Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Course for Young Doctors
Easter Course
GA 316

22 April 1924, Dornach

Lecture II

Today I should like you really to speak out what is in your minds so that the discussion can center around it.

Question: A question in the hearts of all of us is how to succeed with the meditations that we have been given. At what times ought we to do them, ought they to be done in rhythmic sequence, how ought they to be done, ought those given at Christmas to be done at the same time as the others? We think that at any rate most of us feel rather oppressed with all the substance that is contained in the meditations and we do not yet know how to live with them properly.

In these things one really ought not to give such strict indications for this would be to encroach too much upon the freedom of the individual. If things are looked at in the right way it is not likely that there will be any feeling of oppression. When the meditations were given here at Christmas it was also indicated in which direction they move the soul. It was said—and the same applies to the meditations that are now being given in the First Class—that with these meditations it is rather different than when someone comes and wishes to have a personal meditation. In the case of a personal meditation one must naturally indicate whether the meditation should be done in the morning or the evening, how the person must act in the sense of this meditation, and so on. These meditations are intended to be part of the esoteric life of the individual according to his capacities and his karma. They then lead of themselves to the individual not remaining in isolation but unfolding within himself the impulse to recognize those who have similar aspirations. Such meditation must be regarded as a personal meditation.

So far as the other kind of meditations are concerned it would be good if they were done at a definite time or in special circumstances, or when accompanied by definite circumstances. In giving all meditations like those of the esoteric instruction given at Christmas, one has in mind the goal that is striven for. And then it is a matter of using the circumstances of one's life, the special situations of one's life, to make such meditations. Such meditations are done when one finds the necessary spare time for them—the more often the better. They will always have their effect. Precisely with such meditations the striving should be for personal development. One should try to find the link from the results that happen in the spiritual life, and one will, moreover, find it. In reality, the feeling of oppression would come if definite rules were laid down in regard to individuals or a group doing them at the same time as you say. Moreover this would lead to the meditation losing something that it really ought to have. Every meditation, you see, is impaired if one starts from the feeling that it is one's duty to do it. You must bear this well in mind. Every meditation is impaired by the feeling of being obliged to do it. Therefore in the case of the personal meditations it is absolutely necessary for this personal meditation gradually to become something that the human being feels in his soul to be like a thirst for meditation. Those who really thirst for their meditation just as a man eats when he is hungry, do their morning and evening meditations in the best way. When meditation becomes something without which a person cannot exist, when he feels that it is part and parcel of the whole life of his soul, then he has the right attitude to meditation.

With the other meditations, what matters is the inner desire, the inner will to become a physician and to say to oneself: “This is my path and I will meditate as often as I possibly can. I realize that when I do the one or the other meditation, it has this or that aim.” Out of the free, inner will of man, therefore, there must arise the urge to such meditation, to the carrying out of such a meditation. It is really inconceivable how anyone can feel a sense of oppression. For why should anything for which one thirsts inwardly, also give rise to a sense of oppression? If it oppresses, it has already been made into a matter of duty and that is just what meditation should never be. It should never be a matter of duty. Precisely when it is a question of becoming a physician, the following ought to be taken in the very deepest sense: The conception of becoming a physician ought not to be as it is today, namely, entering a profession. One ought really to become a physician because of an inner calling, an inner devotion to healing. This general urge to be able to heal is the true accompaniment, and one is then led towards the goal. Perhaps in few professions is it so harmful as it is in the profession of the physician to think of this profession as an external duty. Love for humanity must be implicit in the physician's profession. A physician should find his bearings quite naturally in his work.

Now, although in modern medicine, in modern medical studies, it is not very favorable for real healing when people become physicians just because they must become something or other and because the medical profession seems for some reason to be desirable, it is still worse when someone thinks he can become a physician artificially, through meditation, without feeling this thirst of which I have spoken. If the aim is a true one, ancient esoteric methods of development demand infinitely more than an external decision; and they do much more harm than external circumstances of life if they do not spring from the right attitude of soul. But you must also have a right conception of what I have here called the “attitude of soul.” What we call karma is not, as a rule, taken very seriously in life. An inner vocation arises, of course, because karma has put a person in a certain place. We must realize that to follow something out of a sense of duty is injurious, but to follow karma is something that accords entirely with the direction of human evolution. The karma of all of you has brought you to work in medicine, and now if only you will look deeply enough within yourselves you will find that you really do feel the thirst of which I have spoken. And you will find, too, the moments and hours when you want to do such meditations.

Now just when one takes up such a serious profession in all earnestness, the following (which has happened frequently since the Christmas Foundation Meeting) really should not be. It is not connected directly with medical work, but it is connected very strongly with the “human universal” inasmuch as it exists within the general Anthroposophical movement, and so it is also of importance to you. I shall speak about it in another place, but because it holds good very specially for you, I will say it here too. It was said at the Christmas Foundation that a new character must come into the Anthroposophical movement, that inner work must be done. Now many people drew a strange conclusion from this. There are people within the Anthroposophical movement who have definite positions and offices. Such people have written: Yes, I understand perfectly that a new character is to come into the Anthroposophical movement. I place myself entirely at the disposal of this, I do not want to remain in my old position. But this can never lead to anything. It can only lead to something when the person concerned knows that at the place at which he stands he must find his development, find it in reality, also in connection with the faculties which he uses and applies. This, naturally, is the case with you who have begun to work in the medical profession. You must regard it as karma and you must realize that your work in the future will be tremendous. You must realize, secondly, that the thirst of which I have spoken, the thirst to approach the true preparation for medicine by way of meditation, is also to be found in the soul.

This is what I wanted to say about the practice of meditation. Each meditation should enlighten and support the other. It may well be that some one meditation has worked strongly, and now you must do a different one in order to strengthen the effects still more. You do one meditation once, twice; you do another twelve times. This is something that comes when you really take to heart what is given as a meditation, when you experience it inwardly, and also when you take to heart what has been said about the goal of meditation. We must use this opportunity for developing much that was touched upon at Christmas.

Question: My conception was not that it was a question of meditating at definite times, but in spite of that I was aware of a sense of oppression because I considered it a duty to do this meditation and often I was not really fresh enough to feel it as a need. Perhaps this is due to the fact, in my case at least, that up to now I have not had the attitude that one ought to have as a physician, that I have not had the real will to heal. I think it has been the same with one or two of us. Many of us have not become physicians in order to heal, but we have become physicians because of the great interest that we had in getting to know the nature of man, his conditions of disease and his normal conditions. We approached medicine entirely from the side of knowledge. Up till Christmas the will to heal was something entirely foreign to me; and so, to begin with, my work made me very unhappy because I had a great deal to do and at the beginning was too tired for meditation. But this work brought me more together with patients so that now I have an inkling of what it means to have the will to heal, and I think that now I shall be better able to meditate because this springs from a real need. Meditation can then really be seen as a path to the goal. Precisely this devotion to human destiny, this sympathy that one feels as a physician for everyone—this, and the will to heal which was not indicated through one's studies which lead to medicine more from the side of knowledge—is surely something that, until recently, has caused difficulties to many of us.

You must remember the following. When, in the sphere of medicine you divide these two things, the side of knowledge and the will to heal, it is a contradiction of the reality. It is very important to realize what is at stake here. Knowledge of the nature of man is necessary in many different fields of human activity. In pedagogy, for example, the essential starting point is a knowledge of the nature of the human being. In other domains, too, there must be knowledge of the nature of man if we have an eye to realities. Knowledge of the nature of man is essential for everyone who wants to get beyond superficialities. It is necessary for everyone. The fact that knowledge of the real nature of man is not sought for in many fields of activity is a consequence of the errors into which modern civilization has lapsed. In a certain sense this knowledge is sought for—although it cannot be found there because it can only be found today by way of Anthroposophy. It is sought for by theologians (I mean by the ordinary theologians). All kinds of people are looking and seeking for knowledge of the being of man. The only ones who are not seeking for it are the lawyers, because jurisprudence today is something which simply cannot be said to take hold of the realities of the world. The essential thing is that knowledge of the human being has to be somewhat specialized in the various domains of life. The physician needs a rather different kind of knowledge from the educator—a rather different kind only. It is necessary for educators to know as much as possible about education. There ought certainly to be connecting threads; there should be a hither and thither between the one and the other field of activity, based upon knowledge of the human being.

So far as concrete details of knowledge of the human being are concerned, the following must be remembered. You spoke about knowing the conditions of disease in a human being. This is a preconception—the outcome of materialism. In itself it is a materialistic preconception. Taken in the concrete, what does it mean to know the conditions of disease in the human being? How can I know anything about a disease that is localized, let us say, in the liver, in the spleen, in the lungs, in the heart? How do I get knowledge of it? When I know what kind of healing process might be capable of overcoming the process of disease. In reality the process of disease is the question and one remains at a standstill at this point if one's only aim is to get knowledge of the process of disease. The answer is the healing process. We know nothing at all about a process of disease when we do not know how it can be healed. Understanding consists in the knowledge of how the morbid process can be eliminated. Without the will to heal there can be no medical study in the true sense. To know conditions of disease means nothing. Without passing on from the pathology to the therapy one would simply be concerned with the pathological aspect, imagining that one was thus getting knowledge of the human being. One would simply be describing a diseased organ. But a description of this kind is quite inadequate; is not of the least value. So far as mere description and abstract knowledge are concerned there is no essential difference between a healthy or a diseased liver. In the sense of natural science there is no distinction to be made between a healthy and a diseased liver. The most that can be said is that a healthy liver is more frequent than a diseased one. But this is an external condition. If you want to get knowledge of a diseased liver, you must go into what is able to heal the diseased liver.

Upon what does healing depend? It depends upon knowing which substances, which forces must be applied to the human being in order that the process of disease may pass over into the healthy process. Such knowledge is transmitted, for instance, by the fact that one knows: Equisetum, within the human organism, takes over the activity of the kidneys. When, therefore, the activity of the kidneys is not sufficiently cared for by the astral body, I shall see that they are cared for by equisetum. I give support to the astral body by means of equisetum arvense. Here for the first time is the answer to what is really happening. The same process in the external world which leads to equisetum also takes its course in the human kidneys. The equisetum process must be studied in connection with the kidneys. This leads us to the domain of healing.

Thus it can never be a matter of pathology in a merely abstract sense or of a description of conditions of disease—all this amounts to nothing in reality. Our picture of a condition of disease should be that such and such a remedy works in such and such a way. The feeling that we have about knowledge in all domains of life should lead on to reality, not to formalism. It was always so when knowledge was everywhere connected with the Mysteries. In the Mysteries, knowledge was inevitably withheld from those who merely desired it in the formal sense and imparted only to those who had the will to lead over this knowledge into reality. Is that an answer to your question?

Question: I may have expressed myself rather radically when I spoke only about health and disease. In point of fact, I do consider the way in which the human being should be healed also to be a part of knowledge. I meant something rather different, namely, that one may know how a person can be healed but may not have the will to heal him. Up to now I have not, inwardly, had the impulse only to understand the human being in order to heal. I had not the impulse to let the whole of my work and studies and knowledge be filled entirely with the realization: I must be capable of healing the human being.

That is hypertrophy of knowledge.

Question: This is a fact with me and I wanted to speak about it because it is so. Perhaps it sounds very strange.

What I am going to say may sound very trivial and simple. It is as well that this kind of attitude cannot make clocks, for if it could, you would have clocks put together quite correctly according to the clock maker's art, but they would not want to go. By letting his will hypertrophy towards the one side or the other, a person can develop this or that, but the result will be of such a nature that it is not in line with the healthy evolution of human nature. Knowledge of healing should simply not exist without the will to heal. Today you ought to be speaking of something quite different. You should really be saying: “Yes, I have studied medicine for a short time and now I have an ungovernable will to heal. I must restrain myself so that this will which comes from knowledge does not break loose in such a way that I want to heal all the healthy people!” This is really not a joke. The voice should be a voice of restraint. It should simply not be possible to say: “I have striven for the knowledge of healing but not the will to heal!” For a knowledge that is real cannot separate itself from the will—that is quite impossible.

Question: I think that what was expressed in the previous question is a condition brought about by the kind of studies that are pursued at the universities. It seems to me to be a final result of such studies. The aim of all medical science is really knowledge, without leading over to the therapeutic aspect. In the lecture halls and the clinical courses one hears a little about diagnosis and when the professor does not know what to do until the new patient is brought in, he throws in a few words about the therapy. In a course on gynecology once, the lecturer spoke about the work of the physician in his practice. “Has it not struck you,” he said, “that in reality so little is said about therapy? You will realize this for the first time when you begin to practice. That is what happened to me. I had a head full of knowledge and then I realized the other.” Then he said that five minutes were given to the therapy and forty minutes to the diagnosis. Nobody realized that during all their studies they had heard nothing about therapy. This leads me to a question, because this fundamental attitude of modern science causes me many difficulties and conflicts. As a physician I was looking for something different in scientific medicine. This entirely superficial attitude which leads to all kinds of things, especially in diagnosis, often gives rise to results that are really repellent. Let me give an example. A patient came to me and asked, could I not help her? She suffered from recurrent inflammation of the frontal sinuses and she had been many times to a specialist. Among other things perforation had been done by way of the nose. She said she could not bear it any longer, she felt that the whole interpretation of her condition was too physical, and she asked if I could not help her in some other way. This attitude that the patient had realized is universal. It simply gropes on the surface and leads nowhere. It can only remain on the surface and it cannot lead to the real state of the case. And so I have often asked myself: Is it really good or indeed is it necessary to go so deeply into these methods which are considered a sine qua non in medical studies—methods which simply reach the point of monstrosity in gynecological research and simply have no relation to the final outcome? Is it necessary to go through all these things? I have the feeling that any instinct for healing which may exist is suppressed entirely by going through these things. I would like to mention something told to me by a former colleague. He was speaking of a peasant doctor in the Bavarian Alps who used to perform all kinds of orthopedic cures with such skill that he became famous. An orthopedic specialist in Munich got to hear of what this man was doing, went to see him and told him that he should come to him in his clinic. This man saw all the apparatus in the clinic and the specialist told him to show him how he worked. The peasant doctor looked at it all and from then onwards he could no longer cure people. Ought we to go through all the methods of scientific medical training or ought we to avoid them as far as is at all possible?

When you approach the question in this way, it becomes extremely important. You are right in thinking that I did not want to speak about personal characteristics of the prior questioner but to describe the attitude that inevitably arises from the modern methods of study. The true kind of medical studies would never lead anyone to desire knowledge of conditions of disease or processes of healing without at the same time having the will to heal. Such a thing would never arise out of true medical studies. It arises because of the way medical studies are arranged today. It must be admitted on the one side that by far the greatest part of what the medical student has to learn today in his various courses has nothing fundamentally to do with healing as such as therefore burdens the mind with all kinds of impossible things. In modern medical training it is more or less the same as it would be to make a sculptor, let us say, learn first of all about the scientific properties of marble and wood with which, in reality, he is not concerned. A great deal of what is contained in the medical textbooks today or is done in clinics has little to do with medicine in the real sense.

The moment you pass on from the physical description—this was what the lady of whom you spoke felt to be too physical—the moment you pass on to the etheric body, most of the things in the medical textbooks lose their significance because the moment you come to the etheric body the organs present quite a different aspect. When you pass from the physical to the etheric body, intellectual knowledge alone will get you nowhere. You will learn much more if you learn how to sculpture, if you learn the hand grip, the feeling for space that is needed by the sculptor.

So far as knowledge of the astral body is concerned, you learn far more when you can apply the laws of music. From music you learn an enormous amount about the forming of the human organism, how this process of formation develops out of the astral body. Inasmuch as the human being is organized for movement, for activity, he is built up, in reality, like a musical scale. Here (back of the shoulders) begins the tonic; then it passes over into the second, then into the third in the lower arms, where there are two bones because there are two thirds. This brings you to truths quite different from those which are considered nowadays to pertain to a real knowledge of the human being and quite a different course of teaching would really be necessary for one who is approaching medicine in the true sense.

The modern form of teaching has arisen from the fact that therapy has become nihilistic. Not only in the Viennese school of medicine has this been the case, but everywhere it is the same. Among the professors and lecturers who represent the various scientific faculties there have, at least, been serious minds who, in spite of all their shortsightedness, were, at any rate, scientific. At all events a certain earnestness was present. But when one comes to those who lecture about remedies, the earnestness ceases. The lecturer himself has no fundamental belief in what he is lecturing about. The earnestness stops at the point where the therapy begins.

From where, then, is the will to heal to proceed? It must proceed from a course of medical studies such as I outlined in connection with the course given at Christmas, where I spoke of what the sequence of studies should be. That, of course, is very different from the things that go on today and do not lead to a real art of medicine. In most cases, the practitioner has to learn things by dint of great effort when he has left his medical school. This is often not an altogether easy matter because the things he has learned are not only useless but actually harmful to him. He cannot see the real process of disease because all sorts of things are memorized in his head and he cannot see the process of disease in its reality. That is the one side.

But now, you are a group of young physicians. In the spiritual sense you have to be something more. The best way to attain that would be to say: Leave all medical studies alone, there is no true medical faculty today where you can study medicine in the real sense—come here and learn the essentials. In the radical sense, that is what one would say. But where would you be then? The world would reject you, would not recognize you as physicians. The only course open to the young physician is to go through the whole thing and then be healed by what he can learn of medicine here. With all the repugnance that you may feel, you must take the orthodox and regular course of study. There is no other alternative; it is absolutely necessary. That is the other side of the picture.

People like magnetic healers and amateurs who dabble in medicine abuse the university schools, but that is no use at all. Those who know how things are and who are led by experience to real understanding—they will be the true pioneers of reasonable medical study. This should be your endeavor: to awaken public opinion about the state of affairs. You realize, of course, that it is not you alone who speak as you have done. There are many physicians who speak in the same way, but they need what can be given here. And why? When one is an intelligent person today and becomes a physician, having passed through the university, one can, of course, criticize orthodox medicine. One has passed through the whole thing and knows what one lacks. But this knowledge can become effective only when one has got something to put in its place. Only then can it be effective. This, of course, is the other side. And so you must not take what I am saying here in the sense that I have any desire to hold back young physicians from completing their study. Bad as it may be, it is still necessary today to eat the bitter apple. When it is possible to speak on the platform of things which ought not to be—then and only then will there be a gradual improvement.

In this connection, you see, there is still a great deal to be done. I think I have already told the story of how I was once invited to speak about some medical subject to a group of physicians in Zurich. A professor of gynecology was also there. I saw that he had come with the attitude: “Well, we will listen to this lunatic so that at least we can abuse him, being justified by the fact that we did actually hear what he had to say” He came quite honestly in order to be amused by listening to a lunatic. His manner grew stranger and stranger and he listened in a most peculiar way. It was very unpleasant for him to find that he was not listening to a lunatic, that it could not all be put down as pure nonsense. I myself found it most amusing. I said to him: “This has made a strange impression on you, professor.” He replied: “Yes, one simply cannot speak about it. It is decidedly a different point of view.” It is, after all, a sign of progress when one gets to the point where people say: “It is a different point of view.”

What is it that has arisen by the side of scientific medicine which, after all, still towers above anything that has been achieved by the medicine of amateurs? I know that laymen have made progress. But it amounts to nothing. The valve in a steam engine was invented by a small boy one day when he was bored. One could not say of him that he was really capable of constructing engines because he invented the valve. Those who abuse scientific medicine today are really not justified in abusing it for they are talking about something of which they have no knowledge. What we have to achieve is not to mix up anthroposophical conceptions in medicine with what is already in existence. If in doing so we succeed in showing that we are sincere and serious, then great progress will have been achieved.

As you are young, I would like especially to lay this on your hearts. Let the aim of all the esotericism you receive be to make you capable of working also in the world, so that the real will to heal may unfold. Your aim cannot be to shut yourselves off, each one in the chamber of his heart. You must work to the end that medicine shall make real progress, just as the aim of educators is to enable education to make progress.

It is not possible for me to speak in detail of how most things that go on today in medical studies are really not essential for the understanding of the healthy and the sick human being. But if you study what I have given in the various lecture courses and cycles, you will find it. Suppose when a baby is born we were to ask ourselves how it should be fed, imagining that it is not possible to feed a baby properly before one has given him some idea about the nature of the foodstuffs: so it is with many things today. What I mean to convey is that one should have the intuition to understand a process spiritually, not physically. In diagnosis it is often more necessary to go back to the early causes which may lie at a definite time, very far back in the case of some patients. Methods are taught today for recognizing the condition of the diseased or the healthy organism at the actual time when the patient comes. But what is lacking is the kind of thinking which enables one to say to the patient: Fifty years ago this or that happened to you and that is the primary cause of your illness. As a rule, physicians depend upon what the patient himself says, and that is unreliable. The first cause is the external cause—it comes from outside. A physician in Christiania once brought a man of sixty to me. He had all kinds of eczema which it was easy to diagnose. But nothing that was applied was any help. The physician brought him to me, and the state of things was quite clear—I mention one example from hundreds—if one is to help in such a case, one must know the real starting point. In this case it was not very difficult. I very soon discovered that thirty or thirty-five years previously the man must have suffered from severe poisoning. This was still working in him. I told him to try and remember what had happened to him thirty-five years before. He told me that nobody had yet asked him such a thing. He said that he was in school and beside his classroom there had been a chemical laboratory where he had seen a glass containing liquid. He was thirsty and he drank the liquid. It was hydrochloric acid and he was severely poisoned.

It is very important to know such things. They lead one beyond the condition of the moment. Thus it is often important, for example, with certain conditions of hysteria, to know whether the person concerned has undergone the shock of having been nearly drowned. These things must be gone into. We go into them quite naturally when we have real sympathy for the human being whom we want to heal, and all medicine must take its start from sympathy with the human being. If this sympathy is lacking, the most significant things will be forgotten. That is what must be remembered in this direction.

Do all of you intend to come tomorrow? If so, we will say more about these things. I wanted now—without giving any explanation, for that I will do tomorrow—to give you certain lines which may become a central meditation. If you think about these lines again and again they will help you to realize what is built into the human being out of the cosmos, out of the earth's periphery, and by earthly forces. If you ask yourselves in connection with the formation of the eye: How is the eye formed from the cosmos?—if you ask yourselves how a lung is formed out of the forces of the earth's periphery, out of the planetary forces moving in the elements of air and water—if you ask how metabolism in the human being arises in connection with the earthly—then, if you will meditate on these questions in the light of the following lines, you will learn to look into the real nature of the human being.

Behold, what is joined in the cosmos:
Thou feelest the forming of man.

- that in connection with Moon -

Behold, all that moves thee in Air:

- for example, in breath or in blood circulation -

Thou wilt live man's ensoulment.

- that in connection with Sun -

Behold, what is changed in the Earthly:

- especially what also brings death to the human being -

Thou wilt discern the spiritualizing of man.

- that in connection with Saturn -

Schau, was kosmisch sich fügt:
Du empfindest Menschengestaltung.

Schau, was luftig dich bewegt:
Du erlebest Menschenbeseelung.

Schau, was irdisch sich wandelt:
Du erfassest Menschendurchgeistung.

Zweiter Vortrag

Meine lieben Freunde!

Heute wäre es mir lieb, wenn dasjenige, was den Freunden auf der Seele liegt, sich wirklich aussprechen würde, damit wir auf das hingeordnet die Besprechung führen können.

Helene von Grunelius: Eine Frage, die uns allen am Herzen liegt, ist die, wie wir zurechtkommen sollen mit allen Meditationen, die wir haben. Zu welcher Zeit wir sie machen sollen, ob wir einen richtigen Rhythmus hineinbringen sollen, wie wir das machen sollen. Ob wir es so machen sollen, daß wir die, die wir zu Weihnachten bekommen haben, alle zu gleicher Zeit machen sollen? Bis jetzt wenigstens erscheint es uns so, daß die meisten von uns sich noch sozusagen erdrückt fühlen von dem ganzen Stoff von Meditation, und noch nicht richtig mit ihm zu leben wissen.

Nicht wahr, in bezug auf diese Dinge handelt es sich wirklich darum, daß nicht in einer solchen Art strikte Anweisungen gegeben werden sollen, denn es ist ein zu starkes Eingreifen in die menschliche Freiheit. Es wird auch, wenn man die Dinge richtig ansieht, nicht gut eine Bedrückung der Seele dabei herauskommen können. Es sind die Meditationen, die zu Weihnachten hier gegeben worden sind, eigentlich immer so gegeben worden, daß zu ihnen dazu gesagt worden ist, nach welcher Richtung hin sie die Seele bewegen. Das ist gesagt worden bei allen solchen Meditationen, wie diese sind. Dabei handelt es sich ja auch um solche Meditationen, wie sie jetzt in der ersten Klasse gegeben werden. Bei allen diesen Meditationen ist es etwas anderes, als wenn jemand kommt und wünscht, eine persönlich wirkende Meditation zu bekommen. Wenn jemand eine persönlich wirkende Meditation haben will, so muß man ihm natürlich bedeuten, ob er die betreffende Meditation des Morgens oder des Abends machen soll, wie er sich im Sinne dieser Meditation auch sonst zu verhalten hat und dergleichen. Das sind Meditationen, die eben in das esoterische Leben des einzelnen nach Maßgabe seiner Fähigkeiten und seines Karmas eingreifen sollen. Sie führen dann von selbst dazu, daß dieser einzelne Mensch nicht ein einzelner bleibt, sondern den Trieb in sich entwickeln wird, zu erkennen diejenigen, die mit ihm gleichen Strebens sind. Diese Meditation müssen wir als persönliche Meditation betrachten. Alles dasjenige, was sonst gegeben wird - wenn nicht etwa, was bis jetzt nicht vorgekommen ist, gesagt wird, es wäre gut, daß eine solche Meditation zu einer bestimmten Zeit oder unter besonderen Umständen oder mit besonderen Begleiterscheinungen zu machen ist -, alle solchen Meditationen, die gegeben werden wie die Meditation der esoterischen Unterweisung zu Weihnachten, die werden eigentlich so gegeben, daß man sich ganz genau vor Augen hält, was mit den Meditationen für eine Wirkung erzielt wird. Und dann handelt es sich darum, daß man die Lebensumstände, also dasjenige, was man hat als die besondere Situation seines Lebens, dazu benützt, um solche Meditationen zu machen. Nicht wahr, solche Meditationen werden einfach gemacht dann, wenn man die Muße für sie findet. Je öfter, desto besser. Sie werden immer die entsprechende Wirkung haben. Es sollte gerade bei solchen Meditationen sich wirklich darum handeln, persönliche Entwickelung anzustreben. Man sollte aus dem, was sich da dem Geiste ergibt, dann den Zusammenschluß suchen und findet ihn auch, so daß eigentlich am bedrückendsten sein müßte, wenn in ganz bestimmter Weise Maßregeln gegeben würden, um diese Meditationen, sei es von einzelnen oder von einer ganzen Gruppe, wie Sie sagen, gleichzeitig machen zu lassen. Das alles führt ja auch dazu, daß die Meditation etwas verliert, was sie eigentlich haben soll. Sehen Sie, jede Meditation wird beeinträchtigt dadurch, daß man von der Verpflichtung ausgeht, sie zu machen. Das müssen Sie sehr genau ins Auge fassen. Jede Meditation wird dadurch beeinträchtigt, daß man von der Verpflichtung ausgeht, sie machen zu müssen. Deshalb ist es bei den persönlichen Meditationen durchaus notwendig, daß diese persönliche Meditation allmählich übergeht in etwas im Menschen, was er seelisch empfindet wie einen Durst nach der Meditation. Und diejenigen Menschen machen eigentlich ihre Morgen- und Abendmeditation, die sie zu machen haben, am richtigsten, denen dürstet nach der Meditation, so wie der Mensch ißt, wenn ihn hungert. Wenn die Meditation etwas wird, ohne das man nicht sein kann, daß man der Seele gegenüber fühlt, als ob es zum ganzen Leben der Seele gehörte, dann ist die Meditation richtig empfunden.

Bei den andern Meditationen wird es sich darum handeln, daß man wirklich will, innerlich will Mediziner werden, daß man sich sagt: Das ist der Weg; und nun gehe ich so oft an die Meditation heran, als ich nur kann. Ich bin mir bewußt, wenn ich die eine oder die andere mache, hat sie diese oder jene Absicht. - Es muß also immer aus dem freien wollenden Innern des Menschen der Drang da sein nach einer solchen Meditation, dem Verrichten einer solchen Meditation. Und es ist eigentlich unvorstellbar, wie man sich bedrückt fühlen kann. Denn warum sollte dasjenige, nach dem man innerlich dürstet, zu gleicher Zeit bedrücken? Da ist es schon hinübergeleitet in eine Art pflichtgemäße Sache, und das sollte sie eigentlich niemals sein, niemals eine pflichtgemäße Sache. Gerade wenn es sich um das Arztwerden handelt, so sollte man im allertiefsten Sinne des Wortes bedenken: Arzt werden sollte nicht so aufgefaßt werden, wie man es heute auffaßt, in einen Beruf hineinzukommen. Sondern Arzt werden sollte man eigentlich durch innere Berufung, durch innere Hingabe an das Heilen und so weiter. Und wenn man diesen Trieb zu heilen im allgemeinen empfindet, dann wird man die Wegleitung haben an dieser Meditation und wird dann dem Ziele zugeführt. Es ist vielleicht bei wenigen Berufen so schädlich, wenn man den Beruf als äußere Verpflichtung auffaßt, wie gerade beim Arztberuf. Es gehört eben durchaus zum Arztberuf Liebe zur Menschheit und ein wirkliches selbstverständliches Sich-Hineinfinden in das Arztsein. Nun, wenn schon bei der heutigen Medizin, bei dem heutigen Medizinstudium es nicht gerade von großem Vorteil ist für das wirkliche Heilen, wenn Leute, die Arzt werden, weil sie nun etwas werden müssen, und weil das aus irgendeinem Zusammenhang heraus ihnen wünschenswert erscheint, Arzt zu werden, wenn das schon nicht besonders wünschenswert ist, ist noch weniger wünschenswert, daß jemand künstlich durch Meditieren Arzt werden will, wenn er nicht diesen Durst empfindet, von dem ich gesprochen habe. Denn die uralten Mittel, die esoterischen Mittel vorwärtszukommen fördern, wenn die Absicht eine richtige ist; sie fördern unendlich viel mehr als irgendein äußerer Entschluß, während sie, wenn sie nicht aus der richtigen Seelenstimmung heraus entsprießen, viel mehr schaden als die äußeren Lebensumstände. Nun müssen Sie aber das, was ich hier als Seelenstimmung bezeichne, auch im richtigen Sinne auffassen. Gewöhnlich wird im menschlichen Leben das, was man Karma nennt, nicht sehr ernst genommen. Man muß natürlich auch eine innere Berufung, sagen wir, vorgezeichnet erhalten dadurch, daß einen das Karma an einen bestimmten Platz hingestellt hat, und man muß sich dann klar sein darüber: Einer Verpflichtung zu folgen, ist von Schaden; aber dem Karma zu folgen ist das, was durchaus in der Richtung der menschlichen Entwickelung liegt. Es hat Sie alle Ihr Karma hingestellt, medizinisch zu wirken; nun müssen Sie nur tief genug in sich hineinschauen und Sie werden schon finden, dafS Sie den Durst wirklich empfinden. Und Sie werden die Augenblicke finden, die Stunden, in denen Sie solche Meditationen machen wollen.

Sehen Sie, wenn man ernsthaft einen so ernsten Beruf ergreift, so darf folgendes nicht sein, was gerade seit der Weihnachtstagung vielfach vorgekommen ist. Es bezieht sich nicht direkt auf das Ärztliche oder Medizinische, aber sehr stark auf das allgemein Menschliche, insoferne es in der allgemeinen anthroposophischen Bewegung liegt, so dafs es auch für Sie wichtig ist. Ich werde es schon an einem andern Ort erwähnen, aber weil es für Sie besonders intensiv gilt, will ich es auch hier sagen. Da ist gesagt worden zur Weihnachtstagung, daß ein neuer Zug kommen soll in die anthroposophische Bewegung, daß innerlicher gewirkt werden soll. Nun haben manche eine sonderbare Konsequenz daraus gezogen. Es gibt Leute, die sind gerade innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung an bestimmten Plätzen, sie haben ihre Ämter. Und es gibt nun solche Leute, die Ämter haben, die schreiben: Ja, nun kommt ein neuer Zug - das verstehe ich vollständig - in die anthroposophische Bewegung hinein. Ich stelle mich vollständig diesem neuen Zug zur Verfügung, ich möchte nicht drinnen bleiben im alten Amt und stelle mich zur Verfügung. — Das kann niemals zu irgend etwas führen. Zu irgend etwas kann nur führen, wenn der Betreffende nun weiß, er muß an dem Platz, an dem in Wirklichkeit er steht, seine menschliche Entfaltung vollziehen, auch hinsichtlich der Kräfte, die er anwendet. Und das ist natürlich gerade bei Ihnen der Fall, die Sie den medizinischen Beruf begonnen haben. Sie müssen es als ein Karma betrachten und müssen sich klar sein, daß Sie in der Zukunft ungeheuer viel wirken werden; zweitens aber, daß der Durst, von dem ich Ihnen gesprochen habe, auf dem Wege des Meditierens sich zu nähern der eigentlichen Bereitschaft zum Arzt, sich immer wird finden lassen im menschlichen Gemüt.

Das habe ich über den Gebrauch der Meditationen sagen wollen. Es soll das so wirken, daß das eine das andere aufhellt und unterstützt, daß das eine von dem andern beleuchtet wird. Es kann durchaus so sein: Eine Meditation, die Sie machen, hat stark gewirkt; jetzt müssen Sie eine andere Meditation machen, damit sie diese Wirkung noch stärker beleuchtet. Eine Meditation machen Sie ein-, zweimal, eine andere zwölfmal. Das ist etwas, was sich ergibt, wenn Sie richtig sich zu Gemüt führen, was als Meditation gegeben ist, es innerlich erleben und auch das sich zu Gemüt führen, was in bezug auf das Ziel der Meditation gesagt worden ist. Wir müssen diese Gelegenheit dazu benützen, manches auszubauen, was zu Weihnachten berührt worden ist.

Helene von Grunelins: Ich hatte es auch nicht so aufgefaßt, als sollte man es zu bestimmten Zeiten machen; habe aber trotzdem eine gewisse Bedrückung empfunden, weil ich es als Pflicht aufgefaßt habe, diese Meditation zu machen, und manchesmal nicht die richtige Frische hatte, sie als Bedürfnis zu empfinden. Und nun kommt es ja vielleicht daher, jedenfalls bei mir, daß ich bis jetzt eben nicht so eingestellt war, wie man als Arzt eingestellt sein müßte, nämlich mit dem Willen zum Heilen. Ich glaube, daß es einigen von uns so gegangen ist. Man ist nicht Mediziner geworden, um zu heilen, wenigstens mancher von uns, sondern des großen Interesses wegen, das man hatte, den Menschen kennenzulernen - die kranken Zustände und die normalen Zustände -, und eigentlich ganz von der Erkenntnisseite aus an die Medizin heranzukommen. Es war mir auch bis Weihnachten etwas völlig Fremdes, der Wille zum Heilen, und so durch meine jetzige Arbeit war ich zuerst sehr unglücklich, weil ich viel zu tun hatte und im Anfang zu müde war, um Meditationen zu machen. Nun kam ich durch diese Arbeit mehr mit Patienten zusammen, so daß ich jetzt eine Ahnung habe von dem Willen zum Heilen; und so glaube ich, daß ich jetzt eher die Meditationen werde machen können, weil es dann aus dem wirklichen Bedürfnis heraus entspringt und die Meditation dann wirklich als ein Weg zum Ziel angesehen wird. Gerade diese Hingabe an das Menschheitsschicksal, dieses Mitgefühl, das man an allem hat als Arzt, und der Wille zum Heilen, das ist, weil man durch das Studium nicht darauf hingewiesen wurde und viel mehr von der Erkenntnisseite hinkommt an die Medizin, sicher etwas, was vielen von uns bis vor kurzem noch Schwierigkeiten gemacht hat.

Sie müssen dabei das Folgende bedenken. Wenn Sie auf medizinischem Gebiete diese beiden Dinge trennen, die Erkenntnisseite und den Willlen zum Heilen, so sprechen Sie eigentlich im Grunde vor der Realität, vor der Wirklichkeit in einem Widerspruch. Das ist gerade wichtig, sich klarzumachen, was hier auf diesem Gebiete vorliegt. Sehen Sie, von der Notwendigkeit, den Menschen zu erkennen, muß man ja auf den verschiedensten Gebieten des menschlichen Wirkens reden. Man muß zum Beispiel in der Pädagogik sehr stark reden von dem Ausgangspunkt der Menschenerkenntnis. Das geschieht auch bei uns. Man muß auch auf andern Gebieten, wenn man auf die Realitäten hinsieht, von Menschenerkenntnis reden. Menschenerkenntnis wäre notwendig für jeden, der über das bloß Handlangerische hinauskommen will. Für jeden ist Menschenerkenntnis notwendig. Daß solch eine Menschenerkenntnis nicht gesucht wird auf den verschiedenen Gebieten, das ist eine Folge des Irrtümlichen, in das die moderne Zivilisation verfallen ist. Sehen Sie, in einem gewissen Sinne wird ja Menschenerkenntnis gesucht, wenn auch eine solche nicht zustande kommen kann, weil sie heute wirklich nur auf anthroposophischem Wege zustande kommen kann. Sie wird gesucht von den Theologen, ich meine von den äußeren Theologen. Auch von den äußeren Pädagogen wird sie gesucht. Sie wird von den verschiedensten Leuten gesucht, diese Menschenerkenntnis. Die einzigen, die sie nicht suchen, sind die Juristen, weil Jurisprudenz heute etwas ist, von dem man überhaupt gar nicht sprechen kann als von etwas, das überhaupt etwas ist, was in die Welt in Wirklichkeit eingreift.

Nun sehen Sie, das Wesentliche ist nun, daß Menschenerkenntnis für die verschiedensten Gebiete des Lebens etwas spezialisiert werden muß. Der Arzt braucht eine etwas andere Menschenerkenntnis als der Pädagoge; nur eine etwas andere. Es wäre notwendig, daß die Pädagogik so viel als nur möglich von Medizin durchzogen würde, wieder daß die Medizin so viel als nur möglich von Pädagogik durchzogen würde. Diese Fäden sollten durchaus gebildet werden, das Hinundhergehen von der einen und der andern auf Menschenerkenntnis beruhenden Betätigung. Wenn wir nun auf das Konkrete einer Menschenerkenntnis eingehen, dann müssen wir uns ja das Folgende fragen: Sehen Sie, Sie sagen: die Krankheitszustände des Menschen erkennen. — Das ist ein Vorurteil, das aus dem Materialismus vorliegt. Das ist schon ein materialistisches Vorurteil. Was heißt denn: die Krankheitszustände eines Menschen erkennen im Konkreten? Wie erkenne ich die Krankheit, die, sagen wir, in der Leber, in der Milz, in der Lunge, im Herzen lokalisiert ist? Wie erkenne ich sie? Wenn ich weiß, welcher Heilungsprozeß zugrunde liegen könnte, um den Krankheitsprozeß zu besiegen. In Wirklichkeit ist der Krankheitsprozeß die Frage, und man bleibt bei der Frage stehen, wenn man nur die Krankheitszustände erkennen will. Die Antwort ist der Heilungsprozeß. Man weiß gar nichts über einen Krankheitsprozeß, wenn man nicht weiß, wie er geheilt werden kann. Die Erkenntnis besteht in dem Wissen, wie der Krankheitsprozef3 weggeschafft werden kann, so daß ein medizinisches Studium ohne den Willen zum Heilen gar nicht da sein kann. Es heißt nichts: Krankheitszustände erkennen. So wie man, ohne gleich überzugehen von der Pathologie zur Therapie, Pathologie treiben würde, um angeblich den Menschen zu erkennen, so würde man auch ein krankes Organ beschreiben. Aber eine solche Beschreibung taugt gar nichts, hat nicht den geringsten Wert. Denn für die bloße Beschreibung, für die abstrakte Erkenntnis, für das, was man jetzt als Naturerkenntnis betrachtet, ist es heute ganz einerlei, ob es sich um eine gesunde oder kranke Leber handelt. Es ist gar nicht zu unterscheiden naturwissenschaftlich, was eine gesunde und was eine kranke Leber ist, höchstens durch den Umstand, daß eine gesunde öfter vorkommt als die kranke. Das ist aber ein äußerlicher Umstand. Wollen Sie die kranke Leber erkennen, müssen Sie eingehen auf das, was die kranke Leber heilen kann. Und dann, sehen Sie, handelt es sich um folgendes.

Worauf beruht die Heilung? Daß ich weiß, welche Substanzen, welche Kräfte ich anwenden muß auf den Menschen, damit der Prozeß der Krankheit übergeht in den Prozeß der Gesundheit. Da wird vermittelt eine solche Erkenntnis dadurch, daß ich zum Beispiel weiß, sagen wir Equisetum übernimmt im Menschen, im menschlichen Organismus die Tätigkeit der Niere. Wenn also die Tätigkeit der Niere vom astralischen Leibe aus nicht genügend besorgt wird, so lasse ich sie durch Equisetum besorgen. Ich unterstütze den astralischen Leib durch Equisetum arvense. Nun, damit ist aber erst die Antwort gegeben darauf, was da eigentlich vorliegt. Derselbe Prozeß, der äußerlich zum Equisetum führt, der geht auch in der menschlichen Niere vor sich, und ich muß den Equisetumprozeß im Zusammenhang mit der menschlichen Niere betrachten; dann aber stehe ich schon auf dem Boden der Heilung. So also kann es sich nie darum handeln, in einer bloß abstrakten Weise Pathologie zu treiben, Beschreibung von Krankheitszuständen zu treiben, denn das ist eigentlich in Wirklichkeit nichts. Der Krankheitszustand soll eigentlich nur angesehen werden vom Menschen, indem er weiß, so und so wirkt ein gesundendes Heilmittel. Es soll das Gefühl, das man gegenüber der Erkenntnis hat, überall, auf allen Gebieten des Lebens zur Realität hin drängen, nicht zu formalem Auffassen. So war es ja, als das Wissen überall ein Mysterienwissen war. Da mußte man denjenigen, die bloß erkennen wollten, das Wissen vorenthalten und gab es nur denen, die den Willen hatten, dieses Wissen in Realität überzuführen.

Ja, ist das eine Antwort auf Ihre Frage?

Helene von Grunelius: Vielleicht habe ich mich etwas übertrieben ausgedrückt, wenn ich nur von der Gesundheit und der Krankheit gesprochen habe. Eigentlich rechne ich das, wie die Menschen geheilt werden sollen, auch noch zum Erkenntnismäßigen. Ich meine etwas anderes. Daß man, trotzdem man wissen kann, wie der Mensch geheilt werden kann, nicht den Willen haben kann, ihn zu heilen. Bis jetzt hatte ich innerlich nicht den Impuls, nur deshalb den Menschen zu erkennen und zu erfahren, wie man heilt, um eben Menschen zu heilen. Ich hatte nicht diesen Impuls, daß ich meine ganze Arbeit, mein ganzes Studium und alles, was ich aufnehme an Wissen, innerlich durchpulst sein lasse davon: ich muß den Menschen heilen können.

Das ist Hypertrophie der Erkenntnis.

Helene von Grunelius: Das ist aber bei mir so, und es ist eine Tatsache, die ich hinstellen wollte, weil sie eben existiert, und es wird vielleicht sehr eigenartig vorkommen—

Sehen Sie, es ist nur gut, daß - es wird Ihnen furchtbar trivial und einfach erscheinen -, es ist nur gut, daß das die Uhren nicht machen können, sonst würden Uhren entstehen, die richtig aufgezogen sind nach allen Richtungen der Uhrmacherkunst, aber sie würden nicht gehen wollen. Der Mensch kann dadurch, daß er seinen Willen nach der einen Seite oder nach der andern hin hypertrophieren läßt, das eine oder das andere ausbilden, aber es ist dann etwas, was nicht in der gesunden Entwickelung der Menschennatur liegt. Das Wissen vom Heilen sollte eigentlich gar nicht da sein ohne den Willen zum Heilen, und Sie sollten eigentlich heute von etwas ganz anderem sprechen. Sie sollten nicht davon sprechen, sondern Sie sollten eigentlich sagen: Ja, ich habe erst kurze Zeit Medizin studiert, nun steckt in mir ein unbändiger Wille zum Heilen. Ich muß mich zurückhalten, daß dieser Wille, der vom Wissen kommt, daß der nicht ausbricht und ich nun anfangen will, alle Gesunden zu heilen. — Es ist nicht spaßhaft, daß ich das sage. Es sollte eigentlich die Stimme der Zurückhaltung sein, die sich ausspricht. Es sollte gar nicht möglich sein zu sagen: Ich habe angestrebt das Wissen vom Heilen, aber nicht den Willen zum Heilen. - Denn ein Wissen, das also real ist, kann sich gar nicht vom Willen trennen, das ist ganz unmöglich.

Ein andrer Teilnehmer: Ich glaube, das, was Fräulein von Grunelius gesagt hat, ist vielmehr etwas, ein Zustand, der geradezu herangezogen wird durch das Studium, wie es auf den Universitäten ist. Es scheint mir das ein Ergebnis zu sein, welches man durch zehn bis zwölf Semester vorfindet als Endergebnis des Studiums. Die ganze Einstellung der medizinischen Wissenschaft ist tatsächlich auf das Erkenntnismäßige gerichtet, ohne hinüberzuführen zum Therapeutischen. Man lernt in den Hörsälen, in den klinischen Semestern, da hört man während der ganzen Vorlesung nur etwas von Diagnose und ganz zum Schluß, wenn eigentlich schon das Krankenbett hinausgefahren ist, und der Professor nicht weiß, was er tun soll, bis der neue Patient kommt, da werden ein paar Worte hingeworfen von Therapie, mit denen man gar nichts anfangen kann. Das hat auch einmal ein Privatdozent zum Ausdruck gebracht. Es war in einem gynäkologischen Kurs und der Oberarzt, der sprach von der Tätigkeit des Arztes in der Praxis: «Ist es Ihnen nicht aufgefallen, meine Herren, daß im Grunde genommen so wenig von Therapie gesprochen worden ist? Sie werden das erst dann verspüren, wenn Sie in die Praxis hineingestellt sein werden. Mir ist es so ergangen: ich hatte einen Kopf voll Wissen und da fiel es mir erst ein, daß ich das nie gehört hatte ...» Er schilderte das auch, daß nur fünf Minuten von der Therapie und vierzig von der Diagnose gesprochen wird. Und es war keinem Mediziner aufgefallen, daß sie nichts gehört hatten von der Therapie während ihres ganzen Studiums. Das führt mich auch auf eine Frage, da sich mir aus dieser Grundeinstellung der heutigen Wissenschaft Konflikte ergeben als junger Mensch, der als Mediziner etwas anderes gesucht hat in wissenschaftlicher Medizin. Durch diese ganz oberflächliche Einstellung, die sich in allem möglichen äußert, ergeben sich bei der Diagnose gerade oft Dinge, die einem in der Seele zuwider sind und ungeheuerlich erscheinen. So möchte ich das an einem Beispiel klarmachen. Eine Patientin kam einmal zu mir und fragte, ob ich ihr nicht helfen könne. Sie litt an einer rezidivierenden Entzündung der Stirnhöhle, und sie war nun öfter zu einem Spezialisten gegangen. Es wurde von der Nase her eine Perforation gemacht und so weiter. Und sie sagte, sie könne es nicht länger mehr ertragen, sie fühle sich zu physisch interpretiert und sie könne das nicht mehr mitmachen, ob ich ihr nicht anders weiterhelfen könne. Diese Einstellung, die von der Patientin so fein empfunden wurde, das ist die, die einem überall begegnet, die ganz an der Oberfläche herumtasten und suchen will, was doch zu nichts führt. Eine Einstellung, die man nur als Zynismus bezeichnen kann. Das, was sich ergibt, ist auch nur etwas, was an der Oberfläche bleiben kann und nicht zu dem führt, was vorliegt, und so habe ich mich oft gefragt: Ist es eigentlich gut oder überhaupt nötig, daß man auf diese Methoden soweit eingeht, wie sie einem doch einmal gegeben werden, wie man sie durchmachen muß im Studium, die sich zu einer Ungeheuerlichkeit steigert bei den gynäkologischen Untersuchungsmethoden, die in gar keinem Verhältnis stehen zu dem, was dabei herauskommt. Ist es notwendig, daß man alle diese Methoden durchmacht? Ich habe das Gefühl, als ob das, was an Heilinstinkten in einem Menschen vorhanden ist, ganz unterdrückt wird dadurch, daß man das alles mitmacht. Ich möchte erzählen, was mir ein alter Kollege gesagt hat. Er sprach nicht von einem Arzt, sondern von einem Bauerndoktor im Bayrischen Hochgebirge. Der machte allerlei orthopädische Sachen mit einer großen Leichtigkeit, so daß er berühmt wurde. Seine Kunst war bekanntgeworden einem Orthopäden in München, der hatte davon gehört, suchte ihn auf und sagte ihm, er solle einmal zu ihm kommen in die Klinik. Dieser Mann sah die Einrichtungen in der Klinik, der Professor sagte ihm, er solle ihm zeigen, wie er das mache. Der Bauerndoktor sah sich das an, und von dem Tage an konnte er nicht mehr heilen. - Sollen wir das mitmachen, was uns von der wissenschaftlichen Medizin vorgelegt wird an Methoden, an wissenschaftlichen Methoden, oder sollen wir es möglichst nicht mitmachen?

Von dieser Seite gefaßt, hat die Frage eine außerordentlich große Wichtigkeit. Sie haben schon recht, und ich wollte auch nicht von persönlichen Eigentümlichkeiten von Fräulein von Grunelius sprechen, sondern ich wollte nur dasjenige charakterisieren, was ganz notwendigerweise als eine Gesinnung vorlag aus dem heutigen Studium. Aus dem naturgemäßen Medizinstudium würde man gar nicht darauf kommen, daß man den Menschen seinen Krankheitszuständen nach kennen will oder von Heilprozessen wissen will, ohne den Willen zum Heilen zu haben. Das würde aus einem naturgemäßen Studium gar nicht herauskommen; das kommt nur heraus aus der Einrichtung des heutigen Medizinstudiums. Auf der einen Seite muß gesagt werden, daf3 eigentlich das weitaus meiste, was heute der Medizinstudierende in seinen Semestern studieren muß, überhaupt mit Heilen nichts zu tun hat, daher im Grunde genommen nur eine Belastung der menschlichen Seele ist mit unmöglichen Dingen. Sehen Sie, das heutige Medizinstudium ist ungefähr so, wie wenn Sie, sagen wir einen Bildhauer veranlassen wollten, vor allen Dingen zuerst Marmor und Holz ihren naturwissenschaftlichen Eigenschaften nach kennenzulernen. Es geht ihn ja eigentlich gar nichts an. Dieses und vieles von dem, was heute entweder in den Lehrbüchern steht oder auf der Klinik getrieben wird, geht die Medizin nichts an. In dem Augenblick, wo Sie übergehen von dem physischen Beschreiben, was da die Dame empfunden hat, als sie sich zu leiblich interpretiert fand, in dem Augenblick, wo Sie übergehen zum Ätherleib, da verlieren die meisten Dinge, die in den medizinischen Büchern drinnenstehen, ihre Bedeutung, weil Sie indem Augenblick, wo Sie zum Ätherleib übergehen, eine ganz andere Orientierung zu den Organen bekommen. In dem Augenblick, wo Sie übergehen vom physischen Leib zum Ätherleib, können Sie überhaupt nicht mehr mit der intellektuellen Erkenntnis allein auskommen. Sie lernen viel mehr, wenn Sie etwas bildhauen lernen, die Handgriffelernen, das Raumgefühl, das der Bildhauer braucht. Für die Erkenntnis des astralischen Leibes lernen Sie viel mehr, wenn Sie das Musikalische anwenden können. Ungeheuer viel lernen Sie für die Formung des menschlichen Organismus, wie sich diese Formung herausbildet aus dem astralischen Leibe. Indem der Mensch in Betätigung übergeht, ist er eigentlich aufgebaut wie eine musikalische Skala. Nach einer Richtung beginnt hier hinten die Prim, geht über in die Sekund, geht über in die Terz im Unterarm; wo es zwei Terzen gibt, hat der Mensch auch zwei Knochen, und da kommen Sie auf ganz andere Dinge, als die sind, die heute angewendet werden zu einer wirklichen Menschenerkenntnis, und es wäre ein ganz anderer Lehrgang notwendig für den angehenden Mediziner, als er heute da ist. Der heutige Lehrgang ist ja gerade durch das entstanden, was jetzt durch Fräulein von Grunelius herausgekommen ist, daß die Therapie in den Nihilismus hineingekommen ist. Nicht nur von der Wiener Medizinerschule, sondern überall ist etwas Nihilistisches hineingekommen. Und ich muß sagen, unter den Medizinern, den Professoren und Dozenten, die wissenschaftliche Fächer vertreten, da waren wenigstens ernste Leute, die aus ihrer Kurzsichtigkeit heraus wissenschaftlich sind. Es war wenigstens ein gewisser Ernst da. Aber wenn man an diejenigen herankommt, die Arzneimittellehre dozieren, da hört der Ernst auf. Da glaubt der Dozent selber nicht mehr an das, was er doziert. Wo der Ernst beginnen sollte im Lehrgang, wo das Therapeutische beginnt, da hört der Ernst auf. Woher soll der Heilwille kommen? Aus dem Studiengang der Mediziner, wenn der so ist, daß man sagen muß, es müßten eigentlich so ähnlich, wie ich das skizziert habe im Anschluß an den Weihnachtskurs, die medizinischen Studien hintereinander folgen. Und das ist natürlich etwas ganz anderes, als was heute überhaupt getrieben wird, denn das führt nicht zur Arzneikunst. Es muß sich der praktische Arzt meistens mit großer Mühe einiges aneignen, wenn er weggekommen ist von der Universität. Das ist manchmal nicht so ganz leicht, weil alle die Dinge ihm nicht nur nutzlos sind, sondern sogar oftmals schädlich. Er kann den eigentlichen Krankheitsprozeß nichtsehen, weil er alle möglichen Dinge im Kopf, in Erinnerung hat, und den eigentlichen Krankheitsprozeß kann er nicht sehen. Das ist die eine Seite.

Nun aber sehen Sie, die andere Seite, die ist doch die: Sie sind hier eine Gruppe von jungen Medizinern. Sie wollen nicht nur geistig wirkliche Ärzte werden, was man ja natürlich am besten dadurch erreichen würde, daß man sagen würde: Laßt das ganze Medizinstudium, Ihr findet heute keine medizinische Fakultät, wo Ihr Medizin studieren könnt. Kommt hierher und lernt hier das Nötige. - Das wäre das, was man ganz radikal sagen könnte. Aber was würde denn der junge Arzt machen? Die Welt würde Sie zurückschicken, weil sie Sie nicht als Arzt anerkennen würde. Es bleibt für die jungen Mediziner nichts übrig, als das Ganze durchzumachen, um durch das, was am Goetheanum erfahren werden kann von der Medizin, geheilt zu werden. Aber Sie müssen eben dazukommen, wenn auch mit allem Widerwillen das regelmäßige richtige Studium durchzumachen; das geht nicht anders. Das ist notwendig. Dies ist die andere Seite. Dann aber werden, wenn recht viele solche da sind, die das Studium kennengelernt haben und von dem, was sie kennengelernt haben, nun wissen, wie es nicht sein soll - nicht wahr, Magnetopathen und Laienärzte schimpfen auch über die Universität, doch hat das keinen Wert - die werden aus dem Erleben heraus zum Erkennen kommen, und die werden die rechten Pioniere sein, um ein vernünftiges Medizinstudium in der Welt zu haben. Das soll durch Sie angestrebt werden, möglichst ein allgemeines öffentliches Urteil hervorzurufen über das, was da vorliegt.

Sehen Sie, im Grunde ist es ja so: Sie wissen ja, nicht Sie allein reden so, wie Sie gesprochen haben. Es gibt viele Ärzte, die so reden, aber diejenigen, die so reden, brauchen eben gerade noch dasjenige, was hier geboten wird. Warum? Man kann natürlich heute, wenn man ein vernünftiger Mensch ist und Arzt wird und das Universitätsstudium durchgemacht hat, die offizielle Medizin kritisieren. Man hat sie durchgemacht, man weiß, was man nicht hat. Aber wirksam kann das doch erst werden, wenn man etwas an die Stelle zu setzen hat. Dann wird die Sache erst wirksam sein. Das ist natürlich die andere Seite. Deshalb fassen Sie ja alles dasjenige, was ich hier sage, nicht so auf, daß ich irgend jemand von den jungen Medizinern abhalten wollte, sein Studium zu vollenden. So schlimm das auch sein mag, aber es muß heute noch in den sauren Apfel gebissen werden. Wenn man auf der Grundlage dessen, was nicht sein soll, reden kann, wird erst allmählich eine Verbesserung eintreten.

Sehen Sie, in dieser Beziehung istnochrechtvviel zu tun. Ich glaube, ich habe es schon einmal erzählt. Ich wurde einmal aufgefordert, einiges Medizinische in einer Gruppe von Medizinern in Zürich zu sprechen, und da war auch mitgekommen ein Professor der Gynäkologie. Nun, ich sah ihm das an, er war gekommen mit der innerlichen Meinung: Nun wollen wir uns einmal diesen Kohl anhören, damit wir wenigstens schimpfen können und sagen können, wir waren dabei. Er kam wirklich ganz fidel in Ulkstimmung, um sich diesen Kohlanzuhören. Dann wurde er immer sonderbarer und sonderbarer und hörte in einer sonderbaren Weise zu. Es war ihm höchst unangenehm, daß es kein Kohl war, daß es so etwas war, von dem man nicht sagen konnte: das ist der reine Unsinn. Das machte mir ganz besonderen Spaß. Ich sprach ihn an: Herr Professor, Sie haben einen sonderbaren Eindruck gehabt. - Er sagte dann: Ja, darüber kann man nicht reden, das ist halt ein anderer Standpunkt. — Das ist ein Fortschritt, wenn man so weit kommt, daß die Leute überhaupt meinen: das ist ein anderer Standpunkt. Was ist denn aufgetreten neben der wissenschaftlichen Medizin, die doch noch turmhoch überragt das, was von der Laienmedizin erreicht worden ist? Ich weiß, daß wichtige Fortschritte gemacht worden sind von den Laien; das tut aber nichts. Die Steuerung bei der Dampfmaschine ist von einem kleinen Jungen gemacht worden, weil er sich langweilte. Man wird von ihm nicht sagen können, daß er Maschinenbauer sein konnte, weil er das gefunden hatte. Das, was heute dasteht und hauptsächlich über die wissenschaftliche Medizin schimpft, das ist wirklich nicht berechtigt dazu, über die Medizin zu schimpfen, und es redet über etwas, was es nicht kennt. Das muß erst errungen werden, daß man nicht verwechselt das Anthroposophische in der Medizin mit dem, was sonst da ist. Wird das einmal errungen, daß man die Sache ernst nimmt, weil die Menschen, die das vertreten, eben zeigen, daß es ihnen ernst ist, dann wäre schon ein bedeutender Fortschritt gemacht.

Das möchte ich besonders Euch jungen Freunden ans Herz legen, alles das, was Ihr aufnehmt an Esoterischem, dahin gipfeln zu lassen, daß Ihr auch vor der Welt wirken könnt, daß sich tatsächlich ein sachgemäßer Heilwille entwickelt. Es kann sich nicht darum handeln, sich egoistisch in seinem Herzenskämmerchen abzuschließen, sondern sich einzusetzen dafür, daß das Medizinische weiterkommt und so weiter, so wie sich die Pädagogen einsetzen dafür, daß die Pädagogik weiterkommt.

Es ist mir nicht möglich, im einzelnen auseinanderzusetzen, wie die Mehrzahl der Dinge, die heute getrieben werden im medizinischen Studium, eigentlich unnötig sind zum Begreifen des gesunden und kranken Menschen in seinem wechselseitigen Verhältnis, aber wenn Sie eingehen auf das, was von mir in den verschiedenen Kursen und Zyklen geboten ist, werden Sie schon darauf kommen. Es ist so, wie wenn ein Kind geboren würde und man vor der Frage stände, wie soll man das Kind ernähren, und man fragte sich: Ist es denn möglich, das Kind zu ernähren, bevor man ihm erst eine Ansicht über die Nahrungsmittel beigebracht hat? — Mit vielen Dingen ist es so. Ich meine es nicht physisch, sondern geistig, daß man die Intuition hat, den Prozeß zu begreifen. Da ist es oft bei der Diagnose auch manchmal viel nötiger, statt von der landläufigen Diagnose auszugehen, auf die erste Ursache zurückzugehen, die irgendwie in einer bestimmten Zeit weit zurückliegen kann beim Patienten. Nicht wahr, den Zustand des kranken oder gesunden Organismus im Moment, wo der Patient kommt, zu erkennen, das wird heute gelehrt, dafür gibt es Methoden. Aber die Denkweise, wodurch man daraufkommt, dem Patienten sagen zu können, du hast vor fünfzig Jahren das und das durchgemacht, das ist die erste Ursache der Erkrankung - die hat man nicht, da verläßt man sich auf das, was der Patient sagt, und das ist anfechtbar. Gerade diese erste Ursache ist die äußere Ursache, die von außen herankommt. Von einem Arzt in Kristiania wurde mir ein Mann vorgeführt, der sechzig Jahre alt war. Er hatte allerlei Ausschläge, die leicht zu diagnostizieren waren. Aber es half nichts, was angewendet wurde. Nun brachte ihn der Arzt zu mir-ich erwähne ein Beispiel von Hunderten-, und es war vor allen Dingen klar, will man überhaupt eingreifen, so muß man wissen, wovon die Geschichte ausgeht. Es war nicht sehr schwer. Sehr bald hatte ich heraus, der Mann hatte vor dreißig oder fünfunddreißig Jahren einen starken Vergiftungsprozeß durchgemacht. Das lag in ihm. Ich sagte ihm, er solle sich erinnern, was er durchgemacht habe vor fünfunddreißig Jahren. Er sagte mir: Darnach hat mich noch niemand gefragt! Ich war in der Schule. Neben unserem Klassenzimmer war ein chemisches Laboratorium, da sah ich ein Glas mit Flüssigkeit stehen. Ich war durstig und trank. Da war ich furchtbar vergiftet, denn das warSalzsäure. — Das zu wissen, ist ungeheuer wichtig. Das hebt heraus von dem augenblicklichen Bestand. So ist es zuweilen wichtig, sagen wir bei irgendwelchen hysterischen Nervenzuständen, zu wissen, ob die betreffende Person den Schock des Fast-Ertrinkens durchgemacht hat. Man muß durchaus auf diese Dinge eingehen. Aber man geht selbstverständlich darauf ein, wenn man Anteil nimmt an dem Menschen, den man heilen will. Es muß alles Medizinische ausgehen vom Anteil am Menschen. Hat man diesen Anteil nicht, dann wird man die bedeutsamsten Dinge vergessen. Das ist dasjenige, was nach dieser Richtung hin zu betrachten ist.

Haben Sie alle vor, morgen noch da zu sein? Dann werden wir morgen die Betrachtungsweise fortsetzen. Ich möchte Ihnen nur, ohne daß dies natürlich jetzt erklärt werden kann - ich will aber morgen eine Erklärung vorausschicken —, zur weiteren Betrachtung eine Anzahl von Zeilen geben, die gerade eine Art zentrale Meditation werden können nach der Richtung hin, die gestern hier angeschlagen worden ist. Sie werden so darauf kommen, was in den Menschen hereingebaut ist aus dem Kosmos, aus dem Umkreis der Erde, von irdischen Kräften, wenn Sie immer weiter darauf die Aufmerksamkeit richten. Wenn Sie sich fragen bei der Gestaltung eines Auges: «Wie ist das aus dem Kosmos heraus gestaltet?» — bei der Lunge: «Wie ist diese aus den Kräften des Umkreises heraus gestaltet, aus dem, was sich planetarisch bewegt auch in den Elementen der Luft und des Wassers? — Wie ist dasjenige, was im Menschen Stoffwechselorgane gestaltet, mit dem Irdischen zusammenhängend?» - wenn Sie sich diese Fragen durchwegs überall stellen und nach folgender Anweisung meditieren, dann werden Sie lernen, in den Menschen hineinzuschauen.

Schau, was kosmisch sich fügt,
Du empfindest Menschengestaltung.

— das im Zusammenhang mit dem Mond.

Schau, was luftig dich bewegt

— zum Beispiel im Atem oder in der Blutzirkulation —

Du erlebest Menschenbeseelung.

— das ist im Zusammenhang mit der Sonne.

Schau, was irdisch sich wandelt,

— vorzugsweise das, was den Menschen auch den Tod bringt —

Du erfassest Menschendurchgeistung.

— das im Zusammenhang mit Saturn.

Schau, was kosmisch sich fügt, ☾
Du empfindest Menschengestaltung. «

Schau, was luftig dich bewegt ○
Du erlebest Menschenbeseelung.

Schau, was irdisch sich wandelt, ♄
Du erfassest Menschendurchgeistung.

Second Lecture

My dear friends!

Today, I would like those who have something on their minds to really speak up, so that we can discuss it accordingly.

Helene von Grunelius: A question that is close to all our hearts is how we should deal with all the meditations we have. At what time should we do them, should we establish a proper rhythm, how should we do it? Should we do it in such a way that we do all the ones we received at Christmas at the same time? So far, at least, it seems to us that most of us still feel, so to speak, overwhelmed by all the meditation material and do not yet know how to live with it properly.

Isn't it true that, with regard to these things, it is really a matter of not giving such strict instructions, because it is too strong an interference with human freedom. If one looks at things correctly, it cannot result in a good oppression of the soul. The meditations given here at Christmas have always been given in such a way that it has been explained in which direction they move the soul. This has been said in all meditations such as these. These are also meditations such as those now given in the first class. All these meditations are different from when someone comes and wishes to receive a meditation that has a personal effect. If someone wants a meditation that has a personal effect, then of course you have to tell them whether they should do the meditation in question in the morning or in the evening, how they should behave in accordance with the meaning of this meditation, and so on. These are meditations that are intended to intervene in the esoteric life of the individual according to their abilities and karma. They then naturally lead to this individual not remaining an individual, but developing the urge within themselves to recognize those who share the same aspirations. We must regard this meditation as a personal meditation. Everything else that is given — unless it is said that something has not happened so far — it would be good to do such a meditation at a certain time or under special circumstances or with special accompanying conditions — all such meditations that are given, such as the meditation of the esoteric teaching at Christmas, are actually given in such a way that one keeps very clearly in mind what effect is achieved with the meditations. And then it is a matter of using the circumstances of life, that is, what one has as the special situation of one's life, to do such meditations. Isn't it true that such meditations are simply done when one finds the leisure for them? The more often, the better. They will always have the appropriate effect. Especially with such meditations, it should really be a matter of striving for personal development. One should then seek and find the connection between what arises in the mind, so that it would actually be most oppressive if measures were taken in a very specific way to have these meditations done simultaneously, either by individuals or by a whole group, as you say. All this also leads to the meditation losing something that it should actually have. You see, every meditation is impaired by the fact that one starts from the obligation to do it. You must consider this very carefully. Every meditation is impaired by the fact that one starts from the obligation to do it. That is why it is absolutely necessary in personal meditation that this personal meditation gradually transforms into something within the person that they feel spiritually, like a thirst for meditation. And those people who do their morning and evening meditation, which they have to do, do it most correctly, those who thirst for meditation, just as a person eats when they are hungry. When meditation becomes something you cannot do without, when you feel towards your soul as if it were part of the whole life of your soul, then meditation is felt correctly.

In other meditations, it will be a matter of really wanting, inwardly wanting to become a physician, of saying to yourself: This is the way; and now I will approach meditation as often as I can. I am aware that when I do one or the other, it has this or that intention. So there must always be an urge from the free will of the human being to engage in such meditation, to perform such meditation. And it is actually inconceivable how one can feel oppressed. For why should that which one thirsts for inwardly be oppressive at the same time? It has already been transformed into a kind of duty, and that is something it should never be, never a duty. Especially when it comes to becoming a doctor, one should consider in the deepest sense of the word: becoming a doctor should not be understood as it is understood today, as entering a profession. Instead, one should actually become a doctor through an inner calling, through an inner devotion to healing and so on. And if one feels this urge to heal in general, then one will find guidance in this meditation and will then be led to the goal. There are perhaps few professions in which it is as harmful to view the profession as an external obligation as it is in the medical profession. The medical profession requires a love of humanity and a genuine, natural affinity for being a doctor. Now, if even in today's medicine, in today's medical studies, it is not exactly advantageous for real healing when people become doctors because they have to become something and because it seems desirable to them for some reason, becoming a doctor, if that is not particularly desirable, it is even less desirable for someone to want to become a doctor artificially through meditation if they do not feel this thirst that I have spoken of. For the ancient means, the esoteric means, promote progress when the intention is right; they promote infinitely more than any external decision, while, if they do not spring from the right mood of the soul, they do much more harm than external circumstances. Now, however, you must also understand what I mean here by the mood of the soul in the right sense. Usually, in human life, what is called karma is not taken very seriously. Of course, one must also receive an inner calling, let us say, predestined by the fact that karma has placed one in a certain position, and one must then be clear about this: to follow an obligation is harmful; but to follow karma is what is entirely in the direction of human development. Your karma has placed you all in the position of working in medicine; now you only need to look deep enough within yourselves and you will find that you truly feel the thirst. And you will find the moments, the hours, in which you want to engage in such meditations.

You see, when one seriously takes up such a serious profession, the following must not happen, as has often been the case since the Christmas Conference. It does not relate directly to medicine or medical practice, but very strongly to general human nature, insofar as it lies within the general anthroposophical movement, so that it is also important for you. I will mention it elsewhere, but because it is particularly relevant to you, I want to say it here as well. It was said at the Christmas Conference that a new trend should come into the anthroposophical movement, that inner work should be done. Now, some have drawn a strange conclusion from this. There are people who hold certain positions within the anthroposophical movement; they have their offices. And now there are people who hold offices who write: Yes, now a new trend is coming into the anthroposophical movement — I understand that completely. I am completely at the disposal of this new trend; I do not want to remain in my old position and am making myself available. — That can never lead to anything. It can only lead to something if the person concerned now knows that he must carry out his human development in the position he actually occupies, also with regard to the powers he applies. And that is of course precisely the case with you, who have begun a medical career. You must regard it as karma and be clear that you will have an enormous impact in the future; but secondly, that the thirst I spoke to you about, which can be approached through meditation, will always be found in the human mind in the form of a genuine readiness to be a doctor.

That is what I wanted to say about the use of meditation. It should work in such a way that one illuminates and supports the other, that one is illuminated by the other. It may well be that a meditation you do has had a strong effect; now you must do another meditation to illuminate this effect even more strongly. You do one meditation once or twice, another twelve times. This is something that happens when you really take to heart what is given as meditation, experience it inwardly, and also take to heart what has been said about the goal of meditation. We must use this opportunity to expand on some of the things that were touched upon at Christmas.

Helene von Grunelins: I didn't understand it as something that had to be done at certain times, but I still felt a certain pressure because I saw it as a duty to do this meditation, and sometimes I didn't have the right freshness to feel it as a need. And now it may be, at least in my case, that until now I was not in the right frame of mind that a doctor should have, namely the will to heal. I believe that some of us have felt this way. We did not become doctors in order to heal, at least some of us, but because of the great interest we had in getting to know people – their sick and normal states – and actually approaching medicine entirely from the perspective of knowledge. Until Christmas, the will to heal was something completely foreign to me, and so I was very unhappy at first with my current work because I had a lot to do and was too tired to meditate in the beginning. Now, through this work, I have come into contact with more patients, so that I now have an idea of the will to heal; and so I believe that I will now be able to do the meditations more easily, because it then arises from a real need and meditation is then really seen as a way to the goal. It is precisely this devotion to the fate of humanity, this compassion that one has for everything as a doctor, and the will to heal, because one was not made aware of this through one's studies and comes to medicine much more from the perspective of knowledge, that is certainly something that many of us found difficult until recently.

You must bear the following in mind. If you separate these two things in the medical field, the knowledge side and the will to heal, you are actually contradicting reality. It is particularly important to understand what is at stake in this area. You see, the need to understand people must be addressed in the most diverse areas of human activity. In education, for example, we must speak very strongly about the starting point of human knowledge. This is also the case with us. In other fields, too, when we look at reality, we must speak of human knowledge. Human knowledge is necessary for anyone who wants to go beyond mere manual labor. Human knowledge is necessary for everyone. The fact that such knowledge of human nature is not sought in various fields is a consequence of the error into which modern civilization has fallen. You see, in a certain sense, knowledge of human nature is sought, even if it cannot be achieved, because today it can really only be achieved through anthroposophy. It is sought by theologians, I mean by external theologians. It is also sought by external educators. This knowledge of human nature is sought by a wide variety of people. The only ones who do not seek it are lawyers, because jurisprudence today is something that cannot be spoken of at all as something that actually intervenes in the world.

Now you see, the essential thing is that knowledge of human nature must be specialized for the most diverse areas of life. The physician needs a slightly different knowledge of human nature than the educator; only slightly different. It would be necessary for pedagogy to be permeated as much as possible by medicine, and again for medicine to be permeated as much as possible by pedagogy. These threads should definitely be formed, the back and forth between the two activities based on knowledge of human nature. If we now go into the specifics of knowledge of human nature, then we must ask ourselves the following: You see, you say: recognizing the states of illness in humans. That is a prejudice that stems from materialism. It is already a materialistic prejudice. What does it mean to recognize the concrete states of human illness? How do I recognize the illness that is localized, say, in the liver, the spleen, the lungs, or the heart? How do I recognize it? If I know what healing process could be underlying it in order to defeat the disease process. In reality, the disease process is the question, and one remains stuck with the question if one only wants to recognize the disease states. The answer is the healing process. One knows nothing about a disease process if one does not know how it can be healed. Knowledge consists in knowing how the disease process can be eliminated, so that medical studies cannot exist without the will to heal. Recognizing states of illness means nothing. Just as one would practice pathology in order to supposedly understand human beings without immediately moving from pathology to therapy, one would also describe a diseased organ. But such a description is worthless, has not the slightest value. For the mere description, for abstract knowledge, for what is now considered knowledge of nature, it is completely irrelevant today whether it is a healthy or diseased liver. It is impossible to distinguish scientifically between a healthy and a diseased liver, except perhaps by the fact that a healthy liver occurs more often than a diseased one. But that is an external circumstance. If you want to recognize the diseased liver, you must consider what can heal the diseased liver. And then, you see, it is a matter of the following.

What is the basis for healing? That I know which substances, which forces I must apply to the person so that the process of illness transitions into the process of health. Such knowledge is conveyed, for example, by my knowing that Equisetum takes over the activity of the kidneys in the human organism. So if the activity of the kidney is not sufficiently provided for by the astral body, I let Equisetum provide for it. I support the astral body with Equisetum arvense. Now, this only answers the question of what is actually present. The same process that leads to Equisetum externally also takes place in the human kidney, and I must consider the Equisetum process in connection with the human kidney; then I am already on the path to healing. So it can never be a matter of pursuing pathology in a merely abstract way, of describing disease states, because that is actually nothing in reality. The disease state should really only be viewed by the human being in terms of knowing how a healing remedy works. The feeling one has towards knowledge should push towards reality everywhere, in all areas of life, not towards formal understanding. That was how it was when knowledge was a mystery everywhere. Knowledge had to be withheld from those who merely wanted to know, and was only given to those who had the will to translate this knowledge into reality.

Yes, is that an answer to your question?

Helene von Grunelius: Perhaps I expressed myself a little exaggeratedly when I spoke only of health and illness. Actually, I also consider how people should be healed to be part of knowledge. I mean something else. That even though you may know how to heal a person, you may not have the will to heal them. Until now, I have not had the inner impulse to recognize people and learn how to heal them for the sole purpose of healing people. I have not had the impulse to let my entire work, my entire studies, and all the knowledge I absorb be permeated by the inner conviction that I must be able to heal people.

That is hypertrophy of knowledge.

Helene von Grunelius: But that is how it is for me, and it is a fact that I wanted to state because it exists, and it may seem very strange—

You see, it's only good that—it will seem terribly trivial and simple to you—it's only good that clocks can't do that, otherwise clocks would be created that are correctly wound in all directions of the art of watchmaking, but they would not want to run. By allowing his will to become hypertrophied in one direction or the other, man can develop one or the other, but this is then something that does not lie within the healthy development of human nature. The knowledge of healing should not really exist without the will to heal, and you should really be talking about something completely different today. You should not speak of that, but you should actually say: Yes, I have only studied medicine for a short time, but now I have an irrepressible will to heal. I must restrain myself so that this will, which comes from knowledge, does not break out and I now want to start healing all healthy people. — It is not funny that I say this. It should actually be the voice of restraint that speaks out. It should not be possible to say: I have sought knowledge of healing, but not the will to heal. — For knowledge that is so real cannot be separated from the will; that is quite impossible.

Another participant: I believe that what Miss von Grunelius said is rather something, a state of affairs that is actually brought about by the way of studying at universities. It seems to me to be a result that one finds after ten to twelve semesters as the end result of one's studies. The whole attitude of medical science is actually directed toward knowledge, without leading to the therapeutic. You learn in the lecture halls, in the clinical semesters, where you hear only about diagnosis throughout the entire lecture, and then at the very end, when the patient has already been wheeled out and the professor doesn't know what to do until the next patient arrives, a few words are thrown in about therapy, which are of no use whatsoever. A private lecturer once expressed this sentiment. It was in a gynecology course, and the senior physician was talking about the work of a doctor in practice: "Haven't you noticed, gentlemen, that basically so little has been said about therapy? You will only realize this when you are put into practice. That's what happened to me: I had a head full of knowledge, and then it occurred to me that I had never heard of it ... " He also described how only five minutes are spent talking about therapy and forty about diagnosis. And none of the medical students had noticed that they had heard nothing about therapy during their entire course of study. This leads me to a question, as this basic attitude of today's science causes conflicts for me as a young person who, as a medical student, was looking for something different in scientific medicine. This very superficial attitude, which manifests itself in all sorts of ways, often results in diagnoses that are repugnant to the soul and seem monstrous. Let me illustrate this with an example. A patient once came to me and asked if I could help her. She was suffering from recurrent inflammation of the frontal sinus and had been to see a specialist several times. A perforation was made from the nose and so on. And she said she couldn't take it anymore, she felt too physically interpreted and she couldn't go through with it anymore, could I help her in some other way. This attitude, which the patient sensed so keenly, is one that one encounters everywhere, that wants to grope around on the surface and search for something that leads nowhere. An attitude that can only be described as cynicism. The result is also only something that can remain on the surface and does not lead to what is actually there, and so I have often asked myself: Is it actually good or even necessary to go along with these methods as far as they are given to you, as you have to go through them in your studies, which escalate to an enormity in gynecological examination methods that are completely out of proportion to what comes out of them? Is it necessary to go through all these methods? I have the feeling that the healing instincts present in a person are completely suppressed by going through all this. I would like to tell you what an old colleague of mine told me. He was not talking about a doctor, but about a farmer's doctor in the Bavarian high mountains. He performed all kinds of orthopedic procedures with such ease that he became famous. His skills became known to an orthopedist in Munich, who heard about him, sought him out, and told him to come to his clinic. This man saw the facilities in the clinic, and the professor told him to show him how he did it. The country doctor looked at it, and from that day on, he could no longer heal. Should we go along with what scientific medicine presents to us in terms of methods, scientific methods, or should we avoid doing so as much as possible?

Viewed from this perspective, the question is extremely important. You are quite right, and I did not want to talk about Miss von Grunelius' personal idiosyncrasies, but only to characterize what was quite necessarily a mindset that existed in today's studies. From a natural medical education, one would never come to the conclusion that one wants to know people according to their states of illness or wants to know about healing processes without having the will to heal. That would not come out of a natural course of study; it only comes out of the structure of today's medical studies. On the one hand, it must be said that most of what medical students have to study in their semesters today has nothing to do with healing at all, and is therefore basically just a burden on the human soul with impossible things. You see, today's medical studies are roughly equivalent to asking a sculptor to first learn about the scientific properties of marble and wood. It is actually none of his concern. This and much of what is either in the textbooks or practiced in clinics today is not relevant to medicine. The moment you move from the physical description of what the lady felt when she found herself interpreted as physical, the moment you move to the etheric body, most of the things in medical books lose their meaning, because the moment you move to the etheric body, you get a completely different orientation to the organs. The moment you move from the physical body to the etheric body, you can no longer get by with intellectual knowledge alone. You learn much more when you learn to sculpt, the manual skills, the sense of space that the sculptor needs. You learn much more about the astral body when you can apply musical principles. You learn an enormous amount about the formation of the human organism, how this formation develops from the astral body. When human beings engage in activity, they are actually structured like a musical scale. In one direction, the prime begins here at the back, moves into the second, moves into the third in the forearm; where there are two thirds, the human being also has two bones, and there you come to things that are quite different from those that are used today for a real understanding of the human being, and a completely different course of study would be necessary for the prospective physician than is available today. Today's course of study has come about precisely because of what Miss von Grunelius has now revealed, namely that therapy has descended into nihilism. Not only at the Vienna Medical School, but everywhere, something nihilistic has crept in. And I must say that among the physicians, professors, and lecturers who represent scientific subjects, there were at least serious people who are scientific out of their short-sightedness. There was at least a certain seriousness there. But when you approach those who lecture on pharmacology, the seriousness stops. The lecturer himself no longer believes in what he is lecturing on. Where seriousness should begin in the course, where the therapeutic begins, that is where seriousness ends. Where should the will to heal come from? From the medical course of study, if it is such that one must say that medical studies should actually follow one another in a similar way to what I outlined after the Christmas course. And that is, of course, something completely different from what is being done today, because it does not lead to the art of medicine. The practical physician usually has to acquire a great deal of knowledge with great effort once he has left university. This is sometimes not so easy, because all these things are not only useless to him, but often even harmful. He cannot see the actual disease process because he has all kinds of things in his head, in his memory, and he cannot see the actual disease process. That is one side of it.

But now look at the other side, which is this: you are a group of young medical students. You want to become real doctors, not just intellectually, which of course would best be achieved by saying: forget the whole medical degree, you won't find a medical faculty today where you can study medicine. Come here and learn what you need to know. That would be the radical thing to say. But what would the young doctor do? The world would send you back because it would not recognize you as a doctor. Young medical students have no choice but to go through the whole thing in order to be healed by what can be learned about medicine at the Goetheanum. But you have to get there, even if it means going through the regular proper course of study with great reluctance; there is no other way. It is necessary. That is the other side. But then, if there are quite a few who have got to know the course of study and now know how things should not be—magnetopaths and lay doctors also complain about the university, but that has no value—they will come to recognize this from their experience, and they will be the true pioneers in bringing a sensible medical education to the world. This is what you should strive for, to elicit as much as possible a general public opinion about what is available.

You see, basically it is like this: you know, you are not the only one who speaks as you have spoken. There are many doctors who speak like this, but those who speak like this need precisely what is offered here. Why? Of course, today, if you are a reasonable person and become a doctor and have gone through university, you can criticize official medicine. You have gone through it, you know what you don't have. But that can only be effective if you have something to put in its place. Only then will it be effective. That is, of course, the other side of the coin. Therefore, please do not take everything I say here to mean that I want to discourage any young medical students from completing their studies. As bad as it may be, it is still necessary to bite the bullet today. If we can talk on the basis of what should not be, then gradual improvement will occur.

You see, there is still a lot to be done in this regard. I think I've told this story before. I was once asked to talk about some medical issues to a group of doctors in Zurich, and a professor of gynecology had also come along. Well, I could see that he had come with the inner opinion: Now let's listen to this nonsense so that we can at least complain and say we were there. He came in really cheerfully, in a joking mood, to listen to this nonsense. Then he became stranger and stranger and listened in a strange way. He was extremely uncomfortable that it wasn't nonsense, that it was something you couldn't say was pure nonsense. I found that particularly amusing. I spoke to him: Professor, you had a strange impression. He then said: Yes, you can't talk about that, it's just a different point of view. — It's progress when you get to the point where people think, “That's a different point of view.” What has emerged alongside scientific medicine, which still towers above what has been achieved by lay medicine? I know that important progress has been made by lay people, but that doesn't matter. The controls for the steam engine were made by a little boy because he was bored. You can't say that he could have been a mechanical engineer because he came up with that. Those who are there today and mainly complain about scientific medicine are really not justified in complaining about medicine, and they are talking about something they don't know. It must first be achieved that anthroposophical medicine is not confused with what else is out there. Once this has been achieved, once people take the matter seriously because the people who represent it show that they are serious, then significant progress will have been made.

I would like to urge you young friends in particular to let everything you absorb in terms of esotericism culminate in your being able to work in the world, so that a proper will to heal can actually develop. It cannot be a matter of selfishly shutting oneself away in one's heart, but of working to advance medicine and so on, just as educators work to advance pedagogy.

It is not possible for me to explain in detail how the majority of things that are taught in medical studies today are actually unnecessary for understanding the healthy and sick human being in their reciprocal relationship, but if you take up what I offer in the various courses and cycles, you will come to realize this. It is like when a child is born and one is faced with the question of how to feed the child, and one asks oneself: Is it possible to feed the child before teaching it about food? — It is the same with many things. I do not mean physically, but mentally, that one has the intuition to understand the process. In diagnosis, it is often much more necessary to go back to the primary cause, which may lie far back in the patient's past, rather than starting from the conventional diagnosis. It is true that recognizing the condition of the sick or healthy organism at the moment the patient arrives is what is taught today, and there are methods for doing so. But the way of thinking that allows one to tell the patient, “Fifty years ago, you went through this and that, and that is the primary cause of your illness” – that is not available, so one relies on what the patient says, and that is questionable. It is precisely this primary cause that is the external cause that comes from outside. A doctor in Kristiania brought me a man who was sixty years old. He had all kinds of rashes that were easy to diagnose. But nothing that was tried helped. Now the doctor brought him to me—I mention one example out of hundreds—and it was clear above all that if one wanted to intervene at all, one had to know where the story began. It wasn't very difficult. I soon found out that the man had undergone a severe poisoning process thirty or thirty-five years ago. That was the cause. I told him to remember what he had gone through thirty-five years ago. He said to me, "No one has ever asked me that before! I was at school. Next to our classroom was a chemistry lab, where I saw a glass with liquid in it. I was thirsty and drank it. I was terribly poisoned because it was hydrochloric acid. — Knowing this is extremely important. It sets it apart from the current situation. So it is sometimes important, say in cases of hysterical nervous conditions, to know whether the person in question has gone through the shock of near-drowning. One must definitely address these things. But of course one addresses them when one cares about the person one wants to heal. Everything medical must come from caring about the person. If one does not care, then one will forget the most important things. That is what needs to be considered in this regard.

Do you all plan to be here tomorrow? Then we will continue our consideration tomorrow. Without being able to explain it now, of course—but I will provide an explanation tomorrow—I would just like to give you a few lines for further consideration, which may serve as a kind of central meditation in the direction that was taken here yesterday. If you continue to focus your attention on this, you will discover what is built into human beings from the cosmos, from the orbit of the earth, from earthly forces. When you ask yourself, in the case of the eye: “How is it formed from the cosmos?” — in the case of the lungs: “How is this shaped by the forces of the orbit, by what moves planetarily in the elements of air and water? — How is that which shapes the metabolic organs in human beings connected with the earthly?” — if you ask yourself these questions consistently everywhere and meditate according to the following instructions, then you will learn to look into human beings.

Look at what fits cosmically,
You feel human formation.

— in connection with the moon.

Look at what moves you airily

— for example, in the breath or in the blood circulation —

You experience human animation.

— this is in connection with the sun.

Look at what changes on earth,

— especially that which also brings death to humans —

You perceive human spiritualization.

— which is connected with Saturn.

Look at what is coming together cosmically, ☾
You feel human formation. «

Look at what moves you in the air ○
You experience human animation.

Look at what changes on earth, ♄
You grasp human spiritualization.