinem Denken und Handeln durchaus menschenähnlich vorgestellt.» Schelling hat den Mut zu dem konsequentesten Anthropomorphismus gehabt. Er erklärte zuletzt den Menschen mit seinem ganzen Lebensinhalt zur Gottheit. Und da zu diesem Lebensinhalt nicht allein das Vernünftige gehört, sondern auch das Unvernünftige, so hatte er die Möglichkeit, auch das Unvernünftige innerhalb der Welt zu erklären. Er mußte zu diesem Ende allerdings die Vernunftansicht durch eine andere ergänzen, die ihre Quelle nicht im Denken hat. Diese, nach seiner Meinung, höhere Ansicht, nannte er «positive Philosophie». Sie «st die eigentliche freie Philosophie; wer sie nicht will, mag sie lassen, ich stelle es jedem frei, ich sage nur, daß, wenn einer zum Beispiel den wirklichen Hergang, wenn er eine freie Weltschöpfung und so weiter will, er dieses alles nur auf dem Wege einer solchen Philosophie haben kann. Ist ihm die rationale Philosophie genug, und verlangt er außer dieser nichts, so mag er bei dieser bleiben, nur muß er aufgeben, mit der rationalen Philosophie und in ihr haben zu wollen, was diese in sich schlechterdings nicht haben kann, nämlich den wirklichen Gott und den wirklichen Hergang und ein freies Verhältnis Gottes zur Welt». Die negative Philosophie wird «vorzugsweise die Philosophie für die Schule bleiben, die positive die für das Leben. Durch beide zusammen wird erst die vollständige Weihe gegeben sein, die man von der Philosophie zu verlangen hat. Bekanntlich wurden bei den eleusinischen Weihen die kleinen und die großen Mysterien unterschieden, die kleinen galten als eine Vorstufe der großen... Die positive Philosophie ist die notwendige Folge der recht verstandenen negativen, und so kann man wohl sagen: in der negativen Philosophie werden die kleinen, in der positiven die großen Mysterien der Philosophie gefeiert.»

Geschlossen wird dieses Kapitel in den «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen» mit den Worten:

«Wird das Innenleben als das Göttliche erklärt, dann erscheint es inkonsequent, bei einem Teil dieses Innenlebens stehen zu bleiben. Schelling hat diese Inkonsequenz nicht begangen. In dem Augenblicke, in dem er sagte: die Natur erklären, heiße die Natur schaffen, hat er seiner ganzen Lebensanschauung die Richtung gegeben. Ist das denkende Betrachten der Natur eine Wiederholung ihres Schaffens, so muß auch der Grundcharakter dieses Schaffens dem des menschlichen Tuns entsprechen; er muß ein Akt der Freiheit, nicht ein solcher geometrischer Notwendigkeit sein. Ein freies Schaffen können wir aber auch nicht durch Gesetze der Vernunft erkennen; es muß sich durch ein anderes Mittel offenbaren.»

Ich hatte eine Geschichte der Weltanschauungen im 19. Jahrhundert zu schreiben. Weiter konnte ich nicht gehen; denn, was dazumal in der fortschreitenden Entwickelung lebte, das waren lauter dilettantische Versuche, das hatte auf den Fortgang des Forschens in philosophischer Beziehung keinen Einfluß. Das konnte kein Kapitel bilden in diesem Buche. Aber die Theosophie, insofern sie in das ernste Denken aufgenommen worden ist, finden Sie da drinnen in dem Kapitel über Schelling.

Nun bitte ich Sie, dieses Buch trägt in seinem zweiten Teile, der erst Hegel behandelt, das Datum: Oktober 1900. Da habe ich erst angefangen, jene Vorträge zu halten, und im September 1901 ist die «Mystik» bereits erschienen. Wirklich nicht um etwas Persönliches vorzubringen, sondern um Ihnen ein unbefangenes Urteil zu ermöglichen, möchte ich Sie hinweisen auf eine Besprechung, die über das Buch «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im 19. Jahrhundert» erschienen ist am 15. Dezember 1901 in dem Organe des deutschen Freidenkerbundes «Der Freidenker». Darin wird nach einer Einleitung, und nachdem man gesagt hat, es werde vermißt eine lesbare Darstellung der Weltanschauungsentwickelung im 19. Jahrhundert, gesagt:

«Namentlich auf dem Gebiete der Philosophie, wo «sich mit Worten trefflich streiten, mit Worten ein System bereiten läßt, ist in populären Schriften viel gesündigt worden. Den Zionswächtern und Ordnungsschülern jedweder Facon und ihrem gelehrten Klüngel, dem leider so mancher Hochschullehrer angehört, ist viel aufs Kerbholz zu schreiben.»

Durch den folgenden Absatz soll nur auf die wohlwollende Art hingewiesen werden, wie damals das Buch aufgenommen worden ist:

«Um so freudiger muß es daher begrüßt werden, wenn Dr. Steiner, ein als moderner Denker und Kämpfer bekannter Schriftsteller, es unternommen hat, dem deutschen Publikum eine objektive Darstellung der geistigen Kämpfe um die Weltanschauung, die in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert ausgefochten wurden, zu geben.»

Dann gibt er einen Auszug aus dem Buche. Dann ist aber etwas Merkwürdiges gesagt, und um dessentwillen muß ich Ihnen das alles mitteilen. Derjenige, der diese Kritik geschrieben hat, vermißt in dem Buche etwas, und das spricht er in folgender Weise aus:

«Wenn auch der Spiritismus Du Prels und das anachoretische Urchristentum Tolstojs für eine auf dem Entwickelungsgedanken fußende Kulturtätigkeit unbrauchbar geworden sind, so ist doch ihr symptomatischer Wert nicht zu verkennen. Desgleichen hätte der Neu-Buddhismus (Theosophie), der eine eigene Phraseologie, eine Art ‹mystisches Rotwelsch› ausgebildet hat, einen Platz finden können. Eine Psychologie des modernen Geisterglaubens von einem so geistreichen Manne wie Steiner wäre uns sicherlich willkommen gewesen. Die Sprache des Werkes ist leicht faßlich. Keine schulphilosophischen, ellenlangen Perioden stören dem Leser den Genuß.»

Das ist geschrieben im Dezember 1901, kurz nachdem ich angefangen hatte, die theosophischen Vorträge in Berlin zu halten. Man kann sagen: objektiv ist dazumal verlangt worden, öffentlich ist es gefordert worden, daß ich mich ausspreche über das, was die Theosophie will. Es war nicht eine Willkür, es war ein deutlicher Wink des Karma, wie man sagt.

Nun hatte ich im Winter 1900/1901 die Vorträge über die Mystik gehalten und im Winter 1901/1902 diejenigen, die als Vorträge etwas ausführlicher das griechische und auch das ägyptische Mysterienwesen behandelten, und die dann in dem Buche «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache», im Sommer 1902 erschienen sind. Ein großer Teil der «Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens» wurde sogleich ins Englische übersetzt, und zwar noch bevor ich Mitglied der Theosophica! Society war. Nun könnte ich vieles erzählen — aber dazu reicht die Zeit nicht aus —, was wichtig ist, was aber ein anderes Mal erzählt werden kann. Das eine muß ich aber dennoch erzählen.

Sie sehen, wie nirgendwo die kontinuierliche Entwickelung irgendwie einen Sprung oder dergleichen hat, wie alles auf ganz selbstverständliche Weise gekommen ist. Allerdings hatte ich schon im Beginne des Vortragszyklus, den ich über das griechische und ägyptische Mysterienwesen gehalten habe — wieder in der Bibliothek zu Berlin im Brockdorffschen Hause -, also schon beim zweiten Vortragszyklus hatte ich ein wenig Gelegenheit, etwas ans Ohr herandringen zu hören von dem, was damals nicht so schlimm war, was aber in weiterer konsequenter Ausführung führen kann zu den Dingen, die hier unter dem Titel «Mystische Verschrobenheiten» behandelt worden sind. Den Titel hat, wie ich glaube, Herr Bauer geprägt.

Ich habe also im Jahre 1901/1902 über das griechische und ägyptische Mysterienwesen gesprochen, und bei diesen Vorträgen war auch die jetzige Frau Dr. Steiner anwesend, die auch den Vortrag gehört hatte, welchen ich in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft über Gustav Theodor Fechner im Winter 1900 gehalten habe. Es war ein besonderer Vortrag, der nicht zu dem anderen Zyklus gehörte. Also schon im Winter 1900 war die jetzige Frau Dr. Steiner bei einem Teile der Vorträge, die ich damals gehalten habe, anwesend. Es wäre interessant, einige kleine Details über diese Anwesenheit zu erzählen. Sie können aber auch unterbleiben, sie würden die Sache nur etwas kolorieren. Das kann ein anderes Mal geschehen, wenn es notwendig sein sollte.

Nachdem dann Frau Dr. Steiner eine Zeitlang von Berlin abwesend gewesen war, kam sie im Herbst aus Rußland wieder nach Berlin zurück und hörte dann mit einer Bekannten der Gräfin Brockdorff die ersten Vorträge des zweiten Zyklus im Winter 1901/1902. Dazumal kam jene Bekannte nach einem der Vorträge, die ich über die griechischen Mysterien gehalten habe, zu mir und sagte, — nun, eben etwas von der Art, wie ich es vorhin charakterisiert habe. Diese Dame ist dann eine immer fanatischere und fanatischere Anhängerin der Theosophischen Gesellschaft geworden und hat später sich auch eine hohe Stellung erworben in dem Orden, der begründet worden ist für die Neugeburt des Christus. Diese Dame war dazumal auch anwesend und kam nach einem Vortrage, den ich über die griechischen Mysterien gehalten hatte, auf mich zu, nahm die Miene einer Eingeweihten der Theosophical Society an, die Miene einer recht tief Eingeweihten, die zunächst ihre Einweihung damit bezeugte, daß sie sagte: Ja, Sie sprechen jetzt von Mysterien, aber solche gibt es auch heute noch. Es gibt auch jetzt noch ganz geheime Gesellschaften. Wissen Sie denn das auch?

Nach einem nächsten Vortrage, wiederum über die griechischen Mysterien, kam sie wieder an mich heran und sagte: Man sieht, Sie erinnern sich noch gut an dasjenige, was, als Sie noch in den griechischen Mysterien waren, gelehrt worden ist! — Das ist dasjenige, was in weiterer Ausbildung schon herangrenzt an das Kapitel «mystische Verschrobenheit».

Im Zusammenhange damit darf ich wohl erwähnen, daß im Herbste 1901 jene Bekannte der Gräfin Brockdorff einen Tee-Abend veranstaltete. Er wird immer von Frau Dr. Steiner «der Chrysanthemen-Tee» genannt, weil viele solche Blumen da waren. Die Einladung ging von jener Bekannten aus, und nachträglich habe ich mir so manchmal die Idee gebildet: Diese Dame wollte - nun, ich weiß nicht was. Es war der Tag der Begründung der Theosophical Society gewählt worden, ein besonders wichtiger Tag für diese Dame. Sie wollte vielleicht versuchen, mich zum überzeugten Mitarbeiter in ihrem Sinne zu machen, tastete so herum, war manchmal dringlich. Aber es ist sonst nichts Bedeutungsvolles dabei herausgekommen. Doch ein Gespräch aus dem Herbst 1901 möchte ich jetzt erwähnen, das stattfand zwischen der jetzigen Frau Dr. Steiner und mir bei jenem Chrysanthemen-Tee, und in welchem diese die Frage stellte, ob es nicht doch sehr notwendig sei, eine geistige Bewegung in Europa ins Leben zu rufen. Im Verlaufe des Gespräches sagte ich klar die Worte: Gewiß, notwendig ist es, eine geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung ins Leben zu rufen; ich werde mich aber nur finden lassen für eine solche Bewegung, die an den abendländischen Okkultismus und ausschließlich an diesen anknüpft und diesen fortentwickelt. - Und ich sagte in dieser Beziehung, daß angeknüpft werden müsse an Plato, an Goethe und so weiter. Ich wies hin auf das ganze Programm, das dann auch ausgeführt worden ist.

In diesem Programm hatte eben ein ungesundes Treiben wirklich keinen Platz, aber es kamen selbstverständlich vielfach auch Personen mit solchen Neigungen heran, weil man es mit Persönlichkeiten zu tun hatte, die von allen Seiten beeinflußt waren von der Bewegung, von der ich Ihnen erzählt habe. Wie aber mit diesem Programm notwendigerweise verbunden war eine völlige Abkehr von allem Mediumismus und Atavismus, das sehen Sie an dem Gespräch, das ich mit einem Mitglied der englischen Gesellschaft hatte, und das ich im Anfang dieses Vortrages angeführt habe.

Sie sehen, daß mit Bewußtsein der Weg eingeschlagen worden ist, der uns die langen Jahre hindurch geführt hat. Wenn auch auf diesem Wege viele Elemente herangekommen sind mit allerlei mediumistischem und atavistischem Hellsehen, von diesem Wege ist nicht abgewichen worden, und er hat uns zu dem geführt, zu dem wir gebracht worden sind.

Dadurch allerdings war ich darauf angewiesen, innerhalb der theosophischen Bewegung diejenigen Menschen zu finden, welche Herz und Sinn hatten für eine solche durchaus gesunde Methode. Alle diejenigen, die eine solche gesunde und doch streng wissenschaftliche und unter streng wissenschaftlicher Verantwortlichkeit vor sich gehende Bewegung nicht wollten, haben immer das, was wir getrieben haben, so behandelt, daß sie zunächst das, was bei uns geleistet worden ist, in ihrer Art verdreht haben, wie Sie es an dem Beispiele sehen, das Ihnen jetzt soviel Kopfzerbrechen macht - vielleicht auch nicht! — und was dann soviel Feindschaft gebracht hat, wie Sie es wiederum an diesem Beispiele sehen. Das aber kann Ihnen wieder aus einer geschichtlichen Betrachtung hervorgehen, daß sich durch all das Wirken durchzieht kein Zurückweichen vor dem Eintreten in die höchsten geistigen Welten, soweit sie sich der Menschheit jetzt gnadenvoll aus der höheren Welt heraus eröffnen können; daß aber auf der anderen Seite streng dasjenige zurückgewiesen wird, was nicht auf gesundem Wege, nicht durch die Methoden für das richtige Eintreten in die geistigen Welten hat gewonnen werden können. Wer das erkennen kann, bewertet und geschichtlich verfolgt, braucht es nicht nur als eine bloße Versicherung hinzunehmen, sondern er sieht es an der ganzen Art des Wirkens, wie es durch die Jahre hindurch geübt worden ist. Wir haben die Möglichkeit gehabt, viel, viel weiter zu gehen in der wirklichen Erforschung der geistigen Welt, als jemals die Theosophische Gesellschaft hat gehen können. Aber wir wandeln nicht auf unsicheren Wegen, sondern wir wandeln die sicheren Wege. Das darf frank und frei gesagt werden.

Daher habe ich es stets abgelehnt, mit irgendwelchem antiquierten Okkultismus, mit irgendwelchen Brüderschaften oder Gemeinschaften dieser Art auf dem Gebiete der Esoterik irgendwie etwas zu tun haben zu wollen. Und nur unter Wahrung der vollsten Selbständigkeit arbeitete ich eine Zeitlang in gewisser äußerlicher Verbindung mit der Theosophical Society und ihren esoterischen Einrichtungen, nicht aber in ihrer Richtung. Schon im Jahre 1907 ist alles Esoterische vollständig abgetrennt worden von der Theosophical Society, und was dann weiter geschehen ist, wissen Sie hinlänglich. Auch das ist geschehen, daß okkultistische Brüderschaften mir diese oder jene Vorschläge machten; und namentlich als eine ganz angesehene okkultistische Brüderschaft mir den Vorschlag machte, mich zu beteiligen an der Ausbreitung eines sich auch rosenkreuzerisch nennenden Okkultismus, ließ ich ihn unbeantwortet, trotzdem er von einer ganz angesehenen okkultistischen Bewegung kam. Ich muß das sagen, um zu zeigen, daß bei uns ein selbständiger, der Gegenwart angemessener Weg verfolgt wird, und daß ungesunde Elemente uns auf das unangenehmste berühren müssen.

Second Lecture

In today's reflection, I would like to ask permission to mix personal and factual elements, because what I have to say in connection with yesterday's discussion is precisely what makes today's reflection necessary, and after careful consideration, I believe it is right to examine it in more detail here today.

I would like to start with a very specific experience related to our movement. As you know, we began our movement by connecting — but only in an external way — with the so-called Theosophical Society, and we founded the so-called German Section within the Theosophical Society in Berlin in the fall of 1902. Then, in the course of 1904, we had visits to various cities in Germany from distinguished members of the Theosophical Society. The experience I will start with took place during this visit. My book “Theosophy” had already been published in the spring of 1904, and the magazine “LuzitferGnosis” had been founded . And I had published articles in the magazine Luzifer-Gnosis that dealt with the Atlantis problem and the nature of the Atlantean age. What I published in these articles in Luzifer-Gnosis then appeared in a special edition entitled “Our Atlantean Ancestors.” If you remember, you will find that a number of statements were made in it about the nature of the Atlantean world; they were also traced back in Luzifer-Gnosis to the nature of the so-called Lemurian age. So a large number of articles of this kind had been published, and just when the members of the Theosophical Society were with us, one of these issues, which contained important information, was completed and sent out to subscribers. This was just during the days when these theosophists were there. A highly respected figure in the Theosophical Society read these messages about the Atlantean world in the journal at that time and then asked me a question. And it is this question that I want to mention as a remarkable experience together with yesterday's.

This member of the Theosophical Society, who had been involved in the most important matters at the time when the Society was founded by Blavatsky, and who was therefore deeply involved in the work of the Theosophical Society, asked the following question after reading the messages about the Atlantean world: How did these messages about the Atlantean world actually come about? This question encompassed a great deal and was very significant, because until then, that member had only known the way in which such communications had come about in the Theosophical Society. They had come about because the Theosophical Society had resorted to a kind of mediumistic research. The communications that had already been published in the Theosophical Society at that time were based on research that was in a certain sense related to mediumistic research. That is to say, a personality was brought into a kind of mediumistic state, not exactly a trance, but a kind of mediumistic state, and conditions were then created which made it possible for the personality, which was not in its ordinary consciousness, to make communications about things that cannot be attained with ordinary consciousness. This was how the messages had come about at that time, and the member of the Theosophical Society in question believed that messages about prehistoric events could only be obtained in this way and therefore asked which personality among us could be used as a medium for such research.

Since I had to refuse to research in this way and stood firmly on the ground of individual research, and since I had already found everything at that time solely through my own personal research, the person in question did not understand me at all. She did not understand what it was all about; she did not understand that it was something different from what had been done in the Theosophical Society up to that point. But that was the path that was prescribed for me: to reject everything that had been the previous path of research, and even if it meant using supernatural insights, to research in the same way that one researches when one only makes use of what can be given as revelation to the personality that is also the researching personality.

After all this, there is no other way for me to intervene in the spiritual movement than to apply in the strictest manner this method of research, which I have often described to you and which is undoubtedly necessary for the modern world and for humanity today. You see: there is a significant difference between the entire research method of spiritual science and the paths that have been taken in the Theosophical Society. For everything they had in the way of communications from the spiritual world, for example, including those in Scott-Elliot's book on Atlantis, came about entirely in the manner described above, because this was regarded as the only authoritative and objective method. In this respect, therefore, the introduction of our spiritual scientific approach was, from the outset, something completely new compared to the methods of the Theosophical Society. It was something that took modern scientific methods entirely into account, which only needed to be developed to such an extent that they could be used to ascend into the spiritual realms.

This discussion is particularly significant. It took place in 1904 and showed that there was a great difference between what was being done here in spiritual science and what was being done in the rest of the Theosophical Society; that what we have in spiritual science did not exist at that time, but that the Theosophical Society continued the method that had emerged as a compromise between the exotericists and the esotericists. This is, in fact, the necessary result of the course of development I described yesterday. I said: gradually, clairvoyance ceased, and there were only isolated cases of seers who could be made mediumistic and from whom something could be gained. Thus, so-called occult orders had formed, which had many initiates but no seers. They first had to gradually develop the methods that had long been commonplace in the materialistic age, and they first had to obtain the research instruments by searching for personalities in whom mediumistic abilities, that is, atavistic clairvoyance, could still be developed in order to get something out of them. They had extensive teachings and symbols. But if they really wanted to do research, they had to rely on such personalities with atavistic clairvoyance. This method was then continued in a certain way in the Theosophical Society, and the compromise I spoke of yesterday consisted essentially of nothing more than conducting experiments in the lodges and various orders through which spiritual influences were projected into the world, so that people could be shown, or so it was intended, that there are influences from the spiritual world on human beings.

So what had been done in esoteric schools had been brought out in this way. This experiment was a fiasco. For while it had been expected that the medium would truly reveal the spiritual laws that prevail in the environment, all that was achieved was that almost all of the mediums fell into the error of believing that what was given to them came from the dead; that they therefore endeavored to embellish what was given to them into messages that had come to them from the dead. This then had a very specific consequence. If the older members among you think back to the early days of the theosophical movement and consider the literature that was published under the influence of the Theosophical Society, you will know that the astral world, that is, immediately after death, was described in books by Mrs. Besant, but these only reproduced what was written in Blavatsky's “The Secret Doctrine” or what could be read in Leadbeater's books. This was also the source of everything that was given about the life of human beings between death and a new birth.

If you now compare this with what I had to give in my “Theosophy,” what was given there about the soul world and the spirit world — people always wanted to deny this in the early days, but I believe that today there are already enough people who can think about it objectively — then you will find quite considerable differences, precisely because the research methods for these areas were also different. For all the research methods used by the Theosophical Society led back to the methods I have spoken of, including the methods used to investigate the lives of the dead.

You can see, then, that what the Theosophical Society initially gave to the world was, in a certain sense, a continuation of the occultists' experiment. In what other respect this was not the case, we shall hear in a moment. But on the whole it was a continuation of the attempt that had already been made since the middle of the 19th century through a compromise between exotericists and esotericists; only that later, through the Theosophical Society, the matter was made somewhat more esoteric. Whereas previously attempts had been made to present the medium to the world, the members of the Theosophical Society preferred to do so only within their inner circle and then to communicate only the results. This is a significant difference, for it represented a return to a method of research that had been recognized as common practice by the various orders before the middle of the 19th century. I must emphasize this because I must strongly emphasize that with the introduction of our spiritual science movement, a completely new method was introduced into the occult movement, one that took the attitudes of modern science fully into account.

Now, as I said, the compromise between exotericists and esotericists to convince the materialistic world through all kinds of media that there is a spiritual world has ended in failure. The fiasco was evident in the fact that the mediums always spoke of a world that could not be accessible to them under the existing conditions: the world of the dead. They spoke of inspirations they claimed to have received from a world in which the dead live. Now the situation was such that the exotericists and esotericists saw that the attempt they had made did not lead to what they had actually wanted.

How did what happened come about? I mean, what actually became apparent through this strange attempt, which came about as a result of the compromise described? It showed that a certain type of initiate had, in a sense, wrested control from those who had entered into the compromise. The initiates who were very far to the left had taken control of the movement, which had been protected in the way I have described to you. They gained great influence because everything that came about through the mediums did not originate from the realm of the dead, but from the realm of the living, who were at the same time the initiators who established remote or close contact with the mediums. Because all this was brought about by these initiators and through the mediums, it had the coloring of the theories of those who wanted to take control of these mediums. Those among the exotericists and esotericists who had made the compromise wanted to teach people: Look, there is still a spiritual world! — That is what they wanted to teach them. But when those who believed they could lead the way lost their grip on the reins, the occultists on the far left seized them and tried to communicate their theories and views to the world through the media, if I may use this tautology.

Now, for those who had made this compromise for the good of humanity, the situation was actually very dire. They felt more and more that, basically, more and more false teachings about the supersensible were being brought into the world. That was the situation in the development of occultism in the 1840s, 1850s, and even in the 1860s of the past 19th century.

But while honest occultists were still thinking things through, they found themselves in a fatal situation. For the further to the left the occultists stood, the less they were concerned with bringing forth only what can be brought forth: namely, the universal human. In occultism, one is “left-wing” if one wants to achieve something as an end goal with the help of what one represents as occult teaching. In occultism, one is “right-wing” if one spreads it only for its own sake. The middle ground boils down to making esotericism, which is necessary in our time for the common good of humanity, exoteric. Those who are completely left-wing, however, are those who combine special purposes with what they spread as occult teachings. One is on the left to the extent that one pursues special purposes, leads people into the spiritual world, gives them all kinds of manifestations from the spiritual world, and implants in them in an incorrect way what is only intended to serve the realization of such special purposes. The leadership of the modern initiates was faced with such a situation. They saw the matter in the hands of people who were pursuing special purposes. The esotericists and exotericists who had made the compromise mentioned above were faced with this situation.

Then one heard — when I say this word, it may not be entirely accurate, but one cannot choose the words precisely because we are bound by external language, and communication among occultists is something other than what external language is capable of describing — that a significant event must be imminent for the further continuation of spiritual development on earth, and this event was nothing other than what I must describe in the following way. In the research methods of the individual orders, it had been preferred, until later times, to use female mediums as little as possible. In the strict orders, which wanted to maintain the correct standpoint, no female mediums were used at all for revelations from the spiritual world.

Now it is true that the female organism, due to its organization, is more suited to preserving atavistic clairvoyance than the male organism. While male mediums were very much on the verge of extinction, female mediums were still available, and a large number of female mediums were used in the compromise in question. But now a personality entered the occultists' field of vision who was extremely mediumistic. This was Mrs. H. P. Blavatsky, a personality who was particularly suited to extracting a great deal, a very great deal, from the spiritual world through certain subconscious parts of her organism. Let us now consider what this actually made possible for the world. At one of the most important moments for occult development, a personality entered the world who, due to the peculiar nature of her organism, was brimming with all kinds of possibilities for drawing the most diverse things from the spiritual world through her subconscious abilities.

The occultist who observed his time at that time must have said to himself: Now, at the right moment, a personality has appeared who, through the peculiar nature of her organism, can give us the sharpest evidence of what is ancient, traditional teaching, which exists among us only in symbols. — To the highest degree, this was the case: there was a personality who, simply through her constitution, offered the possibility of proving once again much of what time had long since known only through tradition. People were faced with this fact just after they had failed, after they had reached a dead end. We must definitely note this: people stood before Blavatsky as a personality from whom, like electric sparks from an electrically charged Leyden jar, occult truths could be extracted.

Now, it would be going too far if I wanted to recount all the intermediate links, but I must mention a few important things. There was a truly significant moment, which I can describe as follows. It is expressed more symbolically, but it accurately reflects the facts. Those occultists who stood on the right, in connection with the middle party, that is, those who had made the compromise, could say to themselves: Now it is possible to extract something very significant from this personality. But those who stood on the left could say to themselves: Now it is possible to achieve something in the world in the most intensive way with the help of this personality! And now a real struggle arose, a real struggle for this personality, on the one hand with the honest intention of finding confirmation of much of what the initiates knew, and on the other hand for powerful special purposes.

I have often referred to the first period in the life of H. P. Blavatsky and shown how it was really the case that attempts were made to get a lot out of her at first. But things changed relatively quickly, and that was because H. P. Blavatsky relatively quickly entered the sphere of those who were, so to speak, on the left wing. And although H. P. Blavatsky knew very well what she herself could see – she was particularly significant in that she was not merely a passive medium, but had an enormously strong memory for everything that was revealed to her from the higher worlds – certain personalities inevitably had an influence on her when she wanted to evoke manifestations from the spiritual world. That is why she always refers to what should actually be left out, to the Mahatmas. They may well be behind it, but that is not important when it comes to promoting humanity.

H.P. Blavatsky was thus faced with a decision relatively soon. From a source belonging to the left, she got wind that she was an important personality. She knew what she was seeing, but she did not know the full significance of her personality. It was only revealed to her by the left. Nevertheless, she was fundamentally honest in her innermost being and, after getting wind of this from the side that she probably did not like at first – precisely because she was fundamentally honest – she initially tried to reach a kind of compromise with an occult brotherhood in Europe. Something very beautiful could have come of it, because with her great mediumistic gift she could have provided truly phenomenal confirmation of what the initiates knew from theory and symbolism. However, she was not only fundamentally honest, but also what Germans call a Frechdachs, or cheeky rascal. She certainly was. She had a certain basic trait that is particularly characteristic of personalities with a tendency toward mediumship: namely, inconsistency in her outward appearance. So there were moments when she could become very cheeky. And in one such fit of cheekiness, she had set conditions that were impossible to fulfill on the occult brotherhood that was determined to carry out the experiment. And since she knew that much could be accomplished through her, she decided to take on other brotherhoods as well. This is how she came to an American brotherhood. This American brotherhood was one in which the majority constantly wavered between right and left, but which in any case had the opportunity to discover something tremendously significant about the spiritual worlds.

Now, this period also saw the most intense interest in H. P. Blavatsky on the part of other left-wing brothers. These brothers on the left already had their special interests at that time. I do not want to comment specifically on these special interests. If it becomes necessary, I may say something about this in the future. For now, it may suffice to say that these were brothers who had special interests, above all strong political interests, who saw the possibility of accomplishing something political in America with people who had first been prepared in an occult manner. The result was that at a time when H. P. Blavatsky had already acquired a vast amount of occult knowledge through her collaboration with that American lodge, i.e., through her association with the American lodge, she had to be expelled from the lodge in question because it was discovered that there was something political behind it. So it was no longer possible.

Now the situation was even more difficult, tremendously difficult. For what had been undertaken to draw the world's attention to a spiritual world had to be withdrawn in a certain way by serious occultists because it had ended in fiasco. It had to be shown that there was nothing to be gained from what spiritualism had to offer, even though it had many followers. It was merely materialistic and extremely amateurish. Only those scholars who wanted to learn about a spiritual world in an outwardly materialistic way were interested in it. In addition, Blavatsky had made it clear to the American Lodge upon her departure that she was by no means willing to remain silent to the world about what she knew — and she knew a lot, because she could remember afterwards what had happened to her. She had a great deal of impudence!

Now, as they say, good advice was hard to come by. What was to be done? And now something came about that I have already hinted at in various places, for I have said bits and pieces of what I am saying today in context here and there. What came about was what is called in occultism: occult imprisonment. H. P. Blavatsky was placed in occult imprisonment. This consists in the fact that through certain things that can only be done by certain brothers — and which only brotherhoods that engage in actually forbidden arts do — that is, through certain arts and machinations, H. P. Blavatsky was made to live for a certain time in a world that threw all her occult knowledge inward.

AltName

If you imagine that this is Blavatsky, symbolically depicted, and that her aura contains occult knowledge, then certain events ensured that for a long time, what lived in this aura was thrown back into her soul. So all the occult knowledge she had was to be locked away; she was to be shut off from the outside world and from her occultism.

This came about at a time when H.P.B. could have become quite dangerous by spreading the things that are among the most interesting on the horizon of the occult movement. Now, certain Indian occultists, who in turn were very much inclined toward the left, learned of this matter. They were primarily interested in twisting the occultism that H.P.B. could bring into the world in such a way that it could work in the world in accordance with what these Indian occultists considered to be their special interests. Through the efforts of these Indian occultists, who knew the appropriate practices, it came about that this confinement was taken away from her again, that she became free again, so that she could now use her spiritual powers properly again, so that they were no longer held back.

You can already see from this what had actually been going on in this soul, and what elements were involved in what came into the world through this personality. But because certain Indian occultists had earned the merit of freeing her from her confinement, they also had her in their power in a certain sense, and it was impossible to do anything to prevent these Indian occultists from using Blavatsky's personality to send that part of occultism into the world that was acceptable to them. So something very strange came about. In a manner of speaking — if I may use the crude expression — something was arranged. I can express what was arranged in the following way. The Indian occultists wanted to assert their own special aspirations against the special aspirations of the others, and to this end they made use of Mrs. Blavatsky. H.P.B. was dependent on receiving influence from outside: the mediumistic mood always had to be generated in her from outside. That is why it was possible to bring all kinds of things into the world through her.

Around this time, H.P.B. joined forces with a personality who, strictly speaking, had no direct interest in theosophy from the outset, but who was gifted with excellent organizational skills: namely, Olcott. I cannot say for certain, but I suspect that a certain connection already existed at the time when H.P.B. belonged to the American Lodge. Then, under the mask of a former individuality, so to speak, a personality entered H.P.B.'s spiritual field of vision who was essentially the bearer of what you want to launch into the world from India. Some of you may know that Colonel Olcott wrote extensively about this individuality in his book People from the Other World, who now entered H.P.B.'s sphere of vision under the guise of a previous individuality known as Mahatma Koot Hoomi. You may know that Olcott wrote a great deal about this Mahatma Koot Hoomi, including that in 1874 this Mahatma Koot Hoomi spoke about the individuality that dwelled within him. He stated that his name was actually John King and that he had been a powerful pirate in the 17th century. This is recorded in Colonel Olcott's book “People from the Other World.” So Mahatma Koot Hoomi was said to be the spirit of a brilliant 17th-century pirate who then, in the 19th century, had caused significant phenomena with the help of the medium H.P.B. and others. He brought teacups from far away, he produced all kinds of documents from the coffin of H.P.B.'s deceased father, and so on. According to Colonel Olcott's statement, one had to assume that this was the work of the brilliant 17th-century pirate.

Colonel Olcott spoke in a curious way about this John King. He said that perhaps we were not dealing with the spirit of that pirate at all, but perhaps with the creature of an order that exists among physical human beings as a visible order, while it is dependent on invisible beings for its results. Mahatma Koot Hoomi would thus have been a member of an order that, during his lifetime, did the things I have described, which were to be communicated to the world through H.P.B., but linked to all kinds of special interests. These consisted in feeling compelled to spread an Indian teaching in particular.

This was the situation in the 1870s. These were very significant events, but they must be viewed in context when considering the entire course of the occult movement. This same John King is the one who, by means of precipitation, brought about the books by Sinnett, both the first book, “Letters on Occultism,” and especially the book “Esoteric Buddhism.”

This book, Esoteric Buddhism, came into my hands very shortly after it was published, only a few weeks later, and at that time I could see from this book how, basically, efforts were being made, particularly from a certain quarter, to give spiritual teaching a completely materialistic form. For if you were to tackle Esoteric Buddhism with all the knowledge you have acquired over time, you would be astonished at the materialistic forms in which things are communicated there. One is dealing with one of the worst forms of materialism. The spiritual world is presented in a downright materialistic way. No one who only gets their hands on the book “Esoteric Buddhism” can rise above materialism. The material is very refined, but in Sinnett's book you cannot escape the material world, no matter how high you climb. So it was not only the case that those who were now the spiritual breadwinners—forgive the materialistic analogy—of H.P.B. had special interests in the Indian sense, but also made the sharpest concessions to the materialistic spirit of the times. And how correct their speculation was could be seen from the influence Sinnett's book had on a great many people. I have met natural scientists who were delighted with Sinnett's book because it suited their purposes and yet allowed them to conceive of a spiritual world. The book met all the needs of materialism and yet provided the opportunity to satisfy the needs of the spiritual world, to concede the existence of a spiritual world.

Now you know that it was precisely during the further development of these events that H.P.B. — it was the end of the 1880s — wrote her “Secret Doctrine” and then died in 1891. This “Secret Doctrine” is written in the same style as “Esoteric Buddhism,” except that very gross errors, which any occultist could immediately correct, have been corrected in the “Secret Doctrine.” I have often spoken about the peculiarities of Blavatsky's “Secret Doctrine.” So I need not repeat that here. Then, on the basis of what had come about in this way, the Theosophical Society was founded and basically retained its Indian character, albeit in a less intense way than it had been under the influence of John King; but the Indian influence, the Indian coloring remained throughout. So what I have just described to you was, in a sense, a new path that took the materialism of the age into account, but was intended to point out to humanity that we are dealing with a spiritual world and not just the outer material world.

Now, many details would have to follow on from what I have just told you, but we do not have the time for that. However, I will come straight to the point and show you how our spiritual scientific movement, as we call it, had to fit into the movement that was already there.

You know that we founded the German Section of the Theosophical Society in October 1902. Now, since the winter of 1900, and also in the winter of 1901, I had been giving lectures in Berlin that could be called theosophical lectures, because they were also given in the circle of Berlin theosophists, that is, the theosophists who had invited me to give these lectures. The first lectures were those that became the book “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life.” These were given to a circle of members of the Theosophical Society, of which I was not a member at the time. Let us first note that this was a widespread teaching, a teaching that had won people over to a focus on the spiritual world. So, in a sense, there were people all over the world who were prepared to learn something about the spiritual world. These people knew nothing of what I have told you today; they had no idea about it. They had a sincere longing for the spiritual world and, out of this longing, had joined the movement in which such a longing could be satisfied. So in this movement, one found those hearts that longed for knowledge of the spiritual world.

Now you know that I am being accused in a grotesquely comical way of having made a sudden shift from a completely different worldview, which was most recently expressed in my book “Worldviews and Life Views in the 19th Century.” The first part appeared in February 1900 and the second part in October 1900. I am accused of having made a shift toward theosophy. I have often told you that this was not only the case, that, for example, Sinnett's book had fallen into my hands immediately after its publication, but that I had also had close relations with the very young Vienna Theosophical Society. You must summarize the circumstances of the time today, and I would like to give you a brief opportunity to look at this, I would say, prehistory of the German Section in an open and objective manner. There were people there who longed for the spiritual world, and I had given lectures in their circle. These were the lectures I gave in Count Brockdorff's small room on mysticism and mystics. I myself was not a member at that time. The preface to the printed version of these lectures is dated September 1901. So I compiled the lectures given in the winter of 1900/1901 in the summer of 1901, and the book was published in September under the title “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life.”

You must now take the first words of the preface to this book. I will read them to you:

"What I present in this writing was previously the content of lectures I gave last winter at the Theosophical Library in Berlin. Count and Countess Brockdorff asked me to speak about mysticism to an audience for whom the issues involved are important questions of life. Ten years ago, I would not have dared to fulfill such a request. Not that the world of ideas I express today did not already exist within me at that time. This world of ideas is already fully contained in my “Philosophy of Freedom” (Berlin 1894, Emil Felber). But to express this world of ideas as I do today, and to make it the basis of a reflection, as is done in this writing, requires something quite different from being firmly convinced of its intellectual truth. It requires an intimate familiarity with this world of ideas, which can only come from many years of life.

Only now, after having enjoyed this familiarity, do I dare to speak as one will perceive in this writing.

I am quoting from the first edition, which was dedicated to Ernst Haeckel and published in February 1900. I will read a few passages from it, which are written in a book that is said to have sprung from a completely different worldview than that which is found in “Mysticism”:

Page 80: "Now there are two ways to describe the one being that is both spirit and nature. One is: I point out the laws of nature that are actually at work. Or I show how the spirit goes about arriving at these laws. In both cases, I am guided by one and the same thing. In one case, the laws of nature show me how they operate in nature; in the other, the spirit shows me what it does to conceive of these same laws. In one case, I am engaged in natural science, in the other, in spiritual science. Schelling describes the relationship between these two in an appealing way: "The necessary tendency of all natural science is to move from nature to the intelligent. This and nothing else underlies the endeavor to bring theory to natural phenomena. The highest perfection of natural science would be the complete spiritualization of all natural laws into laws of perception and thought. The phenomena (the material) must disappear completely and only the laws (the formal) remain. Hence, the more the laws of nature emerge, the more the shell disappears, the phenomena themselves become more spiritual, and finally cease altogether. Optical phenomena are nothing more than a geometry whose lines are drawn by light, and this light itself is already ambiguous materiality. In the manifestations of magnetism, all material traces already disappear, and of the phenomena of gravity, which even natural scientists believed they could only “comprehend” as an immediate spiritual influence—an effect in the distance—nothing remains but its law, whose execution on a large scale is the mechanism of the movements of the heavens. The perfect theory of nature would be one by virtue of which the whole of nature dissolved into intelligence. The dead and unconscious products of nature are only failed attempts by nature to reflect itself, while so-called dead nature is in fact an immature intelligence, so that even in its phenomena the intelligent character already shines through, albeit unconsciously. Nature only achieves its highest goal of becoming completely objective through the highest and final reflection, which is nothing other than man, or more generally, what we call reason, through which nature first returns completely to itself, and through which it becomes apparent that nature is originally identical with what is recognized in us as intelligent and conscious."

And continuing on from Schelling, I then say on page 85:

"With his progressive thinking, Schelling's view of the world became a view of God, or theosophy. He was already fully grounded in such a contemplation of God when he published his Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom and Related Subjects in 1809. All questions of worldview now appeared to him in a new light. If all things are divine, how is it that there is evil in the world, since God can only be perfect goodness? If the soul of man is in God, how is it that it still pursues its selfish interests? And if it is God who acts in me, how can I, who do not act as an independent being, still be called free?"

This worldview is not rejected. —- And further, I say on page 90:

"With such views, Schelling proved himself to be the boldest and most courageous of those philosophers who were inspired by Kant to adopt an idealistic worldview. Under the influence of this inspiration, philosophizing about things that lie beyond what the human senses can observe and what thinking about observations reveals was abandoned. People sought to be content with what lies within observation and thinking. But while Kant concluded from the necessity of such modesty that nothing could be known about things beyond our experience, the post-Kantians declared: since observation and thinking do not point to anything divine beyond our experience, they themselves are divine. And of those who declared this, Schelling was the most energetic. Fichte took everything into the self; Schelling spread the self over everything. He did not want to show, like Fichte, that the self is everything, but rather that everything is self. And Schelling had the courage to declare not only the ideas of the self to be divine, but the entire human spiritual personality. He made not only human reason divine, but also the content of human life into the divine, personal essence. An explanation of the world is called anthropomorphism when it proceeds from man and imagines that the course of the world as a whole is based on an essence that directs it in the same way that man directs his own actions. Those who base events on a general world reason also explain the world anthropomorphically. For this general world reason is nothing other than human reason made universal. When Goethe says, "Man never understands how anthropomorphic he is, he thinks that the simplest statements we make about nature contain hidden anthropomorphisms. When we say that a body continues to roll because another has pushed it, we form such a conception of our ego. We push a body, and it continues to roll. When we see a ball moving toward another and it then rolls on, we imagine that the first has pushed the second, analogous to the pushing effect that we ourselves exert. Ernst Haeckel finds that the anthropomorphic dogma "compares God's creation and governance of the world with the artistic creations of an ingenious 'technician or mechanical engineer and with the government of a wise ruler. God the Lord as creator, sustainer, and ruler of the world is thus presented in his thinking and acting as thoroughly human-like." Schelling had the courage to adopt the most consistent anthropomorphism. He ultimately declared man, with his entire purpose in life, to be a deity. And since this purpose in life includes not only the rational but also the irrational, he had the opportunity to explain the irrational within the world as well. To this end, however, he had to supplement the rational view with another that does not have its source in thinking. He called this higher view, in his opinion, “positive philosophy.” It is the true free philosophy; those who do not want it may leave it alone, I leave it up to everyone, I only say that if, for example, someone wants the real course of events, if he wants a free creation of the world and so on, he can only have all this by means of such a philosophy. If rational philosophy is enough for him, and he demands nothing else, then he may stick with it, but he must give up wanting to have in rational philosophy what it simply cannot have, namely the real God and the real course of events and a free relationship between God and the world." Negative philosophy will "remain primarily the philosophy for the school, positive philosophy that for life. Only through both together will the complete consecration be given that one must demand of philosophy. It is well known that in the Eleusinian consecrations a distinction was made between the lesser and greater mysteries, the lesser being regarded as a preliminary stage to the greater... Positive philosophy is the necessary consequence of correctly understood negative philosophy, and so one can say that the minor mysteries of philosophy are celebrated in negative philosophy, and the major mysteries in positive philosophy.“

This chapter in ”Welt- und Lebensanschauungen" concludes with the words:

"If inner life is explained as the divine, then it seems inconsistent to stop at one part of this inner life. Schelling did not commit this inconsistency. The moment he said that explaining nature means creating nature, he set the direction for his entire view of life. If the thoughtful contemplation of nature is a repetition of its creation, then the fundamental character of this creation must also correspond to that of human activity; it must be an act of freedom, not one of geometric necessity. However, we cannot recognize free creation through the laws of reason; it must reveal itself by other means."

I had to write a history of worldviews in the 19th century. I could not go any further, because what was alive at that time in progressive development were nothing but amateurish attempts, which had no influence on the progress of research in philosophical terms. That could not form a chapter in this book. But you will find theosophy, insofar as it has been taken up in serious thinking, in the chapter on Schelling.

Now I ask you, this book bears the date October 1900 in its second part, which deals with Hegel. That is when I first began to give those lectures, and in September 1901 Mysticism had already been published. Not to make a personal point, but to enable you to form an unbiased opinion, I would like to draw your attention to a review of the book Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im 19. Jahrhundert (Worldviews and Views of Life in the 19th Century), which appeared on December 15, 1901, in the organ of the German Freethinkers' Association, Der Freidenker. After an introduction and a statement that a readable account of the development of worldviews in the 19th century is lacking, the review says:

"Particularly in the field of philosophy, where ‘words can be used to argue excellently and to construct a system,’ much has been sinned in popular writings. The Zionist watchdogs and students of order of all kinds and their learned clique, to which unfortunately many university teachers belong, have much to answer for."

The following paragraph is intended only to point out the benevolent manner in which the book was received at the time:

“It is therefore all the more gratifying that Dr. Steiner, a writer known as a modern thinker and fighter, has undertaken to give the German public an objective account of the intellectual struggles over worldview that were fought out in Germany in the 19th century.”

He then quotes an excerpt from the book. But then something strange is said, and for that reason I must tell you all about it. The person who wrote this review finds something missing in the book, and he expresses this in the following way:

"Even if Du Prel's spiritualism and Tolstoy's anachoretic early Christianity have become useless for cultural activity based on the idea of development, their symptomatic value cannot be overlooked. Similarly, New Buddhism (Theosophy), which has developed its own phraseology, a kind of ‘mystical Rotwelsch’, could have found a place. A psychology of modern belief in spirits by a man as ingenious as Steiner would certainly have been welcome to us. The language of the work is easy to understand. No school-philosophical, interminably long periods disturb the reader's enjoyment."

This was written in December 1901, shortly after I had begun giving theosophical lectures in Berlin. One could say that at that time there was an objective demand, a public demand, that I speak out about what theosophy wants. It was not arbitrary, it was a clear sign of karma, as they say.

Now, in the winter of 1900/1901, I had given lectures on mysticism, and in the winter of 1901/1902, I gave lectures that dealt in more detail with the Greek and Egyptian mystery systems, which were then published in the book “Christianity as a Mystical Fact” in the summer of 1902. A large part of “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life” was immediately translated into English, even before I became a member of the Theosophical Society. Now I could tell you many things — but there is not enough time — that are important, but can be told another time. However, there is one thing I must tell you.

You see how nowhere does the continuous development have any kind of leap or the like, how everything has come about in a completely natural way. However, at the beginning of the lecture series I gave on Greek and Egyptian mysteries — again in the library of the Brockdorff House in Berlin — so already during the second lecture series I had a little opportunity to hear something that was not so bad at the time, but which, if carried out consistently, could lead to the things that have been discussed here under the title “Mystical Eccentricities.” I believe Mr. Bauer coined the title.

So in 1901/1902 I spoke about Greek and Egyptian mystery cults, and the current Dr. Steiner was also present at these lectures, having also heard the lecture I gave at the Theosophical Society on Gustav Theodor Fechner in the winter of 1900. It was a special lecture that did not belong to the other cycle. So already in the winter of 1900, the current Dr. Steiner was present at some of the lectures I gave at that time. It would be interesting to tell a few small details about this presence. But they can also be omitted, as they would only color the matter somewhat. That can be done another time, if necessary.

After Dr. Steiner had been away from Berlin for a while, she returned to Berlin from Russia in the fall and then attended the first lectures of the second cycle in the winter of 1901/1902 with an acquaintance of Countess Brockdorff. At that time, after one of the lectures I gave on the Greek mysteries, that acquaintance came up to me and said something along the lines of what I have just described. This lady then became an increasingly fanatical supporter of the Theosophical Society and later also attained a high position in the order that was founded for the rebirth of Christ. This lady was also present at the time and came up to me after a lecture I had given on the Greek mysteries, assuming the air of an initiate of the Theosophical Society, the air of a deeply initiated one, who first attested to her initiation by saying: Yes, you are now speaking of mysteries, but such things still exist today. There are still very secret societies. Do you know that too?"

After another lecture, again on the Greek mysteries, she approached me again and said: "I see you still remember well what was taught when you were still in the Greek mysteries! — That is what, in further education, borders on the chapter ‘mystical eccentricity’.

In connection with this, I should mention that in the fall of 1901, that acquaintance of Countess Brockdorff's hosted a tea party. Dr. Steiner always refers to it as “the chrysanthemum tea” because there were so many of those flowers there. The invitation came from that acquaintance, and afterwards I sometimes formed the idea that this lady wanted — well, I don't know what. The day had been chosen to mark the founding of the Theosophical Society, a particularly important day for this lady. She perhaps wanted to try to make me a committed collaborator in her cause, feeling her way, sometimes urgently. But nothing significant came of it. However, I would now like to mention a conversation from the fall of 1901 that took place between the current Dr. Steiner and myself at that chrysanthemum tea, in which she asked whether it was not very necessary to start a spiritual movement in Europe. In the course of the conversation, I clearly said the words: Certainly, it is necessary to initiate a spiritual scientific movement; but I will only support such a movement that is linked to Western occultism and exclusively to this, and that develops it further. And I said in this regard that it must be linked to Plato, Goethe, and so on. I pointed to the entire program, which was then also carried out.

There was really no place for unhealthy activities in this program, but of course many people with such inclinations approached us, because we were dealing with personalities who were influenced from all sides by the movement I have told you about. However, as was necessarily connected with this program, there was a complete departure from all mediumship and atavism, as you can see from the conversation I had with a member of the English society, which I mentioned at the beginning of this lecture.

You can see that the path that has guided us through the long years was consciously chosen. Even though many elements with all kinds of mediumistic and atavistic clairvoyance have come along this path, we have not deviated from it, and it has led us to where we have been brought.

This, however, meant that I had to find people within the Theosophical Movement who had a heart and mind for such a thoroughly healthy method. All those who did not want such a healthy and yet strictly scientific movement, conducted under strict scientific responsibility, always treated what we did in such a way that they first distorted what we had achieved in their own way, as you can see from the example that is now causing you so much headache — or perhaps not! — and which then caused so much hostility, as you can see again in this example. But you can see from a historical perspective that throughout all our work, there has been no retreat from entering the highest spiritual worlds, insofar as they can now graciously open themselves to humanity from the higher world; but that, on the other hand, anything that could not be gained by healthy means, not by the methods for correctly entering the spiritual worlds, is strictly rejected. Those who can recognize this, evaluate it, and follow it historically need not accept it as a mere assurance, but see it in the whole nature of the work as it has been practiced throughout the years. We have had the opportunity to go much, much further in the actual exploration of the spiritual world than the Theosophical Society has ever been able to go. But we do not walk on uncertain paths; we walk on sure paths. This can be said frankly and freely.

That is why I have always refused to have anything to do with any kind of antiquated occultism, with any kind of brotherhoods or communities of this kind in the field of esotericism. And only while maintaining complete independence did I work for a time in a certain external connection with the Theosophical Society and its esoteric institutions, but not in their direction. As early as 1907, everything esoteric was completely separated from the Theosophical Society, and you know well enough what happened next. It also happened that occult brotherhoods made various proposals to me; and when a very respected occult brotherhood suggested that I participate in the spread of an occultism that also called itself Rosicrucian, I left the proposal unanswered, even though it came from a very respected occult movement. I must say this to show that we are pursuing an independent path appropriate to the present, and that unhealthy elements must affect us in the most unpleasant way.