The Younger Generation
GA 217
5 October 1922, Dornach
Lecture III
Today I shall speak in the most concrete way about the Spirit in order to lay a foundation for the next few days, and I must appeal to you to try to arouse a fundamental feeling for what is here meant by the Spirit.
What is taken into account by the human being today? He attaches importance only to what he experiences consciously, from the time he wakes up in the morning until the time he goes to sleep at night. He reckons as part of the world only that which he experiences in his waking consciousness. If you were listening to the voice of the present and had accustomed yourselves to it, you might say: Yes, but was it not always so? Did human beings in earlier times include in what they meant by reality anything in addition to what they experienced in their waking consciousness?
I certainly do not wish to create the impression that we ought to go back to the conditions in earlier epochs of civilization. That is not my intention. The thing that matters is to go forward, not back. But in order to find our bearings we may turn back, look back, rather, beyond the time of the fifteenth century, before the age I attempted to describe radically to you yesterday. What men of that time said about the world is looked upon today as mere phantasy, as not belonging to reality. You need only look at the literature of olden times and you will find, when men spoke of “salt,” “mercury,” phosphorus and so on, that they included many things in the meaning which people are anxious to exclude today.
People say nowadays: “Yes, in those days men added something out of their own phantasy when they spoke of salt, mercury, phosphorus.”
We will not argue about the reason why this is so anxiously excluded today. But we must realize that people saw something in phosphorus, in addition to what is seen by the mere senses, in the way modern men see color. It was surrounded by a spiritual-etheric aura, just as around the whole of Nature there seemed to hover a spiritual aura, although after the fourth or fifth century A.D. it was very colorless and pale. Even so, men were still able to see it. It was as little the outcome of phantasy as the red color we see. They actually saw it.
Why were they able to see this aura? Because something streamed over to them from their experiences during sleep. In the waking Consciousness of that time man did not experience in salt, sulphur, or phosphorus any more than he does today; but when people in those days woke up, sleep had not been unfruitful for their souls. Sleep still worked over into the day and man's perception was richer; his experience of everything around him was more intense.
Without this knowledge as a basis we cannot understand earlier times. Later on the experience of the ancients in connection with sulphur, phosphorus and so on became a mere name, an abstraction. The Spirit continued as an abstraction in tradition, until, at the end of the nineteenth century, the word spirit conveyed nothing to the mind, nothing by way of experience. External culture, which alleges such great progress, naturally attaches the greatest importance to the fact that the human being acts with his waking consciousness. Naturally, with this he will build machines; but with his waking consciousness he can work very little upon his own nature. if we were obliged to be always awake we should very soon become old-at least by the end of our twentieth year—and more repulsively old than people today. We cannot always be awake, because the forces we need to work inwardly upon our organism are active within us only during sleep. it is of course true that the human being can work at external, visible forms of culture when he is awake, but only in sleeping consciousness can he work upon himself. And in olden times much more streamed over from sleeping consciousness into the waking state.
The great change took place in the middle of the fifteenth century: this trickling of sleep consciousness into waking consciousness ceased. Pictorially I would say: In the tenth and eleventh centuries of western civilization man still grew up in such a way that he felt: Divine-spiritual powers have been performing deeds within me between my going to sleep and waking up. He felt the influx of divine-spiritual forces just as in waking consciousness he experienced the health-bringing light of the sun. And before going to sleep there was in every human being an elemental mood of prayer, full of Nature-forces. People entered sleep—or if they were men of knowledge they at least strove to do so—by giving themselves over to divine-spiritual powers.
The education of those who were destined for the spiritual life was such that this mood was deliberately cultivated. At the end of the nineteenth century those who regarded themselves as the most spiritual men had for a long time replaced this by another method of preparation. I have often witnessed how people prepare themselves for sleep: “I must take my fill of beer to prepare for sleep.” This sounds grotesque. Yet we see it is historically true that vision into the spiritual world through sleep was a deliberate and conscious striving among human beings of past epochs, apart from the fact that the candidates for initiation—the students of those days-were prepared in a sacred way for the temple-sleep in which they were made aware of man's participation in the spiritual world.
At the present time when one considers the development of civilization people do not ask: What has come about in modern mankind from the educational point of view? The question is not asked because people do not think of the whole human being but only of part of him. One has a strange impression if one sees a little further than the nearest spiritual horizon: people believe they at last know the truth about certain things, whereas the men of old were altogether naive. Read any current history of physics and you will find that it is written as if everything before this age were naive; now at last things have been perceived in the form in which they can permanently remain. A sharp line is drawn between what has been achieved today and the ideas of nature evolved in “childish” times. No one thinks of asking: What educational effect has the science that is absorbed today, from the point of view of world-historical progress?
Let us think of some earlier book on natural science. From the modern point of view it is childish. But now let us put aside the modern point of view and ask: What educational effect had such a book at that time and what effect has a modern book? The modern book may be very clever and the older one very phantastic, but if we consider the educational value as a whole, we shall have to admit that when a book was read—and it was not so easy to read books in those days, there was something ceremonial about it—it drew something out of the depths of men's souls. The reading of a book was actually like the process of growing: productive forces were released in the organism and human beings were aware of them. They felt something real was there. Today everything is logical and formal. Everything is assimilated by means of the head, formally and intellectually, but no will-force is involved. And because it is all assimilated by the head only and is thus entirely dependent upon the physical head-organization, it remains unfruitful for the development of the true man.
Today there are people who struggle against materialism. My dear friends, it would be almost more sensible if they did not. For what does materialism affirm? It asserts that thinking is a product of the brain. Modern thinking is a product of the brain. That is just the secret—that modern thinking is a product of the brain. With regard to modern thinking, materialism is quite right, but it is not right about thinking as it was before the middle of the fifteenth century. At that time man did not think only with the brain but with what was alive in the brain. He had living concepts. The concepts of that time gave the same impression as an ant-hill, they were all alive. Modern concepts are dead. Modern thinking is clever, but dreadfully lazy! People do not feel it, and the less they feel it the more they love it. In earlier times people felt a tingling when they were thinking—because thinking was a reality in the soul. People are made to believe that thinking was always as it is today. But modern thinking is a product of the brain; earlier thinking was not so.
We ought to be grateful to the materialists for drawing attention to the fact that present-clay thinking is dependent upon the brain. Such is the truth and it is a much more serious matter than is usually imagined. People believe that materialism is a wrong philosophy. That is not at all true. Materialism is a product of world-evolution but a dead product, describing life in the condition where life has died.
This thinking which has evolved more and more since the fifteenth century and which has entrenched itself in civilization the farther west we go, (oriental civilization in spite of its decadence has after all preserved some of the older kind of thinking) has quite definite characteristics. The farther west we come the more does a thinking, regarded by the orientals as inferior, take the upper hand. It does not impress the oriental at all; he despises it. But he himself has nothing new; all he has is the old kind of thinking and it is perishing. But the European, and more so the American, would not feel at ease if he had to transfer himself into the thinking of the Vedas. That kind of thinking made one tingle and the Westerners love dead thinking, where one does not notice that one is thinking at all. The time has come when people confess that a millwheel is revolving in their heads—not only when someone is talking nonsense but when they are talking about living things. They merely want to snatch at what is dead.
Here is an example which I am only quoting for the sake of cultural interest, not for the sake of polemics. I described how it is possible to see an aura of colors around stones, plants and animals. The way in which I put this in the book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds was such that it made living thinking, not dead thinking, a necessity. A short time ago a professor at a University who is said to have something to do with philosophy, came across this description. To think livingly! Oh, no? that won't do; that is impossible! And there is supposed to be an aura of colors around stone, plant, animal!—He had only seen colors in the solar spectrum and so he thinks that I too can only have seen them in the solar spectrum and have transferred them to stone, plant and animal. He cannot in the least follow my way of describing, so he calls it just a torrent of words. For him, indeed, it is so. He is incapable of understanding it at all. And for a great number of University professors it can be the same. A millwheel is going round in their heads, so away with the head; and then, of course, nothing can possibly come out of it!
The living human being, however, demands a living kind of thinking and this demand is in his very blood. You must be clear about this. You must get your head so strong again that it can stand not only logical, abstract thinking, but even living thinking. You must not immediately get a buzzing head when it is a matter of thinking in a living way. For those whose characteristic was pure intellectualism had dead thinking. The purpose of this dead thinking was the materialistic education of the West. If we look into it, we get a very doubtful picture.
The earlier kind of thinking could be carried over into sleep when the human being was still an entity. He was a being among other beings. He was a real entity during sleep because he had carried living thinking with him into sleep. He brought it out of sleep when he woke up and took it back with him when he fell asleep. Modern thinking is bound to the brain but this cannot help us during sleep. Today, therefore, according to the way of modern science, we can be the cleverest and most learned people, but we are clever only during the day. We cease to be clever during the night, in face of that world through which we can work upon our own being. Men have forgotten to work upon themselves. With the concepts we evolve from the time of waking to that of sleeping we can only achieve something between waking and sleeping. Nothing can be achieved with the real being of man. Man must work out of the forces with which he builds up his own being. During the period when he has to build himself up, when he is a little child, he needs the greatest amount of sleep. If ever a method should be discovered for cramming into babies all that is taught to seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds, you would soon see what they would look like! It is a very good thing that babies are still provided for from the mother's breast and not from the lecturing desk. It is out of sleep that man must bring the forces through which he can work upon his own being.
We can carry into sleep nothing from the concepts we evolve through science, through external observation and experiments and the controlling of experiments; and we can bring nothing of what is developed in sleep into these concepts of the material world. The spiritual and the intellectual do not get on well together unless united in the world of full consciousness. Formerly this union was consummated, but in a more subconscious way. Nowadays the union must be fully conscious, and to this human beings do not wish to be converted.
What happened when a man of earlier times passed with his soul into sleep? He was still an entity, because he had within him what hovers around material things. He bore this into sleep. He could still maintain his identity when in sleep he was outside the physical body and in the spiritual world. Today he is less and less of a real entity. He is well-nigh absorbed by the spirituality of Nature when he leaves his body in sleep. In true perception of the world, this is at once evident to the soul. You should only see it!—well, you will be able to see it if you will exert yourselves to acquire the necessary vision. Humanity must attain this vision, for we are living in an age when it can no longer be said that it is impossible to speak of the Spirit as we speak of animals or stones. With such faculties of vision you will be able to see that even though Caesar was not very portly in physical life, yet when his soul left his body in sleep it was of a considerable “size”—not in the spatial sense, but its greatness could be experienced. His soul was majestic. Today a man may be one of the most portly of bankers, but when his soul steps out of his body in sleep into the spirituality of Nature, you should see what a ghastly, shrunken framework it becomes. The portly banker becomes quite an insignificant figure! Since the last third of the nineteenth century humanity has really been suffering from spiritual under-nourishment. The intellect does not nourish the Spirit. It only distends it. That is why the human being takes no spirituality with him into sleep. He is well-nigh sucked up when with his soul as a thin skeleton, he stretches out into the world of spiritual Nature between sleeping and waking.
That is why the question of materialism is far from theoretical. Nothing is of less importance today than the theoretical strife between materialistic, spiritualistic and idealistic philosophy. These things are of no reality, for the refutation of materialism achieves nothing. We may refute materialism as often as we like, nothing will come of it. For, the reasons we bring in order to refute it are just as materialistic as those we quote for or against idealism. Theoretical refutations achieve nothing one way or the other. But what really matters is that in our whole way of looking at the world we have the Spirit once again. Thereby our concepts will regain the force to nourish our being. To make this clear, let me say the following.
Now, I really do not find any very great difference between those people who call themselves materialists and those who in little sectarian circles call themselves, let us say, theosophists. For the way in which the one makes out a case for materialism and another for theosophy is by no means essentially different. It comes down to whether people want to make out a case for theosophy with the kind of thinking entirely dependent upon the brain. If this is so, even theosophy is materialistic. It is not a question of words, but whether the words express the Spirit. When I compare much of the theosophical twaddle with Haeckel's thought, I find the Spirit in Haeckel, whereas the theosophists speak of the Spirit as if it were matter, but diluted matter. The point is not that one speaks about the Spirit but that one speaks through the Spirit. One can speak spiritually about the material, that is to say, it is possible to speak about the material in mobile concepts. And that is always much more spiritual than to speak un-spiritually about the Spirit.
However many come forward today with every possible kind of logical argument in defense of the spiritual view of the world; this simply does not help us, does not help one bit. During the night we remain just as barren if during the day we ponder about hydrogen, chlorine, bromine, iodine, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, silica, potassium, sodium and so on, and then evolve our theories; as if we ponder about the human being consisting of physical, etheric, and astral bodies. It is all the same so far as what is living is concerned. To speak in a living way about potassium or calcium, to treat chemistry as really alive, this is much more valuable than a dead, intellectual theosophy. For theosophy too can be taught in a dead, intellectual way. It does not really matter whether we speak materialistically or intellectually, what matters is that the Spirit shall be in what we say. The Spirit must penetrate us with its livingness. But because this is no longer understood, it is very disagreeable when anyone takes this seriously.
I did this in one of my last Oxford lectures, and to make myself quite clear I said: It is all the same to me whether people speak of spiritism, realism, idealism, materialism or anything else When I need language to describe some external phenomenon I use materialistic language. This can be done in such a way that the Spirit too lives within it. If one speaks out of the realm of the Spirit, what one says will be spiritual although the language may have materialistic form. That is the difference between what is cultivated here as Anthroposophy and what is pursued in other places under similar names. Every other week books against Anthroposophy are brought out. They contain statements which are supposed to be leveled against what I have said, but what they attack is always quite new to me for as a rule I have never said such things. They collect all sorts of rubbish and then write voluminous books about it. What they attack has usually nothing whatever to do with what I actually say. The point is not to fight materialism but to see to it that the concepts come out of the world of the Spirit, that they are really experienced, that they are concepts filled with life. What is here presented and accepted as Anthroposophy is quite different from what the world says about it.
People fight today against Anthroposophy—and sometimes also in defense of it—quite materialistically, un-spiritually, whereas what really matters is that experience of the Spirit should be made a reality in us. People easily get muddied, for when one begins to speak of spiritual beings as one speaks of plants and animals in the physical world, they take one for a fool. I can understand that; but there is just this, that this folly is the true reality, indeed the living reality for human beings! The other kind of reality is good for machines but not for human beings.
This is what I wanted to say quite clearly, my dear friends, that in what I intend here and have always intended, the important thing is not merely to speak about the Spirit, but out of the Spirit, to unfold the Spirit in the very speaking. The Spirit can have an educative effect upon our dead cultural life. The Spirit must be the lightning which strikes our dead culture and kindles it to renewed life. Therefore, do not think that you will find here any plea for rigid concepts such as the concepts physical body, etheric body, astral body, which are so nicely arrayed on the walls of theosophical groups and are pointed out just as, in a lecture room, sodium, potassium and so on are pointed to with their atomic weights. There is no difference between pointing at tables giving the atomic weight of potassium and pointing to the etheric body. It is exactly the same, and that is not the point. Interpreted in this way, Theosophy—or even Anthroposophy—is not new, but merely the latest product of the old.
The most incredible twaddle is heard when people suddenly feel themselves called upon to uphold the spiritual. I do not mention these things for the sake of criticism, but as a symptom. I will tell you two stories; the first runs as follows. I was once at a meeting in the West of Europe on the subject of theosophy. The lectures had come to an end. I fell into conversation with someone about the value of these lectures. This personality who was a good disciple of theosophical sectarianism told me of his impression of the lectures in these words: “There are such beautiful vibrations in this hall.” The pleasant sensation, you see, was expressed in terms of vibrations—in other words, materialistically.
Another time people pestered me about some discovery that had been made on the spiritual plane. It was stated that repeated earth-lives—which as a matter of fact can only be revealed to the soul by genuinely spiritual perception—must also be perceived in an earthly guise, must be clothed in terms of materialistic thinking. So these people began to speak of the “permanent atom” which goes through all earth-lives. They said: If I am now living on the Earth, and come back again after hundreds of years, the atoms will be scattered to the four winds—but one single atom goes over into the next earth-life. It was called the “permanent atom”. Quite happily the most materialistic ideas were being introduced into the truth of repeated earth-lives, into a truth that can only be grasped by the Spirit. As if it could profit anyone to have a single atom say from the fourth or filth century going around in his brain! Surely it is the same as if a surgeon in the world beyond had managed to equip me in this life by having preserved my stomach from a former incarnation and inserted it in my present body. In principle, these things are exactly the same.
I am not telling you this as a joke, but as an interesting symptom of people who, wanting to speak of the Spirit, talk of the pleasant sensation coming from spiritual “vibrations” and have only absorbed through imitation what others have known about repeated earth-lives, clothe this in such a way that they talk about the permanent atom. Books have been written by theosophists about this permanent atom—books with curious drawings showing the distribution of hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine and so on. And when one looks at them they seem no less outrageous than the sketches which materialists have made of the atoms. It does not matter whether we say: This is spiritual, or that is material. What matters is to realize the necessity of entering the living Spirit. I do not say this in a polemic sense but to make it clear to you.
The following is characteristic. There lives at the present time a very gifted Benedictine Father Mager, one of the finest minds in the Order—and the Benedictines have exceedingly fine minds. Mager has written an extremely interesting little book on “The Behaviour of Man in the Sight of God.” It belongs, in thought, to the time when Benedict founded his Order. Had it been written then it would have been quite in accordance with the times. When someone writes a book about the “Behaviour of Man in the Sight of God” one can admire it. And I do admire it. The same priest has, however, also given his opinion on Anthroposophy. And now he becomes the densest of materialists. It is really terribly difficult for one to force one's way into such a rigid kind of thought in order to describe the statements made by this priest. What he censures most is that the perception in Imaginative knowledge, which I put first, is of such a nature that for Father Mager it amounts to a lot of pictures. He gets no farther. And then he says, in accordance with his scientific conscience, that Anthroposophy materializes the world. He takes violent exception to the fact that Anthroposophy materializes the world, in other words, that Anthroposophy does not confine itself to the unreal, abstract concepts he loves—for this Father loves the most abstract concepts. Just read any Catholic philosophy and you will find—Being, Becoming, Existence, Beauty and so on—all in the most abstract form. Whatever you do, don't touch the world! And the Father notices that Anthroposophy contains living concepts which can actually come down to real things, to the real world. That is an abomination to him.
One ought to answer him: If knowledge is to be anything real, it must follow the course taken by God in connection with the world. This course started from the Spiritual and was materialized. The world was first spiritual and then became more and more material, so that real knowledge must follow this course. It is not sought for in Anthroposophy, but one comes to it. The picture slips into reality; but Father Mager condemns this. And yet it is exactly what he must himself believe if he wants to give his faith a reasonable content. But he calls it in our case the materialization of knowledge.
Of course, there is no satisfying those who insist: For heaven's sake no living concepts, for they will slip into reality, and concepts must be kept away from that! In such cases we can only have concepts belonging to waking consciousness and none that is capable of working upon man from the spiritual world. And that is exactly what we need. We need a living evolution and a living education of the human race. The fully conscious human being feels the culture of the present day to be cold, arid. It must be given life and inner activity once again. It must become such that it fills the human being, fills him with life. Only this can lead us to the point where we shall no longer have to confess that we ought not to mention the Spirit, but it leads us to where the good will to develop within us the inclination not for abstract speaking, but for inward action in the Spirit that flows into us, not for obscure, nebulous mysticism, but for the courageous, energetic permeation of our being with spirituality. Permeated by spirit we can speak of matter and we shall not be led astray when talking of important material discoveries, because we are able to speak about them in a spiritual way. We shall shape into a force that educates humanity what we sense darkly within us as an urge forward. Tomorrow, we will speak of these things again.
Dritter Vortrag
[ 1 ] Heute werde ich, um für manches, was ich Ihnen gern in den nächsten Tagen sagen möchte, die Grundlagen zu gewinnen, im allerkonkretesten Sinne vom Geist sprechen müssen. Ich möchte zunächst von einer gewissen Seite her appellieren daran, daß Sie von dem, was hier als Geist gemeint ist, wenigstens ein gründliches Gefühl entwickeln.
[ 2 ] Was wird denn heute eigentlich noch von dem Menschen berücksichtigt? Eigentlich doch nur dasjenige, was er bewußt erleben kann vom Aufwachen am Morgen bis zum Einschlafen am Abend. Nur was im Wachzustande durchlebt wird, wird heute berücksichtigt und zur Welt gerechnet. Nun können Sie vielleicht fragen, wenn Sie auf die Stimme der unmittelbaren Gegenwart hinhorchen und sich gewöhnen, im Sinne dieser Stimme zu empfinden: War das nicht immer so? Haben die Menschen früher etwas anderes einbezogen in das, was sie unter Wirklichkeit verstanden haben, als die Erlebnisse im Wachzustande?
[ 3 ] Ich will durchaus nicht sagen, man sollte in alte Kulturepochen der Menschheit zurückkehren. Das liegt mir ganz fern. Es handelt sich um Vorwärtskommen und nicht um Zurückschreiten. Aber wir können doch, um uns wenigstens zu orientieren, uns einmal etwas zurückschrauben, etwas zurückschauen hinter den Zeitpunkt, der im fünfzehnten Jahrhundert liegt und der dem, worauf ich gestern so energisch hingewiesen habe, voranging. Da müssen wir sagen: In allem, was der Mensch damals über die Welt sagte, war etwas enthalten, was heute als Phantastik angesehen und nicht zu den Dingen hinzugerechnet wird. Sie brauchen sich ja nur in ganz oberflächlicher Weise bekannt zu machen mit dem, was in der Literatur — aber das ist das allerwenigste — vorhanden ist über solche älteren Zeiten, und Sie werden sehen: wenn da die Rede ist von Dingen, die wir heute mit den Namen «Salz», «Merkur», «Phosphor» und so weiter bezeichnen, wird eine ganze Menge von dem mitverstanden, was der Mensch heute ganz ängstlich ausschließt, wenn er von Phosphor, Merkur und Salz redet. Heute heißt es: Damals haben die Leute von ihrer Phantasie etwas mitgegeben, wenn sie von Salz, Merkur und Phosphor sprachen.
[ 4 ] Wir wollen uns nicht darüber streiten, warum das heute ängstlich ausgeschlossen wird. Aber wir müssen uns klar sein, daß die Menschen früher dasjenige, was sie zum Beispiel in dem Phosphor anschauten, noch dazu empfunden haben zu dem sinnlich gegebenen Phosphor, ebenso wie die heutigen Menschen die Farbe sehen. Er war umglänzt von einem Geistig-Ätherischen, wie überhaupt die ganze Natur damals für die Menschen umsprüht war von Geistig-Ätherischem, wenn es auch seit dem vierten, fünften nachchristlichen Jahrhundert sehr verblaßt war. Aber immerhin war es für die Menschen noch da; es kam nicht aus ihrer Phantasie, so wenig wie die rote Farbe aus unserer Phantasie kommt; sie sahen es.
[ 5 ] Warum sähen sie es? Sie sahen es, weil für sie noch etwas ausströmte aus dem, was der Mensch zwischen dem Einschlafen und dem Aufwachen erlebte, Im Wachzustande konnte der Mensch der damaligen Zeit an Salz, Schwefel oder Phosphor auch nicht mehr erleben, als was ein heutiger Mensch daran erlebt. Aber wenn die Menschen damals aufwachten, so war der Schlaf seelisch nicht unfruchtbar gewesen; es schlug der Schlaf noch in den Tag herüber und der Mensch nahm reicher wahr, erlebte in einer intensiveren Weise alles, was da außer ihm war. Ohne daß man dieses zugrunde legt, versteht man die früheren Zeiten gar nicht.
[ 6 ] Später wurde das, was die Alten zum Beispiel beim Phosphor, beim Schwefel erlebten, ein Name, ein Abstraktes. Als Abstraktum pflanzte sich der Geist traditionell fort, bis man Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts überhaupt nichts mehr dabei denken, wenigstens nichts mehr dabei empfinden konnte. Nun ist für die äußere Kultur, die es so ungeheuer weit gebracht zu haben vorgibt, selbstverständlich ganz wesentlich, daß der Mensch in sie eingreift mit seinem Wachbewußtsein. Maschinen wird er natürlich aus dem Wachbewußtsein konstruieren. Aber an sich selber kann er damit wenig machen. Wenn wir immer wach sein müßten, so würden wir sehr bald, spätestens aber am Ende der zwanziger Jahre, Greise sein, viel schauerlichere Greise, als die heutigen es sind. Wir können nicht immer wach sein, weil die Kräfte, die wir brauchen, um innerlich an unserem Organismus zu arbeiten, nur erlebt werden zwischen dem Einschlafen und Aufwachen. Es ist schon so: Der Mensch kann in seinem Wachbewußtsein sehr wohl an der äußerlichen Kultur arbeiten; an sich selber kann er nur im Schlafbewußtsein arbeiten. Und aus diesem Schlafbewußtsein strömte früher viel in den Wachzustand hinein.
[ 7 ] Das ist der große Umschwung in der Mitte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts, daß dieses Hereinträufeln des Schlafbewußtseins in dasWachbewußtsein aufhörte. Wenn ich mich bildlich ausdrücken soll, so könnte ich etwa so sagen: Noch im zehnten, elften Jahrhundert der abendländischen Kultur wacht der Mensch so auf, daß er fühlt, göttlich-geistige Mächte haben zwischen dem Einschlafen und Aufwachen in mir ihre Taten entfaltet. Er hat etwas gefühlt von dem Hereinragen göttlich-geistiger Mächte, wie er im Wachbewußtsein etwas fühlt von dem Hereinströmen des wohltuenden Sonnenlichtes. Und es war vor dem Einschlafen in jedem Menschen etwas von, ich möchte sagen, elementarer, naturkräftiger Gebetsstimmung. Die Leute gingen in den Schlaf hinein — oder wenn sie Erkenntnismenschen waren, suchten sie wenigstens so hineinzugehen -, daß sie sich gewissermaßen mit ihren Seelen den göttlich-geistigen Mächten übergaben.
[ 8 ] Die Erziehung derer, die dazumal für ein geistiges Leben gewonnen werden sollten, war so geartet, daß diese Stimmung, die ich eben charakterisiert habe, wirklich kultiviert worden ist. Am Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts war das längst von etwas anderem abgelöst worden. Da pflegten die Menschen, die sich als die geistigsten angesehen haben, sich in anderer Weise auf den Schlaf vorzubereiten. Ich habe es oftmals gesehen und gehört, wie die Leute sich auf das Schlafen vorbereitet haben: Ich muß mein gehöriges Maß Bier haben, damit ich die gehörige Bettschwere habe. — So hieß es. Das klingt grotesk. Aber durchaus historisch ist es, wenn man darauf hinweist, daß das Hineinschauen in die geistige Welt durch den Schlafzustand ein durchaus bewußtes Streben bei den Menschen abgelaufener Kulturepochen war, ganz abgesehen davon, daß in älteren Zeiten die Einzuweihenden, das heißt die damaligen Studenten, in einer wirklich heiligen Weise auf jenen Tempelschlaf vorbereitet wurden, in dem sie aufmerksam gemacht werden sollten auf des Menschen Gemeinschaft mit einer geistigen Welt.
[ 9 ] Man betrachtet oftmals gerade heute dasjenige, was sich in der Kulturentwickelung abgespielt hat, nicht so, daß man einfach frägt: Wie ist es erzieherisch geworden in der Menschheit? -, weil man gar nicht den ganzen Menschen, sondern immer nur einen Teil des Menschen ins Auge faßt. Heute macht es einen eigentümlichen Eindruck auf den, der etwas weiter als bis zum nächsten geistigen Horizont sieht, wenn die Leute glauben, wir seien heute so weit, über gewisse Dinge das Wahre zu wissen, während die Menschen früher eigentlich recht kindlich waren. Lesen Sie einmal, wie heute Geschichte der Physik geschrieben wird! Es ist, wie wenn bis vor kurzem kindliche Vorstellungen geherrscht hätten und man heute endlich zu Erkenntnissen gelangt sei, die bleibend sein können. In bezug auf gewisse Dinge stellt man sich das durchaus so vor. Man zieht eine scharfe Grenze zwischen dem, was man heute erreicht hat, und den Vorstellungen über die Natur, die sich die Menschen im kindlichen Zeitalter gebildet haben. Man denkt nicht daran, die Frage zu stellen, wie denn das, was man heute wissenschaftlich aufnimmt, in weltgeschichtlich-erzieherischer Weise auf den Menschen wirkt.
[ 10 ] Sehen wir einmal von allem Erzieherischen ab und betrachten wir vom heutigen Gesichtspunkt aus ein älteres naturwissenschaftliches Buch, so erscheint es uns kindlich. Aber lassen wir diesen Gesichtspunkt, diesen Standpunkt beiseite und fragen wir: Wie hat ein damaliges Buch den Menschen erzogen, und wie erzieht ihn ein jetziges? — Das jetzige Buch mag sehr gescheit, das damalige sehr phantastisch sein. Fragen wir aber nach dem Erziehungswert im großen, so müssen wir uns sagen: Wenn die Menschen dazumal Gelegenheit hatten, Bücher zu lesen -— es war nicht so leicht, Bücher zu lesen, es war das etwas Feierliches -, dann zog ein Buch aus den Tiefen ihrer Seelen etwas heraus. Wahrhaftig, das Lesen eines Buches war etwas wie das Wachsen: produktive Kräfte wurden losgelöst im menschlichen Organismus. Man fühlte diese produktiven Kräfte. Man fühlte, daß da etwas Reales war. Heute ist alles logisch-formal. Man nimmt alles formal und intellektualistisch, aber willenlos, mit dem Kopfe auf. Aber weil es bloß mit dem Kopfe aufgenommen und lediglich von der physischen Kopforganisation abhängig ist, deshalb bleibt es für das wahre Menschentum unfruchtbar.
[ 11 ] Man kämpft heute gegen den Materialismus. Meine lieben Freunde, es wäre fast gescheiter, gar nicht gegen den Materialismus zu kämpfen. Denn was behauptet der Materialismus? Er behauptet, daß das Denken ein Produkt des Gehirns ist. Das heutige Denken ist ein Produkt des Gehirns! Das ist gerade das Geheimnis, daß das heutige Denken ein Produkt des Gehirns ist. In bezug auf das heutige Denken hat der Materialismus ganz recht. Nicht recht hat er für das Denken vor der Mitte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts. Da dachte man nicht nur mit dem Gehirn, sondern mit dem, was im Gehirn lebte. Man hatte lebendige Begriffe. Die Begriffe jener Zeit machten eigentlich, weil sie lebten, den Eindruck, als wenn man einen Ameisenhaufen sieht. Die heutigen Begriffe sind tot. Das Denken ist heute gescheit, aber furchtbar bequem. Man spürt ja das Denken nicht und liebt es um so mehr, je weniger man es spürt. Früher kribbelte es, wenn man dachte, weil das eine Realität der Seele war. Heute will man der Menschheit weismachen, daß das Denken immer so war wie heute. Aber das heutige Denken ist ein Gehirnprodukt, das frühere Denken war kein Gehirnprodukt.
[ 12 ] Man sollte den Materialisten dankbar sein, daß sie darauf aufmerksam gemacht haben, daß das heutige Denken vom Gehirn abhängig ist. Denn so ist es; die Sache ist viel ernster als man denkt. Man hält den Materialismus für eine falsche Weltanschauung. Das ist gar nicht richtig. Er ist ein Produkt der Weltentwickelung, aber ein totes, ein Produkt, das das Leben in einem Zustande charakterisiert, wo es schon abgestorben ist.
[ 13 ] Das Denken, das sich seit dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert vor allem in den westlichen Kulturen entwickelt hat - während die orientalische, wenn auch dekadente Kultur immerhin noch altes Denken aufbewahrt hat -, dieses Denken hat ganz bestimmte Eigentümlichkeiten. Je weiter man nach Westen kommt, desto mehr nimmt dasjenige Denken überhand, das von den Orientalen als etwas Inferiores angesehen wird. Dem Orientalen imponiert dieses Denken gar nicht, er verachtet es. Er hat aber auch noch nichts Neues, sondern nur das zugrundegehende Alte. Dem Europäer und noch mehr dem Amerikaner wird aber nicht mehr wohl, wenn er sich hineinversetzen soll in das Denken, das den Veden zugrunde liegt. Da kribbelt es in seinem Gehirn — und er liebt das tote Denken, bei dem man gar nicht merkt, daß man denkt. Es ist ja heute besonders beliebt, daß man gar nicht merkt, daß man denkt. Heute sagen die Leute, nicht nur, wenn jemand Unsinn redet, sondern auch, wenn ihnen jemand von etwas Lebendigem redet, daß ihnen ein Mühlrad im Kopf herumgeht. Sie wollen eben das Lebendige nicht, sie wollen immer nur Totes aufschnappen.
[ 14 ] Ein Beispiel, ich will es nur aus kulturhistorischem Interesse, nicht als Polemik anführen: Ich habe einstmals geschildert, wie es wieder möglich ist zu schauen, wie das Gesteinsartige, das Pflanzenartige, das Tierische von einer Farbenaura umspielt ist. Die Art und Weise, wie ich das in meinem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» geben mußte, war eine solche, daß sie lebendiges Denken notwendig machte, nicht totes Denken. Über diese Geschichte ist jüngst so ein rechter Universitätsprofessor der Gegenwart gekommen, so einer, der angeblich Philosophie vertritt. Sich in das lebendige Denken hineinzufinden kommt für ihn nicht in Frage. Das kann er nicht und das gibt es daher für ihn nicht. Jetzt soll um den Stein herum eine Farbenaura, um die Pflanze eine Farbenaura, um das Tier eine Farbenaura sein. Nun hat er Farben nur im Sonnenspektrum gesehen, und so findet er, daß auch ich sie nur im Sonnenspektrum gesehen haben könne und aus diesem in das Mineral-, Pflanzen- und Tierreich herübergenommen hätte. Und von meiner Art und Weise, zu beschreiben, kann er kein Wörtchen verstehen. Deshalb nennt er es einen Wortschwall. Für ihn ist es Wortschwall! Er kann nichts davon verstehen. Für eine große Zahl von Universitätslehrern kann es so sein: ein Mühlrad geht ihnen im Kopf herum. Nun den Kopf rasch weg! Dann kann natürlich nichts herauskommen.
[ 15 ] Der lebendige Mensch verlangt aber auch ein lebendiges Denken, und dieses Verlangen nach einem lebendigen Denken brodelt in seinem Blute,. Darüber müssen Sie sich klar werden. Sie müssen Ihren Kopf wieder so stark kriegen, daß Sie nicht nur das logische, abstrakte Denken, sondern auch das lebendige Denken zu vertragen vermögen. Sie müssen nicht gleich einen Brummschädel bekommen, wenn Sie lebendig denken sollen. Das tote Denken war für die rein materialistische Erziehung des Abendlandes, war für diejenigen, denen das rein Intellektualistische eigentümlich war. Wenn man dem nachgeht, enthüllt sich eine recht bedenkliche Perspektive.
[ 16 ] Das frühere Denken hat man in den Schlaf hinein mitnehmen können. Da war man noch etwas im Schlafe. Man war ein Wesen unter anderen Wesen. Man war etwas im Schlafe, weil man das lebendige Denken in den Schlaf hinein mitgenommen hat. Man hat es beim Aufwachen herausgebracht und hat es beim Einschlafen wieder mit hineingenommen. Das heutige Denken ist an das Gehirn gebunden. Das kann uns aber beim Schlafen nichts helfen. So können wir heute nach der gegenwärtigen wissenschaftlichen Mode die allergescheitesten und allergelehrtesten Leute sein, aber wir sind es nur für den Tag. Wir hören auf, es zu sein in der Nacht, gegenüber derjenigen Welt, durch die wir an uns selber arbeiten können. Deshalb gewöhnten es sich die Menschen ab, an sich selber zu arbeiten. Mit den Begriffen, die wir vom Aufwachen bis zum Einschlafen entwickeln, kann man auch nur vom Aufwachen bis zum Einschlafen etwas erreichen. Man kann aber nichts am Menschen erreichen. Der Mensch muß aus den Kräften heraus arbeiten, durch die er sich selber konstituiert. In der Zeit, in der der Mensch noch am meisten an sich selber bauen muß, als kleines Kind, muß er am meisten schlafen. Wenn man nämlich die Methode fände, um dem Säugling die Dinge ebenso beizubringen wie den Siebzehn-, Achtzehnjährigen, dann würden Sie bald sehen, wie die Säuglinge ausschauen würden. Es ist ganz gut, daß für die Säuglinge noch innerhalb der Mutterbrust gesorgt wird und nicht auf dem Katheder. Der Mensch muß eben aus dem Schlafe herausholen dasjenige, wodurch er an sich selbst tätig sein kann.
[ 17 ] Aber wir können von all den Begriffen, die wir in der Wissenschaft, in dem äußeren Beobachten, in dem äußeren Experimentieren, mit bloBer Beherrschung des Experimentes ausbilden, nichts hineinbekommen in den Schlaf, und wir können auch nichts von dem, was wir im Schlafe entwickeln, in diese Begriffe vom Stofflichen herüberbringen. Geistiges und Intellektuelles verträgt sich nicht miteinander, wenn sie nicht Ehe schließen in der vollbewußten Welt. Früher tat man es auf eine mehr unbewußte Art. Heute muß das geschehen auf eine vollbewußte Art, doch zu der wollen sich die Menschen nicht bekehren.
[ 18 ] Was geschah, wenn ein Mensch der früheren Weltenzeiten mit seiner Seele in den Schlaf hineingekommen ist? Da war er noch immer etwas, denn er hatte das, was die Dinge umschwebt, wovon die Menschen heute sagen, es sei eine Phantasterei gewesen. Das trug er in den Schlaf hinein. Da konnte der Mensch sich noch behaupten, wenn er außerhalb des physischen Leibes im Schlafe in der geistigen Welt war. Er war früher etwas in der geistigen Welt zwischen dem Einschlafen und dem Aufwachen. Heute ist er viel weniger. Er wird fast aufgesogen von der Geistigkeit der Natur, wenn er beim Einschlafen seinen Körper verläßt. Beim richtigen Anschauen der Welt tritt das sofort vor die Seele. Sie sollten es nur sehen, und Sie werden es sehen können, wenn Sie sich wirklich ein Schauen für diese Dinge erringen. Und die Menschheit muß sich ein Schauen für diese Dinge erringen, denn wir leben in einem Zeitalter, wo nicht mehr behauptet werden kann, daß man vom Geist nicht reden kann wie von Steinen und Tieren. Dann werden Sie die Möglichkeit gewinnen, zu sehen, daß wenn der Cäsar auch nicht sehr beleibt war im physischen Leben: wenn seine Seele den Körper im Schlaf verließ, so hatte sie immerhin eine ansehnliche Größe — nicht eine räumliche, sondern eine empfindungsmäßige Größe. Seine Seele war stattlich. Heute kann einer der dickste Bankier sein: wenn seine Seele im Schlafe herausspaziert und sich in der Geistigkeit der Natur aufhält, da sollten Sie nur sehen, ein wie gräßlich dürres Gestell er wird. Er wird etwas ganz Schmächtiges. Seit dem letzten Drittel des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts leidet eben die Menschheit durchaus an geistiger Unterernährung. Der Intellekt nährt den Geist nicht. Er bläst ihn nur auf. Daher nimmt der Mensch nichts von Geistigkeit in den Schlaf hinein mit, und er wird fast aufgesogen, wenn er zwischen dem Einschlafen und dem Aufwachen als ein ganz dünnes Seelengerippe in die geistige Natur hineinragt.
[ 19 ] Daher ist die Frage nach dem Materialismus heute wirklich keine theoretische. Nichts ist weniger wichtig als der theoretische Streit zwischen Materialismus, Spiritualismus und Idealismus. Das sind heute ganz wesenlose Dinge, denn mit dem Widerlegen des Materialismus ist gar nichts getan. Wir können heute noch so oft den Materialismus widerlegen, es kommt gar nichts dabei heraus. Denn schließlich sind die Gründe, die man zur Widerlegung des Materialismus anführt, ebenso materialistisch wie die, welche man gegen oder für den Idealismus anführt. Mit theoretischen Widerlegungen ist heute weder nach der einen, noch nach der anderen Richtung etwas getan, sondern darauf kommt es an, daß man in der ganzen Art, wie man die Welt betrachtet, wiederum Geist hat. Dadurch kriegen unsere Begriffe wiederum nährende Kraft für den Menschen. Ich möchte Ihnen, um Ihnen das ganz klarzumachen, noch das Folgende sagen.
[ 20 ] Ich finde eigentlich zwischen Leuten, die sich oftmals Materialisten nennen, und solchen Leuten, die sich in gewissen kleinen sektiererischen Kreisen, sagen wir, Theosophen nennen, keinen so hervorragenden Unterschied. Denn die Art und Weise, wie die einen den Materialismus und die anderen die Theosophie beweisen, unterscheidet sich gar nicht so wesentlich. Denn wenn man mit einem Denken, das ganz vom Gehirn abhängt, die Theosophie beweisen will, dann ist eben die Theosophie materialistisch. Es kommt nicht darauf an, was man für Worte ausspricht, sondern ob man Geist ausspricht. Wenn ich mit so manchem theosophischen Gefasel den Haeckelismus vergleiche, so ist der Geist bei Haeckel, während die Theosophen von dem Geiste so reden, als sei er Materie, aber nur verdünnt. Es kommt eben nicht darauf an, daß man über den Geist redet, sondern daß man mit Geist redet. Man kann auch geistvoll über das Materielle reden, das heißt, man kann auch mit beweglichen Begriffen über das Materielle reden. Das ist noch immer viel spiritueller, als geistlos über den Geist reden.
[ 21 ] Wenn heute noch so viele Menschen auftreten und mit allen möglichen logischen Gründen die spirituelle Weltanschauung verteidigen, so hilft es uns nichts, rein gar nichts. Wir bleiben nämlich in der Nacht ebenso dürr: ob wir bei Tag bloß nachdenken über Wasserstoff, Chlor, Brom, Jod, Sauerstoff, Stickstoff, Kohlenstoff, Silizium, Kalium, Natrium und so weiter und da unsere Theorien bilden, oder ob wir nachdenken darüber, wie die Menschen aus physischem Leib, Atherleib und Astralleib bestehen. Das ist alles ganz gleichgültig für das Lebendige. Wenn einer lebendig über Kalium und Kalzium redet, das heißt lebendige Chemie treibt, so ist das viel wertvoller, als wenn einer zum Beispiel eine tote, intellektualistische Theosophie treibt. Denn auch die kann man tot und intellektualistisch treiben. Es kommt nicht darauf an, daß wir intellektualistisch, materialistisch reden, sondern daß wir in unserem Reden Geist haben. Er muß uns als Lebendiges durchdringen. Aber weil die Leute das heute schon gar nicht mehr verstehen, ist es ihnen so unangenehm, wenn man einmal ernst damit macht.
[ 22 ] In einem meiner letzten Oxforder Vorträge habe ich einmal ernst gemacht und gesagt, um ganz deutlich zu werden: Es ist mir ganz gleichgültig, ob man heute über Spiritualismus, Realismus, Idealismus, Materialismus und so weiter redet. Wenn es sich mir darum handelt, eine Sprache zu handhaben, um eine äußereErscheinung zu charakterisieren, so gebrauche ich die materialistische Sprache. Man kann das so tun, daß auch darin der Geist lebt. Man redet aus dem Geistgebiete; dann wird das schon spirituell, auch wenn man in materialistischen Formen spricht. Das ist der Unterschied zwischen dem, was hier als Anthroposophie, und dem, was draußen unter ähnlichen Namen getrieben wird. Alle paar Wochen erscheinen heute schon Bücher gegen Anthroposophie. Die geben Schilderungen, mit denen getroffen werden soll, was ich sage. Mir aber ist das immer ganz neu, was sie angreifen; denn gewöhnlich habe ich das gar nicht gesagt. Die machen sich allerlei Zeug zurecht und schreiben dann große Bücher darüber. Was die Leute bekämpfen, hat gewöhnlich gar nichts mit dem zu tun, was ich rede. Mir kommt es gar nicht darauf an, den Materialismus zu bekämpfen, sondern darauf, daß die Begriffe aus der Welt des Geistes selber genommen werden, daß sie erlebt werden, lebensvolle Begriffe sind. So ist das, was hier als Anthroposophie vertreten und aufgenommen wird, wirklich noch etwas ganz anderes, als was die Welt heute darüber sagt.
[ 23 ] Die Leute kämpfen heute kontra Anthroposophie - und manchmal auch pro — recht materialistisch, das heißt geistlos, während es sich darum handelt, daß man mit dem Erleben des Geistes ernst macht. Da fangen die Leute an, überhaupt nicht mehr mit dem Kopfe zurechtzukommen, denn wenn einer anfängt, von geistigen Wesenheiten zu reden wie von Pflanzen und Tieren in der Sinneswelt, dann halten sie ihn für einen Narren. Ich kann das auch ganz gut begreifen, denn heute besteht halt eine Kleinigkeit, nur wird diese Kleinigkeit übersehen. Sie besteht darin, daß diese Narretei die wirkliche Realität ist, und zwar diejenige Realität, die für den Menschen die eigentlich lebendige ist. Die andere Realität ist für die Maschine gut, aber nicht für den Menschen.
[ 24 ] Also das möchte ich einmal ganz deutlich ausgesprochen haben, meine lieben Freunde: bei dem, was ich hier meine und jemals gemeint habe, handelt es sich nicht darum, vom Geist zu reden, sondern darum, aus dem Geiste heraus zu reden, im Reden selber den Geist zu entwikkeln. Das ist dann der Geist, der erst wirklich erzieherisch wiederum in unser totesKulturleben hereinschlagen kann. Das muß der Blitz werden, der in unser totes Kulturleben hereinschlagen muß, um es wiederum zum Leben zu entzünden. Glauben Sie daher nicht, daß Sie hier eine Verteidigung finden dieser schematischen Begriffe, wie «physischer Leib», «Atherleib», «Astralleib», Begriffe, die so hübsch schematisch in den theosophischen Zweigen aufgehängt sind und mit dem Stock gezeigt werden, so wie im Hörsaal Kalium, Natrium und so weiter mit ihren Atomgewichten gezeigt werden. Es ist ganz einerlei, ob einer das Kali mit seinen Atomgewichten an dem heutigen Schema zeigt, oder den Ätherleib zeigt. Das ist ganz einerlei. Darum kann es sich nicht handeln. In diesem Sinne ist es sogar so, daß diese Art von Theosophie oder auch Anthroposophie, wenn Sie sie so nennen wollen, nicht etwas Neues ist, sondern das letzte Produkt von dem Alten.
[ 25 ] In dieser Beziehung hat man ja gerade da, wo die Leute plötzlich einmal den Geist vertreten wollen, das unglaublichste Zeug erlebt. Ich führe diese Dinge nicht an, um sie zu kritisieren, sondern als Symptom. Ich will Ihnen zwei Geschichten erzählen. Die eine ist diese: Ich war einmal bei einer Versammlung im Westen Europas, wo man über Theosophie geredet hat. Als die Vorträge zu Ende waren, kam ich mit einer Persönlichkeit über den Wert dieser Vorträge in ein Gespräch. Da faßte diese Persönlichkeit, die ein guter Anhänger dessen war, was da theosophisch-sektiererisch aufgetreten war, den Eindruck, den sie gewonnen hatte, in die Worte zusammen: «Es sind jetzt so wunderbare Vibrationen in diesem Saale.» Das Wohlgefühl wurde in Vibrationen, also materialistisch zum Ausdruck gebracht.
[ 26 ] Das andere Mal molestierten mich die Menschen mit einer Entdeckung, die plötzlich auf geistigem Gebiete gemacht worden war. Es wurde behauptet, die wiederholten Erdenleben, die nämlich nur einer wirklich geistigen Anschauung vor die Seele treten können, müßten “auch in irdischem Gewande vor das Auge treten, man müßte sie auch in das Gewand des materialistischen Denkens hereinkriegen. Die Leute fingen plötzlich an, vom «permanenten Atom», das durch alle Erdenleben hindurchgeht, zu reden. Sie sagten: Wenn ich jetzt im Erdenleben bin und nach Jahrhunderten wiederkomme, so werden die Atome in alle Winde zerstreut sein. Aber ein einziges Atom geht über in das nächste Erdenleben. Man nannte es das permanente Atom. Nun war glücklich das Allermaterialistischste in die wiederholten Erdenleben hineingetragen, in das, was nur mit dem Geiste erfaßt werden kann. Als ob ein einzelner Mensch etwas davon haben könnte, wenn da ein einziges Atom aus dem vierten, fünften Jahrhundert etwa, in seinem Gehirn sich herumtriebe! Das kann mir doch so egal sein, wie es mir gleichgültig wäre, wenn es etwa einem jenseitigen Chirurgen irgendwie gegeben wäre, mein jetziges Erdenleben dadurch auszustatten, daß er meinen Magen von dazumal konserviert und jetzt wieder eingesetzt hätte. Im Prinzip unterscheidet sich das nicht voneinander.
[ 27 ] Ich erzähle Ihnen das nicht, um mich lustig zu machen, sondern als interessante Symptome dafür, daß die Leute, welche vom Geist reden wollen, vom Wohlgefühl der geistigen Vibrationen reden, und daß Menschen, die durch bloße Gedankenimitationen aufgenommen hatten, was andere über wiederholte Erdenleben wußten, dieses dann so einkleiden, daß sie über das permanente Atom reden. Über dieses permanente Atom sind von 'Theosophen sogar allerlei Bücher geschrieben worden, auch solche mit kuriosen Zeichnungen über die Anordnung der Wasserstoff-, Sauerstoff-, Chlor-Atome und so weiter. Wenn man sich diese Geschichten anschaut, so sind sie nicht weniger greulich als die Zeichnungen, die die Materialisten von den Atomen entworfen haben. Es kommt nicht darauf an, ob man behauptet, irgend etwas ist geistig oder irgend etwas ist materiell, sondern darauf kommt es an, daß man einsieht, man muß in den lebendigen Geist hinein. Wiederum sage ich das nicht in polemischem Sinne, sondern um Ihnen die Sache klarzumachen.
[ 28 ] In diesem Sinne ist die folgende Erscheinung außerordentlich charakteristisch: Da gibt es heute einen ganz geistreichen Benediktinerpater namens Mager, in diesem Orden einer der besten Köpfe - und der Benediktinerorden hat im Grunde genommen die allerbesten Köpfe. Dieser Mager hat ein überaus interessantes Büchelchen geschrieben über den «Wandel in der Gegenwart Gottes», ein Büchelchen, das allerdings im Zeitalter steht, als Benedikt den Benediktinerorden gestiftet hat, das heißt, wenn es dazumal geschrieben worden wäre, so wäre es ganz zeitgemäß gewesen. Immerhin, wenn einer ein Büchelchen schreibt über den Wandel des Menschen in der Gegenwart Gottes, so kann man das noch bis zu einem gewissen Grade bewundern; und das tue ich auch. Nun hat sich derselbe Pater auch über Anthroposophie ausgelassen. Und nun wird er knüppeldicker Materialist. Das, was er da behauptet hat, das ist wirklich furchtbar schwer zu charakterisieren für jemand, der sich erst in ein so steifes Denken hineinversetzen muß. Was er am meisten tadelt, ist, daß das Wahrnehmen in der imaginativen Erkenntnis, das ich als erstes behaupte, wenn es zu einem Inhalt kommt, so ist, daß es für den Pater Mager eben Bilder sind. Weiter kommt er nicht. Und nun sagt er,er muß — indem er sich ganz seinem wissenschaftlichen Gewissen dabei überläßt — es sagen, daß die Anthroposophie eigentlich die Welt materialisiert. Das tadelt er furchtbar, daß die Anthroposophie die Welt materialisiert, das heißt, daß die Anthroposophie nicht bei wesenlosen abstrakten Begriffen stehenbleibt, wie sie der Pater liebt; denn dort liebt man die allerabstraktesten Begriffe. Lesen Sie nur eine katholische Philosophie einmal durch. Sie finden da: Sein, Werden, Dasein, Schönheit und so weiter, kurz, die alleräußersten Abstraktionen. Ja nicht an die Welt herantippen! Nun merkt der Pater, daß die Anthroposophie lebendige Begriffe erfaßt, die wirklich herunterkommen können bis zu den realen Dingen, bis zur realen Welt. Das ist ihm greulich, furchtbar greulich ist ihm das!
[ 29 ] Diesem Pater müßte man sagen: Ja, wenn Erkenntnis irgend etwas Reales sein soll, so muß sie eigentlich nachschaffen den Gang, den Gott mit der Welt durchgemacht hat. Der hat ja vom Spirituellen ausgehend immer materialisiert! Die Welt war erst spirituell und wurde dann immer materieller und materieller, so daß eine richtige Erkenntnis diesen Gang nachmachen muß. Man sucht ihn nicht in der Anthroposophie, aber man kommt dazu. Das Bild schnappt ein in die Wirklichkeit und das tadelt der Pater. Das ist ja gerade dasjenige, woran er selber glauben muß, wenn er seinem Glauben einen vernünftigen Inhalt geben will. Aber bei uns nennt er das die Materialisierung der Erkenntnis.
[ 30 ] Es ist den Leuten natürlich nicht mehr recht zu machen, die ganz fest darauf beharren: Nur ja keine lebendigen Begriffe! - Denn die schnappen in die Wirklichkeit hinein. Dann muß man aber mit seinen Begriffen recht weit wegbleiben davon und bekommt eben nur Begriffe für das Wachbewußtsein und gar keine Begriffe, die aus der geistigen Welt selber heraus am Menschen arbeiten können. Aber das brauchen wir. Wir brauchen lebendige Menschheitsentwickelung und lebendige Menschheitserziehung. Als trocken und eisig empfindet der vollfühlende Mensch die Gegenwartskultur. Sie muß wieder Leben, innere Regsamkeit bekommen. Sie muß so werden, daß sie den Menschen erfüllt, mit Leben erfüllt. Und das ist allein dasjenige, was uns nun nicht dazu führt, daß wir uns gestehen müssen, wir sollten eigentlich gar nicht mehr vom Geiste reden, sondern dazu, daß der gute Wille in uns einfließt, um in uns die Neigung zu entwickeln nicht für ein abstraktes Reden, sondern für ein innerliches Tun im Geiste, nicht zu einer dunklen, nebelhaften Mystik, sondern zu einem mutigen, energischen Durchdringen des eigenen menschlichen Wesens mit der Geistigkeit. Dann kann man aus diesem Durchdrungensein mit der Geistigkeit heraus von der Materie reden, und es wird uns nicht beirren, wenn wir über die wichtigen materiellen Entdeckungen sprechen, weil wir imstande sind, auf geisthafte Art darüber zu reden. Dann werden wir das, was wir dunkel in uns spüren, als einen Drang nach vorwärts, zu einer realen menschheitserziehenden Kraft in uns selbst gestalten können. Davon wollen wir morgen weiterreden.
Third lecture
[ 1 ] Today, in order to lay the foundations for some of the things I would like to tell you over the next few days, I will have to speak about the spirit in the most concrete sense. I would first like to appeal to you from a certain perspective to develop at least a thorough understanding of what is meant here by spirit.
[ 2 ] What is actually taken into account about human beings today? Really, only what they can consciously experience from the moment they wake up in the morning until they fall asleep at night. Only what is experienced while awake is taken into account and considered part of the world. Now you may ask, if you listen to the voice of the immediate present and accustom yourself to feeling in the sense of this voice: Hasn't it always been this way? Did people in the past include something other than their waking experiences in what they understood as reality?
[ 3 ] I am by no means saying that we should return to the old cultural epochs of humanity. That is far from my intention. It is a matter of moving forward, not backward. But in order to orient ourselves, we can at least take a step back, look back to the time before the fifteenth century, which preceded what I pointed out so emphatically yesterday. We must say that everything people said about the world at that time contained something that is now considered fantasy and is not counted among the things that exist. You need only familiarize yourself in a very superficial way with what is available in literature—but that is the bare minimum—about such older times, and you will see: when there is talk of things that we today call “salt,” “mercury,” “phosphorus,” and so on, a whole lot of what people today anxiously exclude when they talk about phosphorus, mercury, and salt is also understood. Today we say: Back then, people were letting their imagination run wild when they talked about salt, mercury, and phosphorus.
[ 4 ] We do not want to argue about why this is anxiously excluded today. But we must be clear that people in the past perceived what they saw in phosphorus, for example, as something additional to the sensually given phosphorus, just as people today see color. It was surrounded by a spiritual-etheric, just as the whole of nature was surrounded by spiritual-etheric for people at that time, even if it had faded considerably since the fourth or fifth century AD. But it was still there for people; it did not come from their imagination, any more than the color red comes from our imagination; they saw it.
[ 5 ] Why did they see it? They saw it because something still emanated for them from what humans experienced between falling asleep and waking up. In the waking state, humans at that time could not experience salt, sulfur, or phosphorus any more than humans today can experience them. But when people woke up back then, their sleep had not been spiritually barren; sleep still lingered into the day, and people perceived more richly, experiencing everything outside themselves in a more intense way. Without taking this as a basis, it is impossible to understand earlier times.
[ 6 ] Later, what the ancients experienced with phosphorus and sulfur, for example, became a name, an abstraction. As an abstraction, the spirit traditionally propagated itself until, at the end of the nineteenth century, one could no longer think anything about it, at least no longer feel anything about it. Now, for the external culture, which claims to have progressed so tremendously, it is of course essential that man intervenes in it with his waking consciousness. He will naturally construct machines out of his waking consciousness. But he can do little with it in itself. If we had to be awake all the time, we would very soon, at the latest by the end of the 1920s, be old men, much more ghastly old men than those of today. We cannot always be awake because the forces we need to work internally on our organism can only be experienced between falling asleep and waking up. It is indeed the case that humans can work on external culture very well in their waking consciousness; they can only work on themselves in their sleeping consciousness. And in the past, much flowed from this sleeping consciousness into the waking state.
[ 7 ] The great change in the middle of the fifteenth century was that this flow of sleeping consciousness into waking consciousness ceased. If I were to express this figuratively, I might say something like this: Even in the tenth and eleventh centuries of Western culture, people woke up feeling that divine spiritual powers had been at work within them between falling asleep and waking up. They felt something of the intrusion of divine spiritual powers, just as they feel something of the flow of soothing sunlight in their waking consciousness. And before falling asleep, there was something in every human being that I would call an elemental, natural prayer mood. People went to sleep — or if they were people of knowledge, they at least tried to go to sleep — in such a way that they surrendered themselves, so to speak, with their souls to the divine spiritual powers.
[ 8 ] The education of those who were to be won over to a spiritual life at that time was such that the mood I have just characterized was really cultivated. By the end of the nineteenth century, this had long since been replaced by something else. People who considered themselves the most spiritual used to prepare for sleep in a different way. I have often seen and heard how people prepared for sleep: “I must have my proper measure of beer so that I am properly tired for bed.” That's what they said. It sounds grotesque. But it is entirely historical when one points out that looking into the spiritual world through the state of sleep was a conscious endeavor of people in bygone cultural epochs, not to mention that in earlier times, initiates, i.e., the students of that time, were prepared in a truly sacred manner for that temple sleep, in which they were to be made aware of the community of human beings with a spiritual world.
[ 9 ] Today, we often look at what has happened in cultural development and do not simply ask: How has humanity been educated? This is because we do not consider the whole human being, but always only a part of it. Today, it makes a peculiar impression on those who see a little further than the nearest intellectual horizon when people believe that we are now so far advanced in our knowledge of certain things, whereas in the past people were actually quite childish. Just read how the history of physics is written today! It is as if childish ideas had prevailed until recently and we have finally arrived at insights that can be lasting. With regard to certain things, this is certainly how it is imagined. A sharp line is drawn between what has been achieved today and the ideas about nature that people formed in childhood. No one thinks to ask how what we accept scientifically today affects people in terms of world history and education.
[ 10 ] If we disregard all educational aspects and look at an older scientific book from today's perspective, it seems childish to us. But let us leave this point of view aside and ask: How did a book of that time educate people, and how does a book of today educate them? The book of today may be very clever, the book of that time very fantastic. But if we ask about the educational value in general, we must say to ourselves: If people at that time had the opportunity to read books—and it was not so easy to read books, it was something solemn—then a book drew something out of the depths of their souls. Truly, reading a book was something like growing: productive forces were released in the human organism. One felt these productive forces. One felt that there was something real there. Today, everything is logical and formal. Everything is taken formally and intellectually, but without will, with the head. But because it is taken in only with the head and depends solely on the physical organization of the head, it remains fruitless for true humanity.
[ 11 ] Today, people are fighting against materialism. My dear friends, it would be almost wiser not to fight against materialism at all. For what does materialism claim? It claims that thinking is a product of the brain. Today's thinking is a product of the brain! That is precisely the secret, that today's thinking is a product of the brain. In relation to today's thinking, materialism is quite right. It is not right for thinking before the middle of the fifteenth century. At that time, people did not think only with the brain, but with what lived in the brain. They had living concepts. Because they were alive, the concepts of that time actually gave the impression of seeing an anthill. Today's concepts are dead. Thinking today is clever, but terribly convenient. You don't feel thinking, and the less you feel it, the more you love it. In the past, thinking made you tingle because it was a reality of the soul. Today, people want to make humanity believe that thinking has always been the way it is today. But today's thinking is a product of the brain; earlier thinking was not a product of the brain.
[ 12 ] We should be grateful to the materialists for pointing out that today's thinking is dependent on the brain. For that is how it is; the matter is much more serious than one thinks. Materialism is considered a false worldview. That is not correct at all. It is a product of world development, but a dead one, a product that characterizes life in a state where it has already died. [ 13 ] The thinking that has developed since the fifteenth century, especially in Western cultures—while Eastern culture, though decadent, has at least preserved the old way of thinking—has very specific characteristics. The further west one goes, the more this way of thinking, which is regarded by Easterners as inferior, gains the upper hand. Oriental people are not impressed by this way of thinking; they despise it. But they have nothing new to offer, only the old that is falling apart. Europeans, and even more so Americans, feel uncomfortable when they try to put themselves in the mindset that underlies the Vedas. It makes their brains tingle—and they love dead thinking, where you don't even realize that you are thinking. Nowadays, it is particularly popular not to notice that one is thinking. Today, people say that they have a millstone in their head, not only when someone talks nonsense, but also when someone talks to them about something alive. They do not want what is alive; they only want to pick up what is dead.
[ 14 ] I will give an example, purely out of cultural and historical interest, not as polemic: I once described how it is possible once again to see how the rocky, the plant-like, the animal-like are surrounded by an aura of color. The way I had to describe this in my book How to Know Higher Worlds required living thinking, not dead thinking. A contemporary university professor, one who supposedly represents philosophy, recently came across this story. For him, finding his way into living thinking is out of the question. He cannot do it, and therefore it does not exist for him. Now there is supposed to be a color aura around the stone, a color aura around the plant, a color aura around the animal. Now he has only seen colors in the solar spectrum, and so he thinks that I too can only have seen them in the solar spectrum and transferred them from there to the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms. And he cannot understand a word of my way of describing things. That is why he calls it a torrent of words. For him, it is a torrent of words! He cannot understand any of it. This may be the case for a large number of university teachers: a mill wheel is turning in their heads. Now quickly turn your head away! Then, of course, nothing can come out.
[ 15 ] But living human beings also demand living thinking, and this desire for living thinking bubbles in their blood. You must realize this. You must regain your strength of mind so that you can tolerate not only logical, abstract thinking, but also living thinking. You don't have to get a headache when you try to think lively. Dead thinking was for the purely materialistic education of the West, for those who were peculiar intellectuals. If you pursue this, a rather alarming perspective is revealed.
[ 16 ] In the past, thinking could be taken into sleep. Then one was still somewhat asleep. One was a being among other beings. One was somewhat asleep because one took living thinking into sleep. One brought it out when one woke up and took it back in when one fell asleep. Today's thinking is bound to the brain. But that cannot help us when we sleep. So today, according to the current scientific fashion, we can be the most intelligent and learned people, but we are only so during the day. We cease to be so at night, in relation to the world through which we can work on ourselves. That is why people have become accustomed to not working on themselves. With the concepts we develop from waking up to falling asleep, we can only achieve something from waking up to falling asleep. But we cannot achieve anything in human beings. Human beings must work from the forces through which they constitute themselves. At the time when human beings still have to build themselves up the most, as small children, they need to sleep the most. If you could find a way to teach babies the same things you teach 17- or 18-year-olds, you'd soon see what the babies would be like. It's a good thing that babies are cared for at their mother's breast and not in a classroom. People need to get out of sleep and find what they need to work on themselves.
[ 17 ] But we cannot bring any of the concepts that we develop in science, in external observation, in external experimentation, with mere mastery of the experiment, into sleep, and we cannot bring anything of what we develop in sleep into these concepts from the material world. The spiritual and the intellectual are incompatible unless they are united in the fully conscious world. In the past, this was done in a more unconscious way. Today it must be done in a fully conscious way, but people are unwilling to convert to this.
[ 18 ] What happened when a person from earlier world ages entered sleep with his soul? He was still something, for he had what surrounds things, what people today say was a fantasy. He carried this into sleep. Then the human being could still assert himself when he was outside the physical body in sleep in the spiritual world. He used to be something in the spiritual world between falling asleep and waking up. Today he is much less. He is almost absorbed by the spirituality of nature when he leaves his body as he falls asleep. When you look at the world correctly, this immediately appears before the soul. You should just see it, and you will be able to see it if you really acquire a vision for these things. And humanity must acquire a vision for these things, because we live in an age where it can no longer be claimed that one cannot speak of the spirit as one speaks of stones and animals. Then you will gain the ability to see that even if Caesar was not very corpulent in physical life, when his soul left his body during sleep, it still had a considerable size—not a spatial size, but a size in terms of sensation. His soul was stately. Today, someone can be the fattest banker, but when his soul wanders out in sleep and dwells in the spirituality of nature, you should just see what a hideously emaciated skeleton he becomes. He becomes something quite puny. Since the last third of the nineteenth century, humanity has been suffering from spiritual malnutrition. The intellect does not nourish the spirit. It only inflates it. Therefore, man takes nothing of spirituality with him into sleep, and he is almost absorbed when, between falling asleep and waking up, he protrudes into spiritual nature as a very thin skeleton of a soul.
[ 19 ] Therefore, the question of materialism is really not a theoretical one today. Nothing is less important than the theoretical dispute between materialism, spiritualism, and idealism. These are completely meaningless things today, because refuting materialism accomplishes nothing. We can refute materialism as often as we like today, but nothing will come of it. After all, the reasons given for refuting materialism are just as materialistic as those given for or against idealism. Theoretical refutations today do not achieve anything in either direction; what matters is that we have spirit in the whole way we look at the world. This gives our concepts nourishing power for human beings. To make this clear to you, I would like to say the following.
[ 20 ] I don't actually see such a big difference between people who often call themselves materialists and those who, in certain small sectarian circles, call themselves, say, theosophists. For the way in which the one proves materialism and the other proves theosophy does not differ so greatly. For if one wants to prove theosophy with a way of thinking that is entirely dependent on the brain, then theosophy is materialistic. It does not matter what words one uses, but whether one expresses spirit. When I compare some of the theosophical gibberish with Haeckelism, I find that Haeckel has spirit, while the theosophists talk about spirit as if it were matter, only diluted. It does not matter that one talks about the spirit, but that one talks with spirit. One can also talk spiritually about material things, that is, one can also talk about material things with flexible concepts. That is still much more spiritual than talking spiritlessly about the spirit.
[ 21 ] If so many people still appear today and defend the spiritual worldview with all kinds of logical arguments, it helps us nothing, absolutely nothing. For we remain just as barren in the night: whether we spend the day merely thinking about hydrogen, chlorine, bromine, iodine, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, silicon, potassium, sodium, and so on, and forming our theories, or whether we think about how human beings consist of a physical body, an etheric body, and an astral body. It is all completely irrelevant to living beings. When someone talks about potassium and calcium in a living way, that is, when they engage in living chemistry, this is much more valuable than when someone engages in dead, intellectualistic theosophy, for example. For even that can be done in a dead and intellectualistic way. It is not important that we speak in an intellectualistic, materialistic way, but that we have spirit in our speech. It must permeate us as something alive. But because people today no longer understand this, they find it so unpleasant when someone takes it seriously.
[ 22 ] In one of my last lectures in Oxford, I once got serious and said, to be perfectly clear: I don't care whether people talk about spiritualism, realism, idealism, materialism, and so on today. When it comes to using language to characterize an external phenomenon, I use materialistic language. One can do this in such a way that the spirit lives in it. One speaks from the realm of the spirit; then it becomes spiritual, even if one speaks in materialistic forms. That is the difference between what is called anthroposophy here and what is practiced outside under similar names. Every few weeks, books against anthroposophy appear. They give descriptions intended to attack what I say. But what they attack is always completely new to me, because I usually did not say it at all. They make up all kinds of things and then write big books about them. What people are fighting against usually has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It is not important to me to fight materialism, but rather that the concepts are taken from the world of the spirit itself, that they are experienced, that they are concepts full of life. Thus, what is represented and accepted here as anthroposophy is really something completely different from what the world says about it today.
[ 23 ] People today fight against anthroposophy — and sometimes also for it — in a very materialistic, that is, spiritless way, whereas what is important is to take the experience of the spirit seriously. People begin to lose their minds completely, because when someone starts talking about spiritual beings as if they were plants and animals in the sensory world, they consider him a fool. I can understand that very well, because today there is a small thing, but this small thing is overlooked. It consists in the fact that this foolishness is the real reality, namely the reality that is actually alive for human beings. The other reality is good for machines, but not for human beings.
[ 24 ] So let me make this very clear, my dear friends: what I mean here, and what I have always meant, is not to talk about the spirit, but to talk from the spirit, to develop the spirit in the act of speaking itself. That is the spirit that can truly educate our dead cultural life. That must be the lightning bolt that strikes our dead cultural life in order to ignite it again. Therefore, do not believe that you will find here a defense of these schematic concepts such as “physical body,” “etheric body,” “astral body,” concepts that are so nicely schematized in theosophical circles and pointed out with a stick, just as potassium, sodium, and so on are pointed out in the lecture hall with their atomic weights. It makes no difference whether one shows potassium with its atomic weights in today's scheme or shows the etheric body. It makes no difference. That is not what this is about. In this sense, this kind of theosophy or anthroposophy, if you want to call it that, is not something new, but the last product of the old.
[ 25 ] In this regard, one has experienced the most incredible things precisely where people suddenly want to represent the spirit. I am not citing these things in order to criticize them, but as a symptom. I want to tell you two stories. One is this: I was once at a meeting in Western Europe where people were talking about theosophy. When the lectures were over, I got into a conversation with a prominent figure about the value of these lectures. This person, who was a staunch supporter of what had been presented as theosophical sectarianism, summed up the impression they had gained in the following words: “There are such wonderful vibrations in this hall now.” The feeling of well-being was expressed in vibrations, that is, in materialistic terms.
[ 26 ] Another time, people molested me with a discovery that had suddenly been made in the spiritual realm. It was claimed that repeated earthly lives, which can only appear to the soul as a truly spiritual vision, must "also appear before the eye in earthly garb; one must also bring them into the garb of materialistic thinking. People suddenly began to talk about the “permanent atom” that passes through all earthly lives. They said: If I am now in earthly life and return after centuries, the atoms will be scattered to the four winds. But a single atom passes into the next earthly life. They called it the permanent atom. Now the most materialistic idea had been carried into repeated earthly lives, into that which can only be grasped by the spirit. As if a single human being could gain anything from a single atom from the fourth or fifth century, for example, floating around in his brain! That can be as irrelevant to me as it would be if a surgeon in the hereafter were somehow able to equip my present earthly life by preserving my stomach from that time and reinserting it now. In principle, there is no difference between the two.
[ 27 ] I am not telling you this to make fun of myself, but as an interesting symptom of the fact that people who want to talk about the spirit talk about the feeling of well-being that comes from spiritual vibrations, and that people who have absorbed what others know about repeated lives on earth through mere imitation of thoughts then dress this up in such a way that they talk about the permanent atom. All kinds of books have even been written about this permanent atom by ‘theosophists’, including some with curious drawings of the arrangement of hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine atoms and so on. When you look at these stories, they are no less gruesome than the drawings that materialists have made of atoms. It does not matter whether one claims that something is spiritual or material; what matters is that one realizes that one must enter into the living spirit. Again, I am not saying this in a polemical sense, but to make the matter clear to you.
[ 28 ] In this sense, the following phenomenon is extremely characteristic: there is today a very spiritual Benedictine priest named Mager, one of the best minds in this order—and the Benedictine order has, in fact, the very best minds. This Mager has written an extremely interesting little book about “Change in the Presence of God,” a little book which, however, belongs to the age when Benedict founded the Benedictine order, that is to say, if it had been written at that time, it would have been quite contemporary. After all, if someone writes a little book about the transformation of human beings in the presence of God, one can still admire that to a certain extent, and I do. Now, the same priest has also expressed his views on anthroposophy. And now he has become a die-hard materialist. What he has claimed there is really terribly difficult to characterize for someone who first has to put himself into such a rigid way of thinking. What he criticizes most is that perception in imaginative cognition, which I claim first of all when it comes to content, is, for Father Mager, merely images. He cannot get any further than that. And now he says that he must — in complete accordance with his scientific conscience — say that anthroposophy actually materializes the world. He criticizes this terribly, that anthroposophy materializes the world, that is, that anthroposophy does not remain with non-essential abstract concepts, as the priest loves; for there one loves the most abstract concepts. Just read a Catholic philosophy book. You will find there: being, becoming, existence, beauty, and so on, in short, the most extreme abstractions. Don't even touch the world! Now the priest realizes that anthroposophy grasps living concepts that can really descend to real things, to the real world. That is horrible to him, terribly horrible!
[ 29 ] One would have to say to this priest: Yes, if knowledge is to be anything real, it must actually recreate the path that God has taken with the world. Starting from the spiritual, God has always materialized! The world was first spiritual and then became more and more material, so that true knowledge must follow this path. One does not seek it in anthroposophy, but one arrives at it. The image snaps into reality, and the priest condemns this. This is precisely what he himself must believe if he wants to give his faith a reasonable content. But he calls this the materialization of knowledge.
[ 30 ] Of course, it is no longer possible to satisfy people who insist that there must be no living concepts, because these snap into reality. But then you have to stay well away from reality with your concepts, and you end up with concepts for the waking consciousness and no concepts that can work on people from the spiritual world itself. But that is what we need. We need living human development and living human education. The sensitive person finds contemporary culture dry and cold. It must be given life and inner vitality again. It must become something that fills people with life. And that alone is what prevents us from having to admit we should no longer talk about the spirit, but rather that good will flows into us to develop within us the inclination not toward abstract talk, but toward inner activity in the spirit, not toward a dark, foggy mysticism, but toward a courageous, energetic permeation of our own human being with spirituality. Then, from this permeation with spirituality, we can speak of matter, and we will not be confused when we talk about important material discoveries, because we are able to talk about them in a spiritual way. Then we will be able to shape what we feel darkly within ourselves into a real force for the education of humanity. We will continue talking about this tomorrow.