Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Forming of Destiny and Life after Death
GA 157a

21 December 1915, Berlin

6. Lecture on the Poem of Olaf Åsteson—The Darkness of the present-day Spiritual Life and the Lack of Truth in our Thinking.

We shall begin to-day by studying a Northern poem that we considered in this group some time ago. The whole content of this poem is connected with Christmas and the Christmas season. It treats of the Legend of Olaf Åsteson and contains the fact that Olaf Åsteson, a legendary person, passed the thirteen days between Christmas and the Day of Epiphany in a very unusual way. And we are reminded thereby how within the world of these Sagas there lives the perception of the primitive clairvoyance formerly existing in humanity. The story is the following: Olaf Åsteson reaches a church door one Christmas Eve and falls into a sort of sleep-like condition. And during these thirteen nights he experiences the secrets of the spiritual world; he experiences them in his own way, as a simple primitive child of nature. We know that during these days when in a sense the deepest outer darkness prevails over the earth, when the growth of vegetation is at its lowest ebb, when, in a sense, everything external in physical earth-life is at a standstill, that the earth-soul awakens and attains its fullest waking consciousness. Now, if a human soul mingles its spiritual nature with what the spirit of the earth then experiences, it can, if it still retains the primitive conditions of nature, rise to a vision of the spiritual world such as humanity as a whole must gradually re-acquire through its own efforts. We then see how this Olaf Åsteson actually experiences what we are able to bring from out of the spiritual world. For whether he says Brooksvalin and we say Kamaloka or soul-world and spiritual world, or whether we use different images to those of the Saga, is of no consequence. The chief thing is that we should perceive how humanity has proceeded in its soul evolution from an original primitive clairvoyance, from a state of union with the spiritual world, and that this had to be lost so that man could acquire that thinking, that conscious standing in the world through which he had to pass, and from and beyond which he must again develop a higher perception of the spiritual world. I might say that this spiritual world which the primitive clairvoyance has forsaken is the same in which the evolved perception again lives; but man has passed through a condition which now causes him to find his way into this spiritual world in a different manner. It is important to develop the feeling that in reality the inner spiritual psychic development of a spiritual psychic being is connected with the transformation of the earth at the different seasons of the year; a psychic spiritual being is connected with the earth as a man's soul with his physical being. And anyone who merely regards the earth as the geologists do, as that which the usual Natural Science of to-day in its materialistic attitude so easily explains, knows as much of this earth as one man knows of another, of whom he is given a model in papier-maché, and which is not filled with all that the soul pours into the external nature of man. External Science really only gives us a mere papier-maché image of the earth. And he who cannot become conscious that a psychic distinction prevails between the winter and summer conditions of the earth are like a man who sees no difference between waking and sleeping. Those great beings of nature in whom we live, undergo states of spiritual transformations as does man himself, who is a microcosmic copy of the great macrocosm. Nature and the experiencing of it, the spiritual living with it has a certain significance. And he who can evoke a consciousness that just during these thirteen nights something transpires in the soul of the earth which man can also experience, will have found one of the ways through which man can live more and more into the spiritual world. The feeling for this experience of what is lived through in the great Cosmic existence has been lost to humanity to-day. We hardly know any more of the difference between winter and summer than that in winter the lamps must be lit earlier, and that it is cold in winter and warm in summer. In earlier times humanity really lived together with nature, and expressed this by relating in pictorial fashion how beings traversed the land while the snow fell, and passed through the country when the storm raged but of this in its deepest sense the present-day materialistic mind of man understands nothing. Yet man may grow into this frame of mind again in the deepest sense, if he turns to what the old Sagas still relate, especially in as profound a myth as that of Olaf Åsteson, which shows in such a beautiful way how a simple primitive man, while losing his physical consciousness grows into the clear light of spiritual vision. We shall now bring this Saga before our souls, this Saga which belongs to bygone centuries; which has been lost, and has now been recorded again from the Folk-memories. It is one of the most beautiful of the Northern Sagas, for it speaks in a wonderful way of profound, Cosmic mysteries—in so far as the union of the human soul with the world-soul is a Cosmic mystery.

(The Legend was here recited.)

As we are able to meet here to-day, we may perhaps speak of a few things which may be useful to some of us when we look back to what have learnt through Spiritual Science in the course of the year. We know and this has lately been emphasised even in our public lectures—that at the back of what is visible to external perception as external man, there lies a spiritual kernel of man's being which in a sense is composed of two members. We have learnt to know the one as that which meets our spiritual vision on undergoing the experience usually designated as the “Approach to the Gate of Death”; the other member of the inner life appears before the human soul when we become aware that in all the experiences of our will there is an inner spectator, an onlooker, who is always present. Thus we can say: human thought, if we deepen it through meditation, shows us that in man there is always present in the innermost of his own spiritual being a something which, as regards the external physical body, works at the destruction of the human organism, a destruction which finally ends in death. We know from the considerations already put forward that the actual force employed in thinking is not of a constructive nature, but is rather, in a sense, destructive. Through our power of dying, through our so developing our organism in our life between birth and death that it can fall into decay and dissipate into the Cosmic elements, we are enabled to create the organ by means of which we develop thought, the noblest flower of physical human existence. But in the depths of a man's life between birth and death there is a kind of life-germ for the future which is especially adapted to progress through the gates of death; it is that which develops in the currents of Will and which can be regarded as the ‘spectator’ already characterised. It must continually be urged that what brings spiritual vision to the soul of man is not something which first develops through the spiritual vision itself, but something which is always present; it is always there, only man in our present epoch should not see it. This may be said, that one ought not to see it. For the evolution of the spiritual life has made much progress, especially in the last decades, so that anyone who really gives himself up to what in our materialistic age is designated ‘the spiritual life’ spreads a veil over that which lives in his inner nature. In our present age those concepts and ideas are chiefly developed which are best calculated to conceal what is present spiritually in man. In order to strengthen ourselves aright for our special task, we who follow Spiritual Science may point, just at this significant season, to the particularly dark side of present-day spiritual life, which must indeed exist, just as the darkness in external nature must also exist; but which we must perceive and of the existence of which we must become aware. We are living through a relatively dark period of civilisation in regard to the spiritual life. We need not constantly repeat that in no wise do we undervalue the enormous conquests of which—in this epoch of darkness, mankind is so proud. Nevertheless with regard to spiritual things the fact remains that those concepts and ideas which are created in our epoch, absolutely conceal that which lives in the souls of men—especially from those who immerse themselves most earnestly in these ideas. In reference to this the following may be mentioned. Our epoch is specially proud of its clear thinking, acquired through its important scientific training. Our age is very proud of itself. Of course not so proud as to lead all men to want to think a great deal: no, its pride does not lead to that. But it results in this, that people say: ‘In our epoch we must think a great deal if we want to know anything of the spiritual world.’ To do the necessary thinking oneself is very difficult. But that is the task of the theologians. They can ruminate on these things. Thus, our epoch is supposed to be very highly evolved and is exalted above the dark age of belief in authority; and so we must listen to the theologians, who are able to think about spiritual things. Our epoch has also progressed with respect to the concept of right and wrong, of good and evil. Our epoch is the epoch of thought. But in spite of this advance from the belief in authority, it has not led each man to think more deeply on right and wrong; the lawyers do that. And therefore because we have got beyond the epoch of belief in authority we must leave it to the enlightened lawyers to think over what is good and evil, right or wrong. And with reference to bodily conditions, to bodily cures, because we do not know what is healthy or unhealthy in this epoch which desires to be so free from belief in authority, we go to the doctors. This could be exemplified in all domains. Our epoch is not much inclined to despair, as was Faust, thus:

‘I have studied, alas! Philosophy
And Jurisprudence and Medicine too.
And saddest of all Theology!
With ardent labour through and through!
And here I stick, as wise, poor fool!
As when my steps first turned to school.’

One thing results: our age actually refuses to know anything of the things which perplexed Faust, but desires to know all the more of those things already clearly cognised in the many different departments in which the weal and woe of humanity are decided. Our epoch is so terribly proud of its thinking, that those who have brought themselves to read a little Philosophy in the course of their lives—I will not go so far as to say they have read Kant, but merely some commentary on Kant—are now convinced that anyone who asserts anything about the spiritual world in the sense of Spiritual Science, sins against the undeniable facts established by Kant. It has often been said that the whole work of the Nineteenth Century has been directed to developing human thought and investigating it by means of critical knowledge. And many to-day call themselves ‘critical thinkers’ who have only taken in a little. Many men to-day, for instance, assert that man's knowledge is limited, for he perceives the outer world through his senses; yet these senses can merely yield what they produce through themselves. Thus man perceives the world by its effects on his senses, therefore he cannot get behind the things of the world, for he can never transcend the limit of his senses! He can only receive pictures of reality. And many, speaking from the depths of their philosophy, say: ‘The human soul has only pictures of the world;’ and thus it can never arrive at the ‘Thing in Itself.’ One may thus compare what we obtain through our senses, our eyes, ears, etc.—to pictures in a mirror. Certainly, if a mirror is there and throws back pictures, the image of one man, the image of a second man, etc., and we behold them, we have then a world of images. Then come the philosophers, and say: ‘Just as anyone who sees a man, or two in a mirror, in a reflected image, has a picture world of his own, and as he does not behold the “Thing in Itself,” the man, but merely his image, so we really have only images of the whole external world, when the rays of light and colour strike the eye, and the waves of air strike our ear, we have only images. All are images! Our critical epoch has resulted in this: that man forms nothing but images in his soul, and can never through these images reach to the “Thing in Itself.”’

Infinite sagacity (I now speak in full earnestness) has been applied by Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century in order to prove that man merely has images and can never reach the ‘Thing in Itself.’ What is really the origin of this critical resignation, of this passivity as regards the ‘limitations of our knowledge,’ when we thus discover the image nature of our perception? Whence does it originate? It arises from the fact that in many ways the thought of our epoch, of our enlightened age, is devoid of truth, and short sighted. Our thinking throws out an idea in a pedantic fashion and cannot get beyond it. It holds up this idea like a wooden mannequin and can no longer find anything which is not given by the mannequin. It is almost incredible how rigid thought has become in our time. I shall just make clear to you, by means of the same comparison of the reflected image, the whole story of this image nature of our perception, and of what the so-called critical progressive thought has produced. It is quite a correct premise that the world, as man has it here in sense existence, is only here because it impresses itself on man and throws up images in his soul. And it is well that humanity should have reached this point, through the critical philosophy of Kant. We are well able to say: The images we have of the outer world are such that we can compare them with images of the two men in a mirror. Thus, we have a mirror and two men stand before it. We do not see the men but their pictures. We thus have images of the world through what our souls know of the outer world. We have images which we compare with the two men whose reflected pictures we behold. But some one who had never seen men, but only images, would be able to philosophise thus: ‘I know nothing of the men, but their lifeless images.’ Thus conclude the critical philosophers. And with this conclusion they remain satisfied. They would find themselves refuted in their own being, if they could get a little further away from their mannequin of thought, out of the dead into the living thought. For, if I am in front of a mirror in which are reflected two men, and I see in it that the one strikes the other so that he is wounded, I should be a fool to say: ‘The one mirror-image has struck the other.’ For I no longer see merely the image in the mirror, but through the image I see real events. I have nothing but the image, but I see an absolutely real occurrence through the mirror image. And I should be a fool to believe that that only took place in the mirror. Thus: critical philosophy seizes the one thought that we have to deal with images, but not the other thought, that these images express the facts of something living. And if we grasp these images in a living way, they give more than pictures, for they point to the ‘Thing in Itself,’ which is the real outer world.

Can one still say that the people who produce this ‘Critical Philosophy’ really think? Thought is to a great extent lacking in our time. It is really at a stand-still. And we have stood still at this ‘Criticising of Thought.’ I have often mentioned that this criticism, this critical philosophy, has even progressed in our culture, and that a man making a noble effort (they are all honourable men and their efforts entirely praiseworthy) has produced a certain ‘Criticism of Language.’ Fritz Mauthner has written a ‘Criticism of Language’ in three thick volumes, and even a philosophical dictionary written from this standpoint, in two still thicker volumes. And Mauthner, himself a journalist, has a whole journalistic train of followers, who naturally regard it as a great work. And in our time, in which ‘Belief in Authority’ is supposed to be of no importance, very many who have reached that standpoint, consider it a significant work, as does even the press for which Fritz Mauthner wrote; for to-day ‘there exists no belief in authority!’

Now, Mauthner finally explains how man actually forms nouns, adjectives, etc., but says they all signify nothing real. In the outer world one does not experience what words signify. Man so lives himself into words that we really do not have his thoughts and soul images, but merely words, words, words. Humanity finds itself entangled in the language which gives him his vocabulary. And because he is accustomed to attach himself to the language, he only reaches the symbol of things as given in words! Now, that is supposed to be something very significant. And if one reads these three volumes by Mauthner, and if you have something to reproach yourself with, it is a good penance to read half of them! Then one finds that their author is profoundly convinced—indeed one cannot put it otherwise—that he is cleverer than all the clever men of his time. Of course a man who judges of his own book is naturally cleverer than the others. So Fritz Mauthner finally concludes that man has nothing but signs, signs, signs. Indeed, he goes still further. He goes so far as to say the following: Man has eyes, ears, sense of touch, etc., that is, a collection of sense organs. And in Mauthner's opinion man might have not only organs of sight, hearing, touch, taste, but quite different senses. For instance, he might have another sense besides the eye. He would then perceive the world quite differently with this sense from what he does by receiving pictures through the eyes. Then much would exist for him which is not perceptible to the ordinary man. And now this critical thinker feels a little mystically inclined, and says: “The immeasurable fullness of the world is conveyed to us only through our senses.” And he calls these senses ‘Accidental Senses,’ because in his opinion it is a Cosmic accident that we should have just these very senses. If we had other senses the world would appear differently. Thus it is best to say: “We have accidental senses! Thus an accidental world!” Yet he says the world is immeasurable!—It sounds beautiful. One of the followers of Fritz Mauthner has written a brochure called Scepticism and Mysticism. In this special attention is drawn to the fact that man may even become a mystic in the depths of his soul, when he no longer believes what these accidental senses can give. A beautiful sentence is given us on the twelfth page of this book.

‘The world pours down on us; through the few miserable openings of our accidental senses we take in what we can grasp, and fasten it to our old vocabulary, since we have nothing else to retain it with. But the world streams further, our language also streams on further, only not in the same direction, but according to the accident of language, which is subject to no laws.’

Another philosophy! What does it want to do? It says: The world is immeasurable, but we have merely a number of accidental senses into which the world streams. What do we do with what thus streams in? What do we do according to this gentleman's doctrine of accidents? We remind ourselves of what he calls memory. We fasten that on to the words transmitted to us through our language, and the language then streams on again further. Thus what streams to us from the immeasurable Cosmic Being through our accidental senses, we speak of in our word-symbols. A sagacious thought. I repeat it in all earnestness. It is a sagacious thought. One must be a clever man in our age to think thus. And it can really be said of these people that not only are they all honourable and praiseworthy; ‘they are also remarkable thinkers.’ But they are entangled in the thought of our epoch, and have no will to transcend it.

I have experienced a kind of Christmas sadness—one cannot call it joy for it has become grief, through having once more to consider certain of these matters in this connection. And I have written down a thought, formed exactly after the style of the above thinker who wrote what has just been read. I have applied exactly the same thought to another object with the following results: ‘Goethe's genius is poured on to the paper. With the few miserable forms of its accidental letters the paper takes up what it can, and lets itself express what it can take up with its old store of letters, since there is nothing else to express it with. But Goethe's genius streams on further, the writing on the paper also streams on further, not only in the same direction, but according to the accidents in which letters can group themselves, being subject to no laws.’ It is exactly the same thought, and due regard has been given to each single word. If one maintains that: ‘the immeasurable Cosmos pours down to us, and we take it up with our few accidental senses, as well as we are able, and fix it into our vocabulary: the Cosmos then streams on further, while language streams in another direction, according to the accidents of the history of language, and thus human perception flows on.’ Then this is exactly the same thought as if one said: ‘Goethe's genius flows through the twenty-three accidental letters, because the paper can only receive things in that way. But Goethe's genius is never within them, for it is immeasurable. The accidental letters cannot take that up. They stream on further. What is on the paper also streams on further and groups itself according to the formations possible to the letters, the laws of which cannot be perceived.’ If now these extremely clever gentlemen conclude from such suppositions that what comes to us in the world is merely the result of accidental senses, that we can never get to what really underlies the world in its depths—that is the same as thinking that in reality one can never reach that which lived in the genius of Goethe. For they make it clear—that of this genius nothing exists but the grouping of twenty-three accidental letters. Nothing else is there! These gentlemen have a precisely similar thought, only they are not aware of it. And there is just as much sense in saying: ‘One can never know anything at all of Goethe's genius, for you see that nothing of it can flow to you. You can have nothing but what the different grouping of twenty-three accidental signs can give.’ There is just as much sense in this as in the discussion on the Cosmos that these men bring forth, concerning the possibility or impossibility of Cosmic knowledge. There is just as much sense in this whole train of thought—which is not the thinking of simpletons—but the thinking of those who are really the clever men of to-day, but who do not wish to raise themselves above the thought of our epoch.

The matter has, however, really another aspect. We must be clear that this manner of thinking, which meets us in the example in which it determines the limitations of knowledge, is our own mode of thought in the present age. It prevails, and is to be found everywhere to-day. And whether you read this or that apparently philosophical book intended to solve the great riddles of the universe—or disguise them—or whether you read the newspaper, this style of thinking is everywhere prevalent. Its methods dominate the world. We drink it in to-day with our morning coffee. More and more daily journals appear with such opinions. And in the whole web of our social life this same manner of thought prevails. I have attempted to expose this thinking in its philosophical development, but it could also be traced in those thoughts which one evolves in every possible relation in life, in everything man reflects upon, this thinking prevails to-day. And this is the cause of man's inability to evolve the will to experience in its reality what, for example, Spiritual Science seeks to give. For Spiritual Science is not incomprehensible to true thinking. But what it has to give must naturally always remain incomprehensible to those men who are built after the pattern of Fritz Mauthner. And the majority of men are fashioned thus to-day. Our contemporary science is absolutely permeated through and through with this thinking. Nothing is here implied against the significance and the great achievements of Science. That is not the point, the essential question is how the soul lives in our age, in our present civilisation. Our age is utterly lacking in the power of fluidic thought, unable really to follow what must be followed if these thoughts are to grasp what Spiritual Science has to impart.

Now we can ask ourselves: ‘How does it come about that such a book as Gustav Landauer's Scepticism and Mysticism can be written, when it simply oozes with self-complacency?’ I might say that the reader himself beams with the whole tone of self-satisfaction within it, as one does on reading Mauthner's Criticism of Language or the article in the Philosophical Dictionary. How is this? One does not learn how this comes about by following the thinking. I can imagine very clever men reading such a book and saying: ‘That is a thoroughly clever man!’ They would be right, for Mauthner is indeed a clever man. But that is not the point; for cleverness expresses itself by a man forming in a certain logical manner those ideas of which he is capable, turning them one after the other into nonsense, and reconstructing them again in some fashion. One may be very clever in some branch or other, and possess a really right sort of cleverness, but if one enters a life which is permeated with the consciousness of spiritual knowledge, then with each step there develops such a relation to the world that one has the feeling: ‘You must go further and further. You must perfect your ideas each day. You must develop the belief that your ideas can lead you further and further.’ One has the feeling that the cleverness of the man who had written such a book is of the following nature: ‘I am clever and through my cleverness I have accomplished something definite. I will now write that in a book. That which I now am I shall inscribe in a book, for I am clever on this the 21st of December, 1915. The book must be finished and will reproduce my cleverness.’ One who really knows never has that feeling. He has the feeling of a continual evolution, of an eternal necessity to refine one's ideas, and to evolve higher. And he certainly no longer has the feeling: ‘On this 21st of December, 1915, I am clever; now, through my cleverness I shall write a book that will be finished in the course of months or years.’ For if he has written a book he truly does not look back to the cleverness which he had when he began to write it, but through the book he acquires the feeling: ‘How little I have really accomplished in the matter and how necessary it is for me to evolve further what I have written.’ This ‘journeying along the path of knowledge,’ this constant inner labour, is almost entirely unknown to our materialistic age; it believes it knows it, but in reality it knows it no longer. And the deepest reason for this can be clothed in the words: ‘These men are so excessively vain.’ Man is tremendously vain, for, as I said, such a book really oozes with vanity. It is clever, but terribly vain. The humility, the modesty, that results from such a path of knowledge as has been laid down, is utterly lacking to these men. It must be utterly lacking when a man unconditionally ascribes cleverness to himself on this 21st December, 1915. Humility must be lacking. Now you will say: ‘These people must be stupid if they regard themselves as clever.’ But they do not consider themselves stupid with the surface consciousness, but with the subconsciousness. They never learn to distinguish between the truth which lives in the subconsciousness, and what they ascribe to themselves on the surface, and thus it is the Luciferic nature which really urges the men of to-day to desire to be clever, to attain a definite standpoint of cleverness, and from this point to consider and judge everything. But when a man bears this Luciferic nature within him, then, while he beholds the external world with Lucifer he is led to Ahriman. He then naturally sees this outer world materialistically in our epoch, quite naturally he looks at it in a materialistic manner. For when a man with Lucifer in his nature begins to contemplate the world, he then meets Ahriman. For these two seek each other out in man's intercourse with this world. Therefore such radically vain thinking never reaches the possibility of this conviction, ‘if I use a word, I naturally use merely a symbol for that which the word signifies.’ Mauthner made the great discovery that no substantives exist. There are none. They are no reality. Of course not. We grasp certain phenomena, think of them rightly for a moment and call them substantives. Certainly substantives are not reality: neither are adjectives. That is quite understood. That is all true: but now if I join a substantive and an adjective together, if I bring speech into movement, it then expresses reality. Then what the image represents transcends the image. Single words are no reality in themselves, we do not, however, speak in single words, but in groups of words. And in these we have an immediate presence within the reality. Three volumes have to be written to-day, and a two-volumed dictionary added, in order to expound all these things to man by means of thoughts of infinite cleverness, which simply overlook the fact that although single words are only symbols, the connecting of several into groups is nevertheless not merely symbolical, but forms part of the reality. Infinite wisdom, infinite cleverness is to-day used to prove the greatest errors.

Now, finally, that such errors should be manifest in a criticism of speech or even in a criticism of thought, is not in itself so bad, but the same kind of thought expressed in these errors—in these very intelligent and clever mistakes—lives in the whole thought of our present-day humanity. If we do but grasp the task which is comprised in our spiritual movement, it really forms part of it that we should become conscious of the necessity for those who wish to be Spiritual Scientists, to look at their era in the right way, and really place themselves in the right attitude to it. So that really, I might say: the practical side of our spiritually scientific movement demands that we should seek to transcend that thinking which answers to the above description, and not follow along those lines of thought, but try to alter them. We shall immediately approach the understanding of Spiritual Science with the simplicity of children if we only remove those hindrances which have entered the spiritual life of the civilisation of our present age through the stiffened and petrified forms of thought. Everywhere we should lay aside in our own souls that belief in authority which to-day appears under the mask of freedom. That should form part of the practical life of our Spiritual Science. And it will become more and more necessary that there should be at least a few people who really see the facts as they are and as they have been characterised to-day—and not only see them, but take them in real earnestness all through life. This is the essential. One need not display this externally, but much can be done if only a small number of persons will organise their lives—in whatever position they may occupy, in accordance with these explanations.

We can see in one definite respect how absolutely our age demands that we should again make our thinking alive. Let us briefly place before our souls something that we have often considered. In the beginning of our era that Being whom we have frequently characterised, the Christ Being, took on the life of a human being and united Himself with the earth aura. Through this there was given to the earth, for the first time, the right purpose for its further evolution, after it had been lost through the Luciferic temptation. The Event of Golgotha took place. The Evangelists, who were seers, though for the most part seers in the old style, have described this Event. Paul also described this Mystery of Golgotha;—Paul saw the Christ spiritually through the event of Damascus. His seership was different from that of the Evangelists. As a result of these descriptions a number of men united their souls with the Christ-Event. Through this connection of single individuals with the Christ-Event Christianity was spread abroad. At first it lived beneath the earth; so that in reality the following picture may continually appear in our souls: In ancient Rome, beneath the earth, those who had grasped the Mystery of Golgotha with their souls, maintained their Divine Service. Above, the civilisation and culture of the age, then at its summit, was carried on. Several centuries passed; that which was formerly carried on below in the catacombs, concealed and despised, now fills the world. And the civilisation of that time, the old Roman intellectual culture has disappeared. Christianity is spread abroad. But now the time has come when men have begun to think, when they have become clever, and free from authority. Thinkers have appeared who have examined the Evangelists. Honourable and clever thinkers: they are all worthy of honour. They have concluded that there is no historical testimony in the Gospels. They have studied them for decades, with earnest and critical labour, and they have come to the conclusion that there is no actual historical testimony in the Gospels, that Christ Jesus never lived at all. Nothing is to be said against this critical labour: it is industrious. Whoever knows it, knows of its industry and of its cleverness. There is no reason to despise lightly this critical wisdom. But what does it imply? What is at the bottom of it all? This: that humanity does not in the least see the point of importance! Christ Jesus did not intend to make things so easy for men that subsequent historians should arise and comfortably verify His existence on the earth as simply and easily as the existence of Frederick the Great may be verified. Christ did not wish to make things so easy as that for men—nor even would it have been right for Him to do so. As true as is the fact that this critical labour on the Gospels is clever and industrious, so true also is it that the existence of Christ may never be proved in that way, for that would be a materialistic proof. In everything that man can prove in external fashion, Ahriman plays a part. But Ahriman may never meddle with the proof as to Christ. Therefore there exists no historical proof. Humanity will have to recognise this: although Christ lived on the earth, yet He must be found through inner recognition, not through historical documents. The Christ-Event must come to humanity in a spiritual manner, and therefore no materialistic investigations of truth, nothing materialistic may intervene in this.

The most important event of the earth evolution can never be proved in a materialistic manner. It is as if through Cosmic history humanity were told: Your materialistic proofs, that which you still desire above all in your materialistic age, is only of value for what exists in the field of matter. For the spiritual you should not and may not have materialistic proof. Thus those may even be right who destroy the old historical documents. Just in reference to the Christ-Event it must be understood in our epoch that one can only come to the Christ in a spiritual way. He will never truly be found by external methods. We may be told that Christ exists, but to find Him really is only possible in a spiritual manner. It is important to consider that in the Christ-Event we have an occurrence concerning which all who will not admit of spiritual knowledge must live in error. It is extraordinary that certain people go wild when one utters what I have just said: that the Christ can be known by spiritual means—thus that which is historical can be recognised spiritually—certain people affirm that it really is not possible; no matter who says it, it cannot be true! I have repeatedly drawn your attention to this fact.

Now, our worthy Anthroposophical members still let many things leak out here and there in unsuitable places because they do not always retain this in their hearts, nor give forth in the right way what they have in their hearts. For instance, a person was told—this reached him in a special form—(this is certainly a personal remark, but perhaps I may make it this once), he was told that I had said that personally, as regards my youthful development, I did not begin with the Bible, but started from Natural Science, and that I considered it as of special importance that I had adopted this spiritual path, and had been really convinced of the inner truth of what stands in the Bible before I had ever read it; for I was then certain of it when I had read the Bible externally; that I had thus proved in myself that the contents of the Bible can be found in a spiritual manner before finding it subsequently in an external manner.

This has no value because of its personal character, but it may serve as an illustration. Now that came in an unseemly way to a man who could not understand that anything of the sort is possible, for he (pardon the word) is a theologian. He could not understand it. Since he wanted to make this matter clear in a lecture to his audience he did so in the following way. He read in a book that I once assisted at Mass. (These assistants are boys who give external help at the Mass.) Then he said to himself: ‘whoever assisted at Mass cannot possibly have been ignorant of the Bible. He overlooks the fact that he learnt to know the Bible there. Later on these things come back to him, from his Bible knowledge.’ Yes but there is indeed a plan in all this. In the first place the whole story is untrue, but people to-day do not object to quoting a fact which is untrue. In the second place, the assistants at Mass never learn the Bible but the Mass-book, which has nothing to do with the Bible. But the essential is to attend to this: the man could not conceive that a spiritual relation exists, he could only imagine that one comes through the letters of the alphabet, to the spiritual hanging on to them. It is very important for us to know these things and to have practical knowledge of them. For our spiritual movement will never be able to thrive until we really—not merely externally but in the very depths of our soul—find the courage to enter into everything connected with the whole meaning and significance of our conception of the world. And with reference to this uniting oneself with the spiritual world a critical situation has really arisen just in our time. The very men who regard themselves as the most enlightened feel themselves least united with the spiritual world. This is not stated as a reproach or criticism but as a fact. It is, therefore, especially important in our time to arouse an inner understanding for such significant Cosmic symbols as meet us in everything which surrounds the mystery of Christmas. For this can unite itself very deeply with a man's nature without the help of letters or learning. We must be able to make the Christmas Mystery alive in every situation in life, particularly in our own soul.

While we awaken this Mystery in our souls we look up and say: ‘Christmas reminds us of the descent of Christ Jesus on to the earth plane, and of the rebirth of that in man which was lost to him through the Luciferic temptation.’ This rebirth occurs in different stages. One stage is that within which we ourselves stand. That which for the sake of further evolution had to be lost—the feeling in the human heart of union with the spiritual world: ‘the birth of Christ within us’ is only another word for it—that has to be born again. Just that, which we desire and ever strive for, is intimately connected with this Christmas Mystery. And we should not merely regard this Christmas Mystery as that day of the year on which we fix up our Christmas tree, and, beholding it, take into ourselves all sorts of edification, but we should look upon it as something present in our whole existence, appearing to us in all that surrounds us.

As a symbol I should like in conclusion to present something which a remarkable poet, who died many years ago, wrote of his feeling about Christmas.

‘Our Church celebrates various Festivals which penetrate our hearts. One can hardly conceive anything more lovable than Whitsuntide or more earnest and holy than Easter. The sadness and melancholy of Passion week and the solemnity of that Sunday accompany us through life. The Church celebrates one of the most beautiful Festivals, the Festival of Christmas, almost in mid-winter, during the longest nights and shortest days, when the Sun shines obliquely across our land, and snow covers the plains. As in many countries the day before the Festival of the Birth of our Lord is called the Christmas Eve, with us it is called the Holy Evening; the following day is the Holy Day and the night intervening the Sacred Eve. The Catholic Church celebrates Christmas Day, the Day of the Birth of the Saviour, with the greatest solemnity. In most regions the hour of midnight is sacred to the hour of the Birth of the Lord, and kept with impressive nocturnal solemnity, to which the bells call one through the quiet solemn air of the dark mid-winter night, and to which the inhabitants go, with lanterns along the well-known paths, from the snow mountains and through the bare forests, hurrying through the orchards to the church, which with its lighted windows dominates the wooded village with the peasants' houses’ (Adalbert Stifter, Berg Kristall). He then describes what the Christ Festival is to the children and further, how in the old and isolated village there lived a cobbler who took a wife out of the neighbouring village, not out of his own; how the children of this couple learnt to know Christmas as was customary there. That is; someone said to them ‘The Holy Christ has brought you this gift,’ and when they were sufficiently tired of the presents, they were put to bed, very tired, and did not hear the midnight bells. These children had thus never yet heard the midnight bells. Now they often visited the neighbouring village. As they grew up and were able to go out alone they visited their grandmother there. The grandmother was especially fond of the children, as is often the case. Grandparents are often more devoted to the children than the parents. The grandmother liked to have the children with her, as she was too frail to go out. One Christmas Eve, which promised to be fine, the children were sent over to their grandmother. The children went over in the morning and were to return in the afternoon to follow the custom of the country, calling at the different villages, and were then to find the Christmas tree at home in the evening. But the day turned out different from what was expected. The children were overtaken by a terrible snowstorm. They wandered over the mountains, lost their way, and in the midst of a dreadful snowstorm they reached a trackless country.

What the children went through is very beautifully described; how during the night they saw a phenomenon of nature. It is desirable to read you the passage, for one cannot relate it as beautifully as it is described there. Each word is really important. They reached an ice field on a glacier. They heard behind them the crackling of the glacier in the night. You may imagine what an impression that makes on the children. The story continues:

Even before their very eyes something began to develop. As the children sat thus a pale light blossomed in the sky, in the centre underneath the stars, and formed a delicate arch through them. It had a greenish shimmer which moved gently downwards. But the arch became clearer and clearer until the stars withdrew and faded away before it. It even sent a reflection into other regions of the sky, a pale green light, which moved and coated gently among the stars. Then arose sheaves of various lights above the arch, like the spikes of a crown, and they flamed. The neighbouring spaces of the heavens were flooded with light, gently scintillating, and traversing long stretches of the heavens in delicate quiverings. Had the “storm-substance” of the sky so expanded through the snowfall that it flowed out in these silent glorious streams of light, or was it some other cause in unfathomable nature? Gradually the whole became fainter and fainter, the sheaves becoming extinguished first, until slowly and imperceptibly it all became fainter and nothing remained in the sky but the hosts of simple stars.

The children sat thus through the night. They heard nothing of the bells beneath. They had only snow and ice around them in the mountains and the stars and the phenomena of the night above them. The night drew to a close. People grew anxious about them. The whole village set out to find them. They were found and brought home. I can omit the rest and merely say that the children were almost stiff with cold, were put to bed and told that they should receive their Christmas gifts later. The mother went to the children, which is related as follows:

‘The children were confused by all this agitation. They had been given something to eat and were put to bed. Towards evening, when they recovered a little, while certain neighbours and friends gathered in the sitting-room and spoke of the event, the mother went into the bedroom and sat on Sanna's bed, caressing her. Then the little maid said: “Mother, while I sat on the mountain to-night, I saw the Holy Christ.”’

This is a beautiful presentation. The children had grown up without any instruction about the Christmas Festival. They had to pass Christmas Eve in that terrible situation, up above on the mountains, amid snow and ice, with only the stars above them, and this phenomenon of nature. They were discovered, brought back to the house, and the little maid said: ‘Mother, I have seen the Holy Christ to-night.’ ‘I have seen the Holy Christ.’ Seen Him! She had seen Him, so she said.

There lies a deeper meaning in this when it is said—as we have continually emphasised in our Spiritual Science, that Christ is not only to be found where we find Him, in the evolution of the earth epoch, historically inserted into the beginning of our era, where civilisation shows Him to us, but He is to be found everywhere! Especially when we are confronted with the world at the most serious moments of our life. We can surely find the Christ then. And we ourselves, we spiritual disciples, as I might say, can find Him, if we are only sufficiently convinced that all our efforts must be directed to the rebirth of the spiritual in the development of mankind, and that this spiritual, which must be born through a special activity of the souls and hearts of men, is based on the foundation of what was born into the earth's evolution through the Mystery of Golgotha. That is something which we must realise at this season. If you can find during the days of which we have spoken to-day, and which are now approaching, a correct inner feeling of the evolving and weaving of external earth existence in its similarity with the sleeping and waking of man; if you can experience a deeper communion with external events, you will then feel more and more the truth of the words ‘Christ is here.’ As He Himself said: ‘I am with you always, unto the end of the earth epochs!’

And He is ever to be found, if we only seek Him. That thought should strengthen us, and invigorate us at this Christmas Festival if we celebrate it in this sense. Let us carry away these thoughts which may help us to find that which we have to regard as the real content, the real depth of our spiritual scientific efforts.

May we bring to this epoch of ours a soul so strengthened that we can place ourselves in the right attitude to it, as we now desire to do. Thus let us turn from the general consideration we have brought forward concerning the spiritual world, to the feeling of strengthening that can come to us from these considerations—strengthening for our soul.

Now let us turn our attention to those on the fields where the great events of our time are taking place:

Spirits ever watchful,
Guardians of their souls!
May your vibrations waft

To the Earth-men committed to your charge
Our souls' petitioning love:
That, united with your power,
Our prayer may helpfully radiate
To the souls it lovingly seeks!

And for those who in consequence of these events have already passed thro' the gate of death:

Spirits ever watchful,
Guardians of their souls
May your vibrations waft
To the Men of the Spheres committed to your charge
Our souls' petitioning love:
That, united with your power,
Our prayer may helpfully radiate
To the souls it lovingly seeks!

And that Spirit whom we are seeking thro' the deepening of Spiritual Science—the Spirit with whom we desire to unite, who descended on to the Earth and passed thro' earthly Death for the salvation of mankind, for the healing, progress and freedom of the Earth—may He be at your side in all your difficult duties.

Siebenter Vortrag

Wir wollen heute damit beginnen, ein nordisches Gedicht vorzutragen, das wir ja vor einiger Zeit schon einmal auch in diesem Zweige vorgebracht haben. Es ist der ganze Inhalt dieser Dichtung zusammenhängend mit der Weihnacht und der sich an sie anschließenden Zeit. Das Gedicht handelt von dem sagenhaften Olaf Åsteson und enthält die Tatsache, daß jener Olaf Åsteson, eine sagenhafte Persönlichkeit, die dreizehn Tage, die sich anschließen an Weihnacht und mit dem Erscheinungstage Christi endigen, in einer ganz besonderen Weise zugebracht hat. Und wir werden damit erinnert daran, wie innerhalb der Volkssagenwelt die Anschauung lebt von früher in der Menschheit vorhandenem primitivem Hellsehen. Der Inhalt ist ja im wesentlichen der, daß Olaf Åsteson in der Weihnachtsnacht an die Kirchentüre kommt, daß er dann in eine Art schlafähnlichen Zustand kommt und nun in den sogenannten dreizehn Nächten die Geheimnisse der geistigen Welt durchlebt in seiner Art, wie er sie durchleben kann als ein einfaches primitives Naturkind.

Wir wissen, daß diese Tage, in denen gewissermaßen von außen die äußerste physische Finsternis auf der Erde waltet, wo das geringste Sprossen und Sprießen der Vegetation stattfindet, wo gewissermaßen äußerlich alles stillesteht im physischen Dasein der Erde, daß da die Erdseele aufwacht, daf3 sie da gerade als Erdseele ihren vollen Wachzustand hat. Wenn nun die Menschenseele zusammenfließt in ihrem geistigen Wesenskern mit dem, was da der Geist der Erde durchlebt, dann kann der Menschenseele, wenn sie in sich noch die primitiven Naturzustände hat, aufgehen ein Schauen der geistigen Welt, das sich die Menschheit wird allmählich wieder erringen müssen durch ihr Hineinstreben in diese geistige Welt. Und so sehen wir denn, wie dieser Olaf Åsteson durchlebt im Grunde dasjenige, was wir wiederum herausholen aus der geistigen Welt. Denn ob dieser Brooksvalin, und wir Kamaloka oder Seelenwelt und geistige Welt sagen, ob wir andere Bilder gebrauchen, als in der Sage von Olaf Åsteson gebraucht werden, darauf kommt es nicht an. Darauf kommt es an, daß wir einsehen, daß die Menschheit ausgegangen ist in ihrer Seelenentwickelung von einem ursprünglichen, primitiven Hellsehen, von einem Verbundensein mit der geistigen Welt, daß dieses aber verlorengehen mußte, damit sich die Menschheit jenes Denken, jenes bewußte Darinnenstehen in der Welt aneignen konnte, durch das sie durchgehen muß, aus dem heraus sie aber nun wiederum entwickeln muß ein höheres Anschauen der geistigen Welt. Ich möchte sagen, dieselbe geistige Welt ist es, die das primitive Hellsehen verlassen hat, in die das entwickelte Schauen sich wiederum hineinlebt. Aber der Mensch hat einen Zustand durchgemacht, durch den er sich anders in diese geistige Welt hineinlebt.

Nun ist es wichtig, eine Empfindung davon zu entwickeln, daß wirklich mit der Verwandlung des Erdenzustandes im Laufe des Jahres verknüpft ist ein inneres geistig-seelisches Werden der geistig-seelischen Wesenheit, die mit der Erde so verbunden ist, wie die Seele des Menschen verbunden ist mit der physischen Wesenheit des Menschen. Und wer die Erde für dasjenige hält, für das sie die Geologen ausgeben, wofür sie die sonstigen Naturwissenschaften heute in ihrer materialistischen Gesinnung gerne ausgeben möchten, der kennt von der Erde so viel, als irgendein Mensch von einem anderen Menschen kennt, von dem man ihm ein Modell in Papiermaché gibt, ohne daß dieses angefüllt ist mit demjenigen, was die Seele eben in die äußere Natur des Menschen hineingießt. Wirklich nur ein Papiermaché-Abdruck ist dasjenige, was uns die äußere Naturwissenschaft von der Erde gibt. Und wer sich nicht bewußt zu sein vermag, daß zwischen dem Winter- und dem Sommerzustande der Erde ein seelischer Unterschied ist, der ist wie einer, der nicht einen Unterschied zwischen Wachen und Schlafen sieht. Die großen Wesenheiten der Natur, in denen wir darinnenleben, die machen ebenso geistige Verwandiungszustände durch wie der Mensch selber, der ein mikrokosmischer Abdruck des großen Makrokosmos ist. Und darauf beruht es auch, daß wirklich das Miterleben, auch das geistige Miterleben mit der Natur, eine gewisse Bedeutung hat. Und derjenige, der aufbringen kann ein Bewußtsein davon, daß gerade in diesen dreizehn Nächten mit der Erdseele etwas vorgeht, das man mitmachen kann, der wird einen der Wege haben, durch den man sich immer mehr und mehr in die geistigen Welten hineinleben kann.

Das Gefühl für dieses Miterleben desjenigen, was im großen Weltendasein gelebt wird, das ist der heutigen Menschheit verlorengegangen. Es kennt der Mensch kaum viel mehr noch von dem Unterschied zwischen Winter und Sommer, als daß man im Winter die Lampe früher anstecken muß als im Sommer, daß es im Winter kalt ist und im Sommer warm. Daß in früheren Zeiten wirklich die Menschen ein Miterleben gehabt haben mit der Natur, das sich darin ausdrückte, daß sie erzählten, wenn auch in bildlicher Weise, von Wesenheiten, die, wahrend die Schneeflocken fallen, durch das Land ziehen, die, während der Sturm braust, durch die Gegend gehen. In seinem tiefsten Sinne versteht das der heutige materialistische Sinn des Menschen nicht mehr. Im tiefsten Sinne kann der Mensch wiederum zusammenwachsen damit, wenn er seinen Blick richtet auf dasjenige, was noch alte Sagen erzählen, insbesondere so tiefe Sagen, wie die Olaf-Åsteson-Sage ist, die in so schöner Weise veranschaulicht, wie ein einfacher, primitiver Mensch hineinwächst bei physischer Bewußtlosigkeit in das helle Licht der geistigen Anschauung. Wir wollen diese Sage jetzt einmal vor unsere Seele ziehen lassen, die Sage, die gelebt hat in älteren Jahrhunderten, die verlorengegangen ist und die aus den Volkserinnerungen wieder aufgezeichnet worden ist. Es ist eine der schönsten Sagen des Nordens, weil sie in wunderbarer Art von tiefen Weltgeheimnissen spricht, insofern es Weltgeheimnisse sind, durch welche die Menschenseele mit der Weltseele zusammenhängt.

(Es folgte die Rezitation von: «Das Traumlied vom Olaf Åsteson», siehe Seite 173)

Da wir heute noch zusammensein können, meine lieben Freunde, so dürfen wir vielleicht einiges besprechen, das dem einen oder anderen nützlich sein kann, wenn er mancherlei von dem überblickt, was wir im Laufe der Jahre uns geisteswissenschaftlich erworben haben.

Wir wissen ja - es ist in den öffentlichen Vorträgen in der letzten Zeit auch betont worden -, daß zugrunde liegt demjenigen, was als das Äußere des Menschen für äußere Sinne sichtbar ist, ein geistiger Wesenskern des Menschen, der gewissermaßen aus zwei Gliedern sich zusammensetzt. Das eine Glied haben wir kennengelernt als dasjenige, was vor das geistige Auge tritt, wenn dieses geistige Auge die Erfahrung macht, die man gewöhnlich bezeichnet als «vor die Pforte des Todes treten»; das andere Glied des Innenlebens tritt vor die menschliche Seele, wenn der Mensch gewahr wird, wie zu all seinen Willenserlebnissen ein innerer Zuschauer da ist, ein Zuschauer, der eben immer vorhanden ist. So daß wir sagen können: Das menschliche Denken, wenn wir es vertiefen durch die Meditation, zeigt, daß im Menschen innerhalb seines eigentlichen geistigen Wesenskernes immer etwas vorhanden ist, was in bezug auf den äußeren physischen Leib mitwirkt an dem Abbau des menschlichen Organismus, an jenem Abbau, der zuletzt in den Tod ausläuft. Wir wissen aus diesen Betrachtungen, die da angestellt worden sind, daß die eigentliche Kraft des Denkens nicht liegt in etwas Aufbauendem, sondern in etwas gewissermaßen Abbauendem. Dadurch, daß wir sterben können, daß wir unseren Organismus im Laufe des Lebens zwischen Geburt und Tod so entwickeln, daß er sich auflösen kann, verteilen kann in die Weltenelemente, sind wir in der Lage, uns das Organ zu schaffen, durch das wir die edelste Blüte des physischen Menschendaseins entwickeln, das Denken. Aber im Innern des menschlichen Lebens, dieses Lebens zwischen Geburt und Tod, ist wie eine Art Lebenskeim für die Zukunft, wie ein Lebenskeim, der besonders geeignet ist, durch die Pforte des Todes zu schreiten, dasjenige vorhanden, was in der Willensströmung sich entwickelt und eben als der charakterisierte Zuschauer beobachtet werden kann.

Wie gesagt, es muß immer wieder und wiederum wiederholt werden, daß dasjenige, was da das geistige Schauen vor die Seele des Menschen bringt, nicht etwas ist, was sich erst durch das geistige Schauen entwickelt, sondern was immer vorhanden ist, immer da ist, und was die Menschen, in unserem gegenwärtigen Zeitalter namentlich, nur nicht sehen sollen; man darf schon sagen: nicht sehen sollen. Denn die Entwickelung des geistigen Lebens hat namentlich in den letzten Jahrzehnten einen solchen Fortgang genommen, daß}, wer sich so recht überläßt demjenigen, was man heute im materialistischen Zeitalter das «geistige Leben» nennt, sich gerade einen Schleier breitet über dasjenige, was im Innern des Menschen lebt. Diejenigen Begriffe und Ideen werden in unserem gegenwärtigen Zeitalter am meisten entwickelt, die am stärksten verbergen dasjenige, was geistig im Menschen vorhanden ist. Wir dürfen schon einmal, um uns in der rechten Weise zu stärken für unsere besondere Aufgabe, insofern wir in der Geisteswissenschaft stehen, gerade in bedeutungsvoller Jahreszeit auf die ganz besonders finstere Seite des heutigen Geisteslebens hinweisen, die ja auch vorhanden sein muß, wie die Finsternis in der äußeren Natur vorhanden sein muß, aber die man eben wahrnehmen muß, deren Dasein man sich zum Bewußtsein bringen muß. Wir durchleben gewissermaßen eine finstere Kulturzeit in bezug auf das geistige Leben. Wir haben nicht notwendig, immer wiederum darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daf3 wir die großen Errungenschaften, auf welche die Menschheit dieses finsteren Zeitalters so stolz ist, wohl zu würdigen wissen; aber dabei bleibt doch in bezug auf die geistigen Angelegenheiten die Sache bestehen, daß die Begriffe und Ideen, die in unserer Zeit geschaffen werden, gerade für diejenigen, die sich am eifrigsten in diese Begriffe hineinversetzen, am meisten verhüllen dasjenige, was in der Seele des Menschen lebt. Und so darf denn auch das Folgende erwähnt werden:

Besonders stolz ist unser Zeitalter auf sein klares Denken, das es sich angeeignet haben will durch die bedeutsame wissenschaftliche Schulung. Besonders stolz, sage ich, ist unser Zeitalter. Allerdings nicht so stolz, daß das etwa zur Folge hätte, daß jetzt alle Menschen recht viel denken wollten. Nein, das hat es nicht im Gefolge, sondern es hat im Gefolge, daß die Menschen sagen: Nun ja, in unserem Zeitalter, da muß man viel denken, wenn man etwas wissen will über die geistige Welt. Selber darüber etwas zu denken ist jedoch schwer. Aber die Theologen, die tun das, die denken darüber nach! Also, da unser Zeitalter ein sehr fortgeschrittenes ist, das ja erhaben ist über das finstere Zeitalter des Autoritätsglaubens, so muß man hinhören auf diejenigen, die über geistige Dinge denken können, auf die Theologen. Und fortgeschritten ist unser Zeitalter in bezug auf die Rechtsbegriffe, die Begriffe, was recht und unrecht ist, was gut und böse ist. Unser Zeitalter ist das Zeitalter des Denkens. Aber, daß diese Vorstellung so weit hinaus ist über den Autoritätsglauben, das hat nicht dazu geführt, daß jeder sich dem unterziehen will, tiefer nachzudenken über Recht oder Unrecht, sondern darüber denken die Juristen. Und weil wir schon einmal über das Zeitalter des Autoritätsglaubens hinaus sind, muß man es den aufgeklärten Juristen überlassen, zu denken über das, was gut und böse, was recht und unrecht ist. Und in bezug auf körperliche Verhältnisse, auf körperliche Heilungen: Weil man da erst recht nicht weiß, was zuträglich oder unzuträglich sein könnte in diesem Zeitalter, das so frei sein will von Autoritätsglauben, geht man zu den Ärzten. Das könnte auf allen Gebieten ausgeführt werden. Gerade viele Anlagen hat ja unser Zeitalter nicht, zu verzweifeln etwa wie Faust, in der Art:

Habe nun, ach! Philosophie,
Juristerei und Medizin,
Und leider auch Theologie!
Durchaus studiert, mit heißem Bemühn.
Da steh’ ich nun, ich armer Tor!
Und bin so klug als wie zuvor...

Es befolgt davon nur das eine, daß es eigentlich nichts von dem wissen will, woran der Faust irregeworden ist, aber um so mehr wissen will, wovon andere alles klar wissen auf den verschiedensten Gebieten, wo man über Wohl und Wehe des Menschen entscheiden will.

Auf unser Denken ist unser Zeitalter so ungeheuer stolz, so stolz, daß diejenigen, die es dahin gebracht haben, sagen wir, gar einmal etwas Philosophisches zu lesen in ihrem Leben - nun, ich will mich nicht so weit versteigen, daß sie Kant gelesen haben, sondern vielleicht irgendeinen Auszug aus Kant -, sich klar darüber sind, daß derjenige, der irgend etwas im Sinne der Geisteswissenschaft über die geistigen Welten behauptet, sich versündigt gegen das unwiderruflich Festgestellte des Kantianismus. Wird doch oft gesagt, es habe das ganze neunzehnte Jahrhundert gearbeitet, dieses menschliche Denken zu entwickeln, dieses menschliche Denken in kritischer Weise zu untersuchen. Und «kritische Denker» nennen sich heute viele, die nur ein wenig von diesen Dingen vernommen haben. So gibt es zum Beispiel heute Menschen, die sagen, der Mensch habe Grenzen der Erkenntnis, weil er ja die äußere Welt durch seine Sinne wahrnehme; aber die Sinne könnten doch nur dasjenige geben, was sie eben in sich erzeugen, also nehme der Mensch die Welt wahr, wie sie auf seine Sinne wirkt, und könne daher nicht hinter die Dinge der Welt kommen, denn er könne die Grenze seiner Sinne niemals überschreiten: Bilder nur der Wirklichkeit könne der Mensch bekommen! Und viele sagen ja gerade aus der Tiefe ihrer Philosophie heraus, die Menschenseele habe nur Bilder der Welt, und daher könne sie niemals zum «Ding an sich» in irgendeiner Weise kommen, man könne dasjenige, was wir durch unsere Sinne haben, durch unsere Augen, Ohren und so weiter, nur mit Spiegelbildern vergleichen. -— Gewiß, wenn ein Spiegel da ist und Bilder entwirft, das Bild eines Menschen, das Bild eines zweiten Menschen, und wir schauen die Bilder an, so haben wir eine Bilderwelt. Nun kommen die Philosophen und sagen: So wie der Mensch, der einen zweiten Menschen nicht direkt ansieht, sondern im Spiegelbild, eine Bilderwelt hat, wie der nicht das «Ding an sich» der Menschen ansieht, sondern die Bilder, so hat man eigentlich von der ganzen äußeren Welt nur die Bilder. Indem die Licht- und Farbenstrahlen in unser Auge, die Luftwellen in unser Ohr fallen: Bilder, alles Bilder! — Das hat das kritische Zeitalter ergeben, daß der Mensch in seiner Seele nur Bilder entwirft und daher niemals durch die Bilder hindurch an das «Ding an sich» kommen kann. Unendlicher Scharfsinn — im Ernste sage ich das jetzt - ist von philosophischer Seite im neunzehnten Jahrhundert aufgebracht worden, um zu beweisen, daß der Mensch nur Bilder hat und nicht an das «Ding an sich» kommen kann. Woher rührt denn eigentlich diese kritische Resignation, dieses Daraufbestehen, daß es zu, wie man sagt, «Erkenntnisgrenzen» führt, wenn man also die Bildernatur unseres Anschauens enthüllt? Das rührt davon her, weil in vieler Beziehung das Denken unserer Zeit, in unserem aufgeklärten Zeitalter, ein verwahrlostes Denken geworden ist, ein kurzsinniges Denken, ein Denken, das in der pedantischsten Weise sich einen Begriff aufwirft und nicht über diesen Begriff hinauskommen kann, diesen Begriff wie einen hölzernen Hampelmann sich vorhält, und das, was dieser hölzerne Hampelmann nicht gibt, nicht mehr finden kann. Es ist ja, man kann sagen, fast unglaublich, wie sehr das Denken in unserer Zeit sich verhärtet, sich verholzt hat.

Ich will Ihnen die ganze Geschichte mit dieser Bildnatur unserer Weltanschauung und dem, was das sogenannte kritische Denken, das fortgeschrittene Denken, gemacht hat, einmal gerade aus dem Vergleich mit dem Spiegelbild klarmachen. Das ist nämlich ganz richtig, wovon die Leute ausgehen, daß die Welt, so wie sie der Mensch hier im Sinnendasein hat, nur dadurch da ist, daß sie Eindruck auf ihn macht, Bilder in seiner Seele entwirft, und es ist gut, daß die Menschheit durch die kritische Philosophie, durch den Kantianismus, auf die Sache gekommen ist. Wir können also durchaus sagen: Die Bilder, die wir haben von der Außenwelt, sind so, daß wir sie vergleichen können mit den Spiegelbildern: Da haben wir einen Spiegel, zwei Menschen stehen davor, wir schauen aber nicht die Menschen an, sondern die Bilder. So haben wir Bilder von der Welt durch das, was unsere Seele als Bilder von der Welt entwirft, wir haben Bilder, die wir vergleichen mit zwei Menschen, deren Spiegelabbild wir anschauen. Aber nur jemand, der nie Menschen gesehen hätte, nur Bilder, der würde philosophieren können: «Ich kenne nichts von den Menschen, sondern nur die toten Spiegelbilder.» So schließen aber die kritischen Philosophen. Sie bleiben dabei stehen. Sie wurden sich sogleich in sich selbst widerlegt finden, wenn sie von ihrem Hampelmann des Denkens ein klein wenig weiterkommen könnten, aus dem toten Denken in das lebendige Denken. Denn wenn ich vor dem Spiegel stehe, und da stehen zwei Menschen im Spiegel drinnen, und ich sehe, daß der eine Mensch dem andern eine ordentliche Ohrfeige herunterhaut, so daß der andere sogar blutet, dann würde ich ein Tor sein, wenn ich sagte: Das eine Spiegelbild hat das andere geschlagen. — Da sehe ich nicht mehr bloß das Spiegelbild, sondern durch das Bild sehe ich reale Vorgänge. Ich habe nichts als das Bild, aber ich sehe einen höchst realen Vorgang durch das Spiegelbild hindurch. Und ein Narr wäre ich, wenn ich glaubte, das wäre nur im Spiegelbild vorgegangen. Das heißt, die kritische Philosophie faßt den einen Gedanken: Wir haben es mit Bildern zu tun -, aber nicht mehr den andern Gedanken, daß diese Bilder etwas zum Ausdruck bringen, daß darinnen etwas lebt. Und wenn man diese Bilder erfaßt in lebendiger Art, dann gibt das mehr als die Bilder, dann weist es hin auf das, was das «Ding an sich» ist, was die reale Außenwelt ist.

Kann man da noch sagen, daß die Leute denken können, die solch eine «kritische» Philosophie geben? Das Denken ist, in einem gewissen hohen Grade, ein verwahrlostes in unserer Zeit. Es ist wirklich ein verwahrlostes. Aber man ist bei dem Kritizismus des Denkens stehengeblieben. Ich habe öfter erwähnt, daß dieser Kritizismus, diese kritische Philosophie in unserer Kultur sogar vorgeschritten ist und daß ein Mann in ehrlichem Streben — «ehrenwerte Männer» sind sie alle, ehrlich ist das Streben durchaus - zu einer «Kritik der Sprache» gekommen ist: Fritz Mauthner hat eine «Kritik der Sprache» geschrieben, drei dicke Bände, und noch ein philosophisches Wörterbuch von diesem Standpunkte aus, das zwei noch viel dickere Bände hat. Und eine ganze journalistische Leithammelei ist hinter dem Journalisten Fritz Mauthner her und hält das selbstverständlich für ein großes Werk. Und in unserer Zeit, in der ja der Autoritätsglaube «keine Bedeutung» hat, halten sehr viele, die gerade auf jenem Parteistandpunkte stehen — wie die Zeitungen, deren Journalist Fritz Mauthner war — das für ein bedeutendes Werk; denn «es gibt ja heute keinen Autoritätsglauben».

Nun, sehen Sie, Mauthner kommt dazu, zu erklären, daß der Mensch sich Substantive bildet, Adjektive bildet, aber die bedeuten alle nichts Wirkliches. In der äußeren Welt erlebe man nicht, was die Worte bedeuten. Man lebe sich so hinein in die Worte, daß man eigentlich nicht seine Gedanken und Seelenbilder habe, sondern eigentlich nur Worte, Worte, Worte. -— Der Mensch finde sich in die Sprache hinein, die Sprache gebe den Wortvorrat. Und weil er gewöhnt sei, sich an die Sprache zu halten, komme der Mensch nur zu den Zeichen der Dinge, die im Worte gegeben sind. — Das soll nun etwas ganz Bedeutsames sein. Und wenn man die drei Bände von Mauthner durchliest - wenn Sie einmal etwas angestellt haben, was Ihre Seele sich selber vorwirft, meine lieben Freunde, dann ist es eine gute Strafe für Sie, wenn Sie sich dazu verurteilen, wenigstens die Hälfte dieser Bände zu lesen -, dann findet man, daß ihr Verfasser im höchsten Grade davon überzeugt ist — ja, man kann es nicht anders ausdrücken -, gescheiter zu sein als die gescheitesten anderen Leute des Zeitalters. Immer ist ja der, der gerade an seinem Buche sitzt, gescheiter als die anderen, selbstverständlich!

So ist Fritz Mauthner endlich dahintergekommen, wie der Mensch immer nur Zeichen hat. Er ist sogar zu noch mehr gekommen. Sehen Sie, er ist dazu gekommen, folgendes zu sagen: Der Mensch hat Augen, Ohren, einen Gefühlssinn — nun, eine Anzahl von Sinnen hat halt der Mensch. Ja, aber der Mensch könnte zum Beispiel, so meint Fritz Mauthner, nicht nur Augen und Ohren und Gefühlssinn und Geruchssinn haben, sondern noch ganz andere Sinne. Er könnte zum Beispiel noch einen Sinn außer dem Auge haben. Dann würde er, so wie er durch die Augen Bilder wahrnimmt, mit den anderen Sinnen ganz anders die Welt wahrnehmen. Also würde es noch vieles geben, was es für den jetzigen Menschen nicht gibt. Und jetzt fühlt sich der kritische Denker sogar ein wenig mystisch beseelt und sagt: Der unermeßliche Reichtum der Welt, der wird uns also nur durch unsere Sinne gegeben. Und er nennt diese Sinne «Zufallssinne», weil er meint, es sei ein weithistorischer Zufall, daß wir just diese Sinne haben. Hätten wir andere Sinne, so wurde die Welt anders ausschauen. Also tut man am besten, zu sagen, wir haben Zufallssinne. Also eine Zufallswelt! Aber die Welt ist unermeßlich. — Es klingt schön! Einer derjenigen, die hinter Fritz Mauthner herlaufen, hat eine Broschüre geschrieben: «Skepsis und Mystik.» In dieser Broschüre wird ganz besonders darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie man nun aus der Tiefe seiner Seele heraus ja sogar Mystiker werden dürfe, wenn man nicht mehr an dasjenige glaube, was die Zufallssinne geben können. Da finden wir einen schönen Satz; auf Seite 12 des Buches, da heißt es:

«Die Welt strömt auf uns zu, mit den paar armseligen Löchern unserer Zufallssinne nehmen wir auf, was wir fassen können, und kleben es an unseren alten Wortvorrat fest, da wir nichts anderes haben, womit wir es halten können. Die Welt strömt aber weiter, auch unsere Sprache strömt weiter, nur nicht in derselben Richtung, sondern nach den Zufällen der Sprachgeschichte, für die sich Gesetze nicht aufstellen lassen.»

Auch eine Weltanschauung! Was will sie? Sie sagt: Die Welt ist unermeßlich, aber wir haben so eine Anzahl Zufallssinne, da strömt die Welt ein. Was machen wir mit dem, was da einströmt? Was machen wir damit, nach dem Zufallsgerede dieses Herrn? Wir erinnern uns an das, was die Herren Gedächtnis nennen, hängen das an, kleben das an, an die Worte, die wir aus der Sprache übermittelt erhalten haben, und die Sprache strömt ihrerseits wiederum weiter. Wir reden also über dasjenige in den Wortzeichen, was uns durch die Zufallssinne von dem unermeßlichen Weltendasein hereingeströmt ist. — Ein scharfsinniges Denken! Ich sage das wiederum im Ernst, meine lieben Freunde: es ist ein scharfsinniges Denken. Man muß in unserer Zeit immerhin ein gescheiter Mensch sein, um so etwas zu denken. Und man kann schon sagen von diesen Leuten, nicht nur sind sie ehrliche Leute — ehrenwert sind sie alle —, sondern: sie sind bedeutende Denker. Aber sie sind verstrickt mit dem Denken, das das Denken unseres Zeitalters ist, und sie haben keinen Willen, aus diesem Denken herauszukommen.

Ich habe mir eine Art «Weihnachtstrauer» — Freude kann man nicht sagen, es ist eine Weihnachtstrauer geworden — dadurch gemacht, daß ich wiederum aus diesem Zusammenhang heraus einzelne dieser Sachen anschauen mußte, und ich habe mir einen Gedanken aufgeschrieben, der ganz genau nach dem Muster dieses Denkers geformt ist, der da das beschrieben hat, was ich eben vorgelesen habe. Schauen wir es uns noch einmal an:

«Die Welt strömt auf uns zu, mit den paar armseligen Löchern unserer Zufallssinne nehmen wir auf, was wir fassen können, und kleben es an unseren alten Wortvorrat fest, da wir nichts anderes haben, womit wir es halten können. Die Welt strömt aber weiter, auch unsere Sprache strömt weiter, nur nicht in derselben Richtung, sondern nach den Zufällen der Sprachgeschichte, für die sich Gesetze nicht aufstellen lassen.»

Ich habe den Gedanken auf einen anderen Gegenstand angewendet, genau denselben Gedanken, dieselbe Gedankenform; da ergibt sich das Folgende: «Goethes Genialität strömt auf das Papier, mit den paar armseligen Formen seiner Zufallsbuchstaben nimmt das Papier auf, was es fassen kann, und läßt sich aufdrucken, was es aufnehmen kann nach dem alten Buchstabenvorrat, da nichts anderes da ist, wodurch ihm etwas aufgedruckt werden kann. Goethes Genialität strömt aber auch weiter, auch der Schriftausdruck auf dem Papier strömt weiter, nur nicht in derselben Richtung, sondern nach den Zufällen, in denen sich Buchstaben gruppieren können, für die sich Gesetze nicht aufstellen lassen.» — Es ist ganz genau derselbe Gedanke, ich habe bei jedem Wort genau achtgegeben, es ist derselbe Gedanke! Wenn jemand behauptet: Die unermeßliche Welt strömt auf uns zu, wir nehmen sie auf mit den paar Zufallssinnen, wie wir es eben können, kleben sie an unseren Wortvorrat an; die Welt strömt weiter, die Sprache strömt in einer anderen Richtung, nach den Zufällen der Sprachgeschichte, und so verfließe das menschliche Erkennen - so ist das eben genau derselbe Gedanke, wie wenn jemand sagt: Goethes Genialität fließt durch die 23 Zufallsbuchstaben, weil das Papier eben nur dadurch die Sache aufnehmen kann; aber Goethes Genialität ist doch niemals dadrinnen, sie ist unermeßlich! Die Zufallsbuchstaben können das nicht aufnehmen, sie strömen weiter. Dasjenige, was da auf dem Papier ist, strömt auch weiter und gruppiert sich nun nach den Bildungen, in denen sich die Buchstaben gruppieren können und deren Gesetze man nicht erkennen kann. - Wenn nun die sehr gescheiten Herren schließen aus solchen Voraussetzungen: Also ist dasjenige, was wir in die Welt hereinbekommen, eben das Ergebnis von Zufallssinnen, und man kann nicht kommen auf dasjenige, was eigentlich der Welt im Innersten zugrunde liegt, dann ist das genau so, wie wenn jemand darüber nachdenkt, wie eigentlich jemals ein Mensch das aufnehmen kann, was eigentlich in Goethes Genialität gelebt hat. Denn es ist doch klar: Es ist ja nichts da von dieser Genialität als die Gruppierung von 23 Zufallsbuchstaben; es ist nichts anderes da! Genau denselben Gedanken haben diese Herren, sie werden es nur nicht gewahr. Und so viel Wert es hat, wenn jemand sagt: Nichts, nichts, nichts kann jemals ein Mensch wissen von Goethes Genialität, denn siehst du denn nicht, daß nichts von ihr auf dich fließen kann? Du kannst ja nichts anderes haben, als was die verschiedene Gruppierung von 23 Zufallszeichen gibt - so viel Sinn dieses hätte, so viel Sinn hat das Gerede, das diese Herren vollbringen über Möglichkeit oder Nichtmöglichkeit des Welt-Erkennens. Genau so viel Sinn hat dieses ganze Denken - nicht das Denken der Tröpfe, sondern das Denken derjenigen, die heute wirklich die gescheiten Menschen sind, die nur nicht hinauswollen aus dem Denken unseres Zeitalters.

Die Sache hat aber wirklich noch eine andere Seite. Wir müssen uns klar sein darüber: Dieses Denken, das uns da an einem solchen Beispiel entgegentritt, wo es Grenzen der Erkenntnis feststellt, dieses Denken ist unser Denken im gegenwärtigen Zeitalter. Dieses Denken herrscht heute, es lebt überall. Und ob Sie heute dieses oder jenes noch so tief scheinende philosophische Buch lesen, das oftmals große Welträtsel lösen — oder verhüllen — will, oder ob Sie in der Zeitung lesen, überall regiert dieses Denken. Die Art und Weise dieses Denkens regiert. Sie regiert auch die Welt. Sie schlürft der Mensch heute mit seinem Morgenkaffee ein — nicht gerade heute allerdings, weil Meinungen heute in den Zeitungen nicht stehen dürfen, aber sonst, wenn Meinungen in den Zeitungen stehen dürfen. Er schlürft sie ein, es erscheinen ja mehr und mehr Tageszeitungen, in denen Meinungen drinnenstehen. Aber auch im ganzen Gewebe unseres sozialen Zusammenlebens lebt diese Art des Denkens. Ich habe es an der philosophischen Entwickelung klarzulegen versucht, dieses Denken, aber man könnte es klarlegen in den Gedanken, die sich die Menschen machen über alle möglichen Lebensverhältnisse: in allem, worüber die Menschen nachdenken, lebt dieses Denken heute. Und daß es lebt, das ist die Ursache davon, daß die Menschen nicht den Willen entwickeln können, das wirklich zu empfinden, was zum Beispiel Geisteswissenschaft geben will. Denn unverständlich ist es nicht für ein Denken, das ein wirkliches Denken ist. Aber selbstverständlich muß dasjenige, was Geisteswissenschaft geben kann, immer unverständlich bleiben für Menschen, die, sagen wir also, nach dem Schnitt von Fritz Mauthner konstruiert sind. Aber nach diesem Schnitt ist eben die Mehrzahl der Menschen heute konstruiert. Dieses Denken lebt in unserer zeitgenössischen Wissenschaft wirklich ganz und gar drinnen. Damit wird nichts gesagt gegen die Bedeutung und die großen Errungenschaften dieser Wissenschaft; aber darauf kommt es nicht an, sondern darauf kommt es an, wie das Seelische in unserer Zeit, in unserer ganzen Kultur lebt. Unserer Zeit fehlt ganz und gar die Möglichkeit, mit ihren Gedanken beweglich zu sein, wirklich zu folgen dem, dem man eben folgen muß, wenn diese Gedanken begreifen sollen dasjenige, was die Geisteswissenschaft mitzuteilen hat.

Nun können wir uns aber fragen: Wie kommt es denn, daß zum Beispiel ein solches Buch geschrieben werden kann wie das, was ich hier vor mir habe: «Skepsis und Mystik» von Gustav Landauer, ein Buch, das von Selbstgefälligkeit nur so trieft. Man trieft selber, wenn man es gelesen hat, möchte ich sagen, von der ganzen Stimmung der Selbstgefälligkeit, die da drinnen ist, wie man trieft, wenn man Mauthners «Sprachkritik» gelesen hat oder Artikel aus dem «Philosophischen Wörterbuch». Wie kommt denn das? Wie es kommt, das erfährt man nicht, wenn man das Denken verfolgt. Ich kann mir sehr gescheite Menschen denken, die solch ein Buch in die Hand bekommen, es durchlesen und sagen: Das ist ein grundgescheiter Mensch! Sie haben recht, und Mauthner ist auch ein gescheiter Mensch. Daran liegt es nicht, denn Gescheitheit drückt sich ja dadurch aus, daß man in einer gewissen logischen Weise die Begriffe, die man sich bilden kann, eben bildet, auseinanderquasselt, und wieder bildet in irgendeiner Weise. Daran liegt es nicht. Man kann auf diesem oder jenem Gebiet eine große Gescheitheit haben, eine ganz richtige Gescheitheit, aber wenn man in das Leben hereinkommt, das getragen wird von dem Bewußtsein geistiger Erkenntnis, dann entwickelt sich mit jedem Schritt ein gewisses Verhältnis zur Welt so, daß man das Gefühl hat: Du mußt immer weiter und weiter. Mit jedem Tag mußt du deine Begriffe vervollkommnen. Zu dem Glauben mußt du dich entwickeln, daß du mit deinen Begriffen immer weiterkommen kannst. Bei dem, der ein solches Buch geschrieben hat, hat man das Gefühl, daß er in dieser Weise gescheit ist: Der 21. Dezember 1915. Ich bin gescheit und ich habe mir durch meine Gescheitheit etwas ganz Bestimmtes errungen. Das schreibe ich jetzt in ein Buch hinein. Das, was ich jetzt bin, das schreibe ich in ein Buch, denn ich bin gescheit am 21. Dezember 1915! Das Buch wird dann fertig werden und gibt meine Gescheitheit wieder! — Dieses Gefühl hat man, wenn man ein wirklich Erkennender ist, nie. Sondern man hat das Gefühl eines fortwährenden Werdens, einer fortwährenden Notwendigkeit, alle Begriffe zu läutern, hinaufzuentwickeln. Und in der Regel hat man dann nicht das Gefühl: Am 21. Dezember 1915, da bin ich gescheit; jetzt schreibe ich ein Buch, das meine Gescheitheit eingegeben hat; das wird dann fertig sein nach Monaten oder Jahren — sondern hat man ein Buch geschrieben, blickt man wahrhaftig nicht zurück auf die Gescheitheit, die man hatte, als man anfing, das Buch zu schreiben, sondern man hat durch das Buch das Gefühl bekommen: Wie wenig hast du eigentlich mit der Sache geleistet und wie nötig hast du gerade, durch das, was du da hingeschrieben hast, dich weiter zu entwickeln. Dieses Sich-auf-den-Weg-der-Erkenntnis-Begeben, dieses stetige innere Arbeiten, das kennt das materialistische Zeitalter fast gar nicht mehr, es glaubt es vielfach zu kennen, es kennt es aber nicht mehr wirklich. Und, sehen Sie, der tiefste Grund ist der, den man eben in die Worte fassen kann: Diese Leute sind so unbändig eitel. Ich sagte: es trieft solch ein Buch, es trieft eigentlich von Eitelkeit. Gescheit ist das Buch, aber ungeheuer eitel. Jenes Selbstbescheiden, jene Demut, die sich einem solchen Erkenntniswege ergibt, wie eben dargelegt, sie fehlen da ganz. Sie sind überhaupt nicht da, wenn man sich am 21.Dezember 1915 die Gescheitheit bedingungslos zuspricht. Sie kann nicht da sein, diese Demut.

Nun werden Sie sagen: Ja, die Leute wären doch dumm, wenn sie sich für gescheit halten würden. — Mit dem Oberbewußttsein tun sie es auch nicht, aber im Unterbewußtsein tun sie es doch. Sie lernen eben nie unterscheiden zwischen dem, was als Wahres sich belebt im Unterbewußtsein, und dem, was sie sich im Oberbewußtsein vormachen. Und so ist es die luziferische Natur des Menschen, die eigentlich die heutige Menschheit dazu treibt, klug sein zu wollen, auf einem bestimmten Standpunkt der Klugheit zu stehen und von da aus alle Dinge überschauen zu können, über alle Dinge etwa urteilen zu können. Aber wenn man diesen Luzifer in sich trägt, dann wird man, indem man mit diesem Luzifer die äußere Welt überschaut, zu Ahriman hingeführt und sieht diese äußere Welt für unser Zeitalter ganz selbstverständlich materialistisch. Dann, wenn man mit Luzifer im Leibe beginnt die Welt anzuschauen, dann trifft man, wenn man sie anschaut, Ahriman. Denn die beiden suchen einander in dem menschlichen Umgang mit dieser Welt. Daher kommt ein solches Denken, das so grundeitel ist, nicht einmal dazu, sich das Folgende überlegen zu können: Wenn ich ein Wort gebrauche, hat man selbstverständlich nur ein Zeichen für dasjenige, was das Wort bedeutet. -— Mauthner hat die grandiose Entdeckung gemacht, daft es Substantive nicht gibt. Es gibt keine! Sie sind keine Wirklichkeit, selbstverständlich nicht! Nicht wahr, wir fassen gewisse Erscheinungen, die wir einen Moment erstarrt denken, auf, und nennen die mit einem Substantiv. Gewiß, Substantive sind keine Wirklichkeit; Adjektive auch nicht. Ganz selbstverständlich nicht. Das ist alles wahr. Aber wenn ich nun ein Substantiv und Adjektiv zusammenfasse, wenn ich die Sprache in Fluß bringe, dann drückt sie Realität, Wirklichkeiten aus. Dann geht das Bild innerhalb der Bildnatur, in dem, daß es eben Bild ist, über sich selber hinaus. Alle einzelnen Worte sind keine Wirklichkeit, aber wir sprechen ja nicht in einzelnen Worten, sondern wir sprechen ja in Wortzusammenhängen. Und in ihnen haben wir ein unmittelbares Drinnenstehen in der Wirklichkeit. Drei Bände mußten heute geschrieben werden, und ein zweibändiges Wörterbuch noch dazu, um den Menschen alle diese Dinge mit Gedanken unendlicher Gescheitheit vorzutragen, die einfach hinwegsehen darüber, daß, weil einzelne Worte nur Zeichen sind, die Verbindung nicht etwas bloß Bezeichnendes ist, sondern in der Realität drinnensteht. Unendliche Weisheit, unendliche Gescheitheit wird heute aufgebracht, um die allergrößten Torheiten zu «beweisen», wie man sagt.

Daß nun schließlich in einer Kritik der Sprache, selbst in einer Kritik des Denkens, Torheiten sich darleben, das wäre ja nicht besonders schlimm. Aber dasselbe Denken, das sich in diesen Torheiten auslebt, in diesen sehr klugen, sehr gescheiten Torheiten, das lebt in allem übrigen Denken, das die gegenwärtige Menschheit hat. Und wenn wir die Aufgabe, die innerhalb unserer geistigen Bewegung steckt, ergreifen wollen, so gehört wirklich dazu, sich bewußt zu werden, daß diejenigen, die Geisteswissenschafter sein wollen, dahin kommen, ihr Zeitalter in der richtigen Weise zu sehen, wirklich sich zu ihrem Zeitalter in der richtigen Weise zu stellen. So daß wirklich, ich möchte sagen, zu dem Praktischen unserer geisteswissenschaftlichen Weltanschauungsströmung es schon einmal dazugehört, daß wir versuchen, über das Denken, das sich so charakterisiert, wie wir es heute gesehen haben, hinauszukommen, nicht mitzugehen mit diesem Denken, sondern daß wir versuchen, das Denken wiederum einmal anders zu nehmen. Wir werden geradezu kinderleicht, meine lieben Freunde, zum Verständnis der Geisteswissenschaft kommen, wenn wir nur diejenigen Hindernisse aus dem Wege räumen, die durch das erstarrte, das versteinte Denken in das geistige Kulturleben der Gegenwart hereingekommen sind. Allem gegenüber sollten wir daher jenen Autoritätsglauben, der heute unter der Maske der Autoritätsfreiheit auftritt, gründlich einmal in unserer eigenen Seele beseitigen. Das gehört zu dem praktischen Drinnenleben in unserer Geisteswissenschaft. Und es wird immer notwendiger werden, daß es wenigstens einzelne Menschen gibt, die den Tatbestand, den man also, wie ich heute tat, charakterisieren kann, wirklich durchschauen, und nicht nur durchschauen, sondern ihn auf Schritt und Tritt im Leben ernst nehmen. Darauf kommt es an. Man braucht ja das nicht äußerlich zur Schau zu tragen, aber es ist vieles getan, wenn es einmal eine Anzahl von Menschen gibt, die also, wie es folgt aus diesen Auseinandersetzungen, sich gerade auf ihren Posten im Leben so hinzustellen wissen.

Wir können an einem bestimmten Gebiete sehen, wie geradezu, ich möchte sagen, kategorisch unser Zeitalter verlangt, daß wir wiederum zu einer Belebung des Denkens kommen. Stellen wir nur kurz etwas vor unsere Seelen hin, was wir oftmals ausführlich vor diese Seelen hingestellt haben: Im Beginne unserer Zeitrechnung ging diejenige Wesenheit, die wir oft charakterisiert haben, die Christus-Wesenheit, durch das Leben eines menschlichen Organismus hindurch und vereinigte sich mit der Erdenaura. Dadurch wurde der Erde, nachdem sie ihren Sinn durch die luziferische Verführung verloren hatte, in ihrer Weiterentwickelung eigentlich erst der rechte Sinn gegeben. Das Ereignis von Golgatha hat sich abgespielt. Sehernaturen, die aber zum größten Teil Sehernaturen im alten Stile waren, haben als Evangelisten dieses Ereignis aufgezeichnet. Paulus, dem auf eine andere Art die Sehernatur aufgegangen ist — wir haben auch das charakterisiert —, Paulus, der durch dasjenige, was man das Ereignis von Damaskus nennt, geistig den Christus geschaut hat, den er so lange geleugnet hatte, als er nur auf dem physischen Plan von ihm hörte, er hat das Mysterium von Golgatha aufgezeichnet. Aus diesen Aufzeichnungen heraus haben eine Anzahl von Menschen die Verbindung ihrer Seele mit diesem Christus-Ereignis gefunden. Durch diese Verbindung mit dem Christus-Ereignis bei einzelnen Menschen breitete sich das Christentum aus. Zuerst war es unterirdisch vorhanden, so daß wirklich das Bild immer wieder vor unsere Seele treten kann: Im alten Rom, unten unter der Erde, halten Christen, diejenigen, die schon das Mysterium von Golgatha mit der Seele begriffen haben, ihren Gottesdienst ab. Droben geht dasjenige vor, was auf der Höhe der Zeit steht, was der eigentliche Inhalt der Zeitkultur ist. Einige Jahrhunderte vergehen. Dasjenige, was unten in den Katakomben vor sich gegangen ist, verborgen, verachtet, das erfülit die Welt. Und dasjenige, was Zeitinhalt war, die alte römische Geisteskultur, verschwindet. Das Christentum breitet sich aus. Aber die Zeit ist heute herangekommen, wo die Menschen angefangen haben zu denken, wo sie gescheit geworden sind, wo sie autoritätsfrei geworden sind. Denker sind aufgetreten, die die Evangelien geprüft haben: ehrliche Denker, gescheite Denker. «Ehrenwerte Männer» sind sie alle. Sie sind dahintergekommen, daß} keine historischen Zeugnisse in den Evangelien vorliegen. Sie haben diese Evangelien durch Jahrzehnte hindurch mit ernster kritischer Arbeit durchstudiert. Sie sind darauf gekommen, daß in den Evangelien keine wirklichen geschichtlichen Zeugnisse vorliegen, daß der Christus Jesus jemals gelebt hat. Nichts ist einzuwenden gegen die kritische Arbeit. Fleißig ist sie. Wer sie kennt, weiß von ihrem Fleiße; wer sie kennt, weiß von ihrer Gescheitheit. Man hat keinen Grund, sie leichten Herzens zu verachten, diese kritische Weisheit. Aber was liegt denn eigentlich in Wirklichkeit vor? Das liegt vor, daß} die Menschen gar nicht sehen, worauf es im Grunde ankommt. So bequem hat es der Christus Jesus den Menschen nicht machen wollen, daß hinterher Historiker auftreten können, die so bequem das Dasein des Christus auf der Erde nachweisen können, wie das Dasein Friedrichs des Großen nachzuweisen ist. So bequem hat es der Christus den Menschen nicht machen wollen — auch nicht machen sollen. So wahr es ist, daß diese kritische Arbeit über die Evangelien gescheit und fleißig ist, so wahr ist es auch, daß eben auf diese Weise gar nicht das Dasein des Christus bewiesen werden soll, denn das wäre ein materialistischer Beweis. Bei allem, was man auf äußere Weise beweist, ist Ahriman mit im Spiel. Aber Ahriman soll nie bei dem Christus-Beweise im Spiele sein, daher gibt es keine historischen Beweise. Daher wird die Menschheit erkennen müssen: Der Christus muß, trotzdem er auf der Erde gelebt hat, durch inneres Erkennen gefunden werden, nicht durch historische Urkunden. Das Christus-Ereignis muß an den Menschen kommen auf geistige Weise, da darf sich nichts von materialistischem Wahrheitsforschen hineinmischen. Es darf sich nichts Materialistisches hineinmischen.

Das wichtigste Ereignis für die Erdenentwickelung wird niemals auf materialistische Weise bewiesen werden können, gleichsam weil durch die Weltgeschichte den Menschen gesagt werden soll: Eure materialistischen Beweise, dasjenige, was ihr überhaupt in dem materialistischen Zeitalter noch als Beweise gelten lassen wollt, das gilt nur für dasjenige, was im Felde der Materie vorhanden ist. Für das Geistige sollt und dürft ihr keine materialistischen Beweise haben. Da dürfen sogar diejenigen recht haben, die auch die historischen Urkunden zerfasern. Gerade mit Bezug auf das Christus-Ereignis muß in unserem Zeitalter verstanden werden, daß man zu dem Christus nur hinkommen kann auf geistige Art. Niemals wird man ihn in Wirklichkeit auf äußere Art finden. Man kann es sich sagen lassen, daß er existiert, aber wirklich finden kann man den Christus nur auf geistige Art. Das ist wichtig zu bedenken, daß in dem Christus-Ereignis ein Ereignis da ist, über das alle diejenigen im Mißverständnis leben müssen, die keine geistige Erkenntnis zulassen wollen.

Es ist merkwürdig: Wenn man das ausspricht, was ich jetzt ausgesprochen habe, daß der Christus auf geistige Weise erkannt werden kann - auch dasjenige, was historisch ist, auf geistige Weise erkannt werden kann -, dann zerbrechen sich gewisse Leute darüber den Kopf, daß das ja eigentlich gar nicht möglich sei, und wenn es einer sage, so könne es nicht wahr sein! - Ich habe das wiederholt ausgesprochen. Nun, unsere verehrten anthroposophischen Mitglieder sind noch so, daß sie da oder dort an ungehörigem Orte manches durchsickern lassen, weil sie das noch immer nicht im Herzen tragen und nicht in die rechte Gesinnung gießen, was sie im Herzen haben. Da drang es zu einem Manne durch, an den es in einer besonderen Form herangebracht wurde, ich hätte einmal gesagt — es ist dies zwar eine persönliche Bemerkung, aber vielleicht darf ja einmal eine persönliche Bemerkung gemacht werden -: Persönlich sei ich gar nicht von der Bibel ausgegangen mit Bezug auf meine Jugendentwickelung, sondern ich sei von der Naturwissenschaft ausgegangen, und ich betrachte es als von besonderer Wichtigkeit, daß ich diesen Geistesgang genommen habe und eigentlich von der inneren Wahrheit desjenigen, was in der Bibel steht, überzeugt war, bevor ich sie gelesen hatte; daß ich klar war darüber, als ich dann äußerlich die Bibel gelesen habe, daß ich also in mir die Probe gemacht habe, daß man auf geistige Weise den Inhalt der Bibel finden könne, bevor man ihn nachträglich auf äußerliche Weise findet.

Es hat dies persönlichen Charakter, aber es kann zur Illustration dienen. Nun, das kam in ungeziemender Weise an einen Mann heran, der nicht verstehen kann, daß es so etwas gibt, denn er ist, verzeihen Sie, Theologe. Er konnte das nicht verstehen. Da wollte er in einem Vortrage seinen Zuhörern die Sache klarmachen, und er tat es auf folgende Weise: Er las in einem Buch, daß ich einmal Ministrantendienste geleistet habe. Ministranten, das sind also Meßknaben, Knaben, die bei der Messe Handreichungen machen. Da sagte er sich: Wer das getan hat, der kann ja unmöglich gar nicht die Bibel kennengelernt haben. Steiner übersieht eben, daß er da ja genau die Bibel kennengelernt hat. Später kamen ihm diese Sachen dann nur von dem Bibelkennen her. - Ja, diese Sache hat aber Häkchen, man kann sagen Haken. Erstens ist die ganze Geschichte nicht wahr, aber das geniert ja heute die Leute nicht, etwas als tatsächlich zu behaupten, was nicht wahr ist. Zweitens lernt man ja als Ministrant bei der Messe niemals die Bibel, sondern das Meßbuch; das hat nichts zu tun mit der Bibel. Aber das Wichtige ist, daß man eben berücksichtigt: Dieser Mann kann sich gar nicht vorstellen, daß es ein geistiges Verhältnis gibt. Er kann sich nur vorstellen, daß man mit den Buchstaben, und häangend an Buchstaben, zu dem Geistigen hinkommt. Es ist sehr wichtig, daß wir solche Dinge wissen, aber praktisch wissen. Denn nicht eher wird unsere geistige Bewegung gedeihen können, bis wir wirklich, nicht bloß äußerlich, sondern bis ins Innerste unseres seelischen Markes hinein, den Mut finden, für all das einzutreten, was mit dem ganzen Sinne und der Bedeutung unserer Weltanschauung zusammenhängt. Und man kann sagen, mit Bezug auf dieses Verbundensein mit der geistigen Welt ist wirklich ein Tiefstand eingetreten, gerade in unserem Zeitalter. Am wenigsten fühlen sich heute gerade diejenigen Menschen, die sich für die aufgeklärtesten halten, mit der geistigen Welt verbunden. Das soll nicht als Vorwurf oder als Kritik gesagt werden, sondern das soll als Tatsache verzeichnet sein. Daher wird es ganz besonders in unserer Zeit auch wichtig sein, ein inneres Verständnis für solche bedeutsamen Weltsymbole zu beleben, wie sie uns entgegentreten in alledem — es sind ja reale Symbole, keine bloßen Symbole -, was zum Beispiel das Weihnachtsmysterium umgibt. Denn dieses Weihnachtsmysterium, das kann tief, tief sich verbinden mit der menschlichen Natur, ohne daß es sich durch den Buchstaben, durch das Lernen verbindet. Da müssen wir allerdings dann das Weihnachtsmysterium in jeder Lebenslage lebendig machen können, insbesondere in unserer eigenen Seele lebendig machen können.

Wir schauen hin, indem wir das Weihnachtsmysterium vor unserer Seele erwecken, und sagen uns: Es erinnert uns die Weihenacht an das Herabsteigen des Christus Jesus auf den Erdenplan, an die Wiedergeburt desjenigen in dem Menschen, was verlorengegangen ist durch die luziferische Versuchung. Diese Wiedergeburt geschieht in verschiedenen Stufen. Eine Stufe davon ist diejenige, innerhalb der wir stehen. Wiedergeboren soll werden dasjenige, was zur Weiterentwickelung verlorengehen mußte, wiedergeboren soll werden das Sich-Vereinigefühlen des menschlichen Herzens mit der geistigen Welt; es soll geboren werden der Christus in uns — das ist nur ein anderes Wort dafür. Gerade das, was wir wollen, was wir immer anstreben, das hängt innig zusammen mit diesem Weihnachtsmysterium. Und wir sollen schon dieses Weihnachtsmysterium nicht bloß so ansehen, daß wir an einem oder an zwei Tagen des Jahres unseren Weihnachtsbaum aufstellen und ihn anschauen und da allerlei Erbauliches in uns aufnehmen, sondern wir sollen es sehen, wie es wirklich durch unser ganzes Dasein hindurch uns erscheinen kann in allem, was uns umgibt.

Wie ein Symbolum möchte ich zum Schlusse etwas hinstellen, was ein bedeutender, lang verstorbener Dichter gerade aus Empfindungen von Weihnachten heraus geschrieben hat.

«Unsere Kirche feiert verschiedene Feste, welche zum Herzen dringen. Man kann sich kaum etwas Lieblicheres denken als Pfingsten und kaum etwas Ernsteres und Heiligeres als Ostern. Das Traurige und Schwermütige der Karwoche und darauf das Feierliche des Sonntags begleiten uns durch das Leben. Eines der schönsten Feste feiert die Kirche fast mitten im Winter, wo beinahe die längsten Nächte und kürzesten Tage sind, wo die Sonne am schiefsten gegen unsere Gefilde steht, und Schnee alle Fluren deckt, das Fest der Weihnacht. Wie in vielen Ländern der Tag vor dem Geburtsfeste des Herrn der Christabend heißt, so heißt er bei uns der Heilige Abend, der darauf folgende Tag der Heilige Tag und die dazwischen liegende Nacht die Weihnacht. Die katholische Kirche begeht den Christtag als den Tag der Geburt des Heilandes mit ihrer allergrößten kirchlichen Feier, in den meisten Gegenden wird schon die Mitternachtsstunde als die Geburtsstunde des Herrn mit prangender Nachtfeier geheiligt, zu der die Glocken durch die stille, finstere, winterliche Mitternachtluft laden, zu der die Bewohner mit Lichtern oder auf dunkeln, wohlbekannten Pfaden aus schneeigen Bergen an bereiften Wäldern vorbei und durch knarrende Obstgärten zu der Kirche eilen, aus der die feierlichen Töne kommen und die aus der Mitte des in beeiste Bäume gehüllten Dorfes mit den langen, beleuchteten Fenstern emporragt.»

Was das Christfest für die Kinder ist, beschreibt er weiter. Dann beschreibt er, wie in einem abgelegenen alten Dorfe ein Schuster lebt, der sich eine Frau holt aus dem benachbarten Dorfe, nicht aus dem eigenen Dorfe, wie die Kinder dieses Schusterpaares Weihnachten kennenlernen, eben wie Kinder es kennenlernen: eigentlich nur dadurch, daß man ihnen sagt, der Heilige Christ hat ihnen diese oder jene Geschenke gebracht. Und wenn sie genügend müde sind von den Geschenken, so legen sie sich an diesem Tage besonders ermüdet zu Bett und hören dann nicht die Mitternachtsglocke. Die Kinder haben also noch nicht die Mitternachtsglocken gehört.

Die Kinder besuchen öfters das Nachbardorf. Als sie so weit herangewachsen sind, daß sie alleine gehen können, besuchen sie die Großmutter im Nachbardorf. Die Großmutter hat die Kinder ganz besonders gern, wie es ja öfter vorkommt, daß die Großeltern die Kinder noch lieber haben als Vater und Mutter. Daher sieht die Großmutter die Kinder sehr gerne bei sich gerade da, als sie schon zu schwach ist, auszugehen. An einem Weihnachtsabend, der sich als schöner Weihnachtsabend ankündet, werden die Kinder zur Großmutter geschickt. Die Kinder gehen hinüber am Vormittag, nachmittags sollten sie zurückkehren, wie das ja auf dem Lande möglich ist, von Dorf zu Dorf, um dann eben am Abend zu Hause den Christbaum zu finden. Aber der Tag läßt sich anders an, als er veranlagt war. Die Kinder kommen in einen furchtbaren Schneesturm hinein. Sie irren über die Berge. Sie kommen vom Wege ab, kommen in eine ganz unwegsame Gegend, in einen furchtbaren Schneesturm.

Es wird sehr schön beschrieben, was da die Kinder durchmachen; wie sie ein Naturgeschehnis vor sich haben in der Nacht. Es wird wünschenswert sein, daß ich Ihnen diese Stelle vorlese, denn man kann sie nicht so schön nacherzählen, wie sie da geschildert wird; es kommt eigentlich auf jedes Wort an. Die Kinder sind gerade auf eine Eisfläche gekommen. Im Gletscher sind sie drinnen. Sie hören hinter sich das Krachen der Gletscher in der Nacht. Sie können sich denken, was das fur einen Eindruck auf die Kinder macht. - Da fließt die Erzählung weiter:

«Auch für die Augen begann sich etwas zu entwickeln. Wie die Kinder so saßen, erblühte am Himmel vor ihnen ein bleiches Licht mitten unter den Sternen und spannte einen schwachen Bogen durch dieselben. Es hatte einen grünlichen Schimmer, der sich sachte nach unten zog. Aber der Bogen wurde immer heller und heller, bis sich die Sterne vor ihm zuruckzogen und erblaßten. Auch in andere Gegenden des Himmels sandte er einen Schein, der schimmergrün, sachte und lebendig unter die Sterne floß. Dann standen Garben verschiedenen Lichtes auf der Höhe des Bogens wie Zacken einer Krone und brannten. Es floß helle durch die benachbarten Himmelsgegenden, es sprühte leise und ging in sanften Zucken durch lange Räume. Hatte sich nun der Gewitterstoff des Himmels durch den unerhörten Schneefall so gespannt, daß er in diesen stummen, herrlichen Strömen des Lichtes ausfloß, oder war es eine andere Ursache der unergründlichen Natur: nach und nach wurde er schwächer und immer schwächer, die Garben erloschen zuerst, bis es allmählich und unmerklich immer geringer wurde, und wieder nichts am Himmel war als die tausend und tausend einfachen Sterne.»

Die Kinder saßen so die Nacht durch. Sie hörten nichts von einem Glockenklange von unten. Sie haben nur Schnee und Eis um sich, und die Sterne und die nächtliche Erscheinung über sich, im Gebirge, von der sie bis dahin nichts gehört hatten. — Die Nacht vergeht. Man war besorgt um die Kinder. Das ganze Dorf wurde ausgeschickt, die Kinder zu suchen. Man fand die Kinder und brachte sie nach Hause. Ich will alles übrige übergehen, will nur sagen, daß die Kinder fast erstarrt waren vor Kälte, daß sie ins Bett gebracht wurden, und es wurde ihnen gesagt, daß sie ihre Weihnachtsgeschenke bekommen würden. Die Mutter ging zu den Kindern hinein. Das wird so erzählt:

«Die Kinder waren von dem Getriebe betäubt. Sie hatten noch etwas zu essen bekommen, und man hatte sie in das Bett gebracht. Spät gegen Abend, da sie sich ein wenig erholt hatten, da einige Nachbarn und Freunde sich in der Stube eingefunden hatten und dort von dem Ereignisse redeten, die Mutter aber in der Kammer an dem Bettchen Sannas saß und sie streichelte, sagte das Mädchen: «Mutter, ich hab’ heute nachts, als wir auf dem Berge saßen, den heiligen Christ gesehen.»

Es ist eine wunderschöne Darstellung. Die Kinder waren aufgewachsen ohne irgendeine Belehrung über das Weihnachtsfest; sie mußten die Weihenacht gerade in einer so furchtbaren Situation zubringen, oben auf den Bergen, in Schnee und Eis, nur die Sterne über sich, und diese Naturerscheinung. Sie werden aufgefunden, nach Haus gebracht, und das Mädchen sagt: «Mutter, ich habe heute nacht den heiligen Christ gesehen!» — Gesehen! Gesehen! Sie hat ihn gesehen! - so sagt sie.

Es ist schon ein tiefer Sinn darin, wenn gesagt wird — was wir ja auch im Zusammenhang unserer Geisteswissenschaft schon oft betont haben -, daß wir den Christus nicht nur da finden können, wo wir ihn finden in der Entwickelung der Erdenzeit, historisch hineingestellt im Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung, da wo der Kultus ihn uns zeigt, sondern daß wir ihn finden können überall, gerade wenn wir in den ernstesten Augenblicken des Lebens der Welt gegenübergestellt sind! Wir können den Christus schon finden. Und auch wir, ich möchte sagen, wir Geistesschüler können ihn finden, wenn wir nur genügend davon überzeugt sind, daß ja all unser Streben darauf hingehen muß, daß ein Geistiges wieder in der Menschheitsentwikkelung geboren werde und daß dieses Geistige, das da durch besondere Betätigung der menschlichen Seelen und Herzen geboren werden muß, daß das auf Grundlage desjenigen geschehe, was der Erdenentwickelung geboren ist dadurch, daß das Mysterium von Golgatha sich vollzogen hat. Das ist etwas, was wir aufnehmen wollen in dieser Zeit. Können Sie, meine lieben Freunde, in den Tagen, von denen wir heute gesprochen haben und die jetzt nahen, ein richtiges inneres Gefühl finden von dem Werden und Weben des äußeren Erdendaseins, in seiner Ähnlichkeit mit dem Schlafen und Wachen des Menschen, können Sie ein tieferes Miterfühlen des äußeren Geschehens erleben, dann werden Sie immer mehr und mehr die Wahrheit des Wortes empfinden: «Der Christus ist da» Wie er selbst gesagt hat: «Ich bleibe bei euch, bis an das Ende der Erdenzeiten!»

Und er ist immer zu finden, wenn man ihn nur sucht. Das soll der Gedanke sein, der uns stärkt, der uns kräftigt gerade an dem in unserem Sinne gehaltenen Weihnachtsfest. Nehmen wir ihn auf, diesen Gedanken, und versuchen wir, mit diesem Gedanken dasjenige zu finden, was wir ja als den eigentlichen Gehalt, die eigentliche Tiefe unseres geisteswissenschaftlichen Strebens ansehen müssen. Verwenden wir damit unsere Zeit, gerade eine so gestärkte Seele dazu, um uns im richtigen Sinne zu dieser Zeit zu stellen, wie wir es jetzt wiederum machen wollen, indem wir von der allgemeinen Betrachtung, die wir über die geistige Welt angestellt haben, mit dem Gefühl, das uns aus dieser Betrachtung werden kann, unsere Seele stärkend, nun hinblicken zu den Geistern derjenigen, die auf den großen Feldern der Ereignisse stehen:

Geister Eurer Seelen, wirkende Wächter,
Eure Schwingen mögen bringen
Unserer Seelen bittende Liebe,
Eurer Hut vertrauten Erdenmenschen,
Daß, mit Eurer Macht geeint,
Unsere Bitte helfend strahle,
Den Seelen, die sie liebend sucht.

Und für diejenigen, die schon durch die Pforte des Todes gegangen sind:

Geister Eurer Seelen, wirkende Wächter,
Eure Schwingen mögen bringen
Unserer Seelen bittende Liebe,
Eurer Hut vertrauten Sphärenmenschen,
Daß, mit Eurer Macht geeint,
Unsere Bitte helfend strahle,
Den Seelen, die sie liebend sucht.

Und der Geist, an den wir uns gerade erinnern wollten in diesen Tagen, der Geist, dessen Wesen wir in unser eigenes Wesen in Demut und Hingebung aufnehmen wollen, der Geist, von dem uns veranschaulicht wird, wie er sich für sein Erdendasein bestimmt hat durch das Weihnachts-Weihefest, der Geist, der dann durch das Mysterium von Golgatha gegangen ist, der sei mit Euch und Euren schweren Pflichten.

Seventh Lecture

Today we want to begin by reciting a Nordic poem that we already presented some time ago in this branch. The entire content of this poem is connected with Christmas and the time following it. The poem is about the legendary Olaf Åsteson and tells how Olaf Åsteson, a legendary figure, spent the thirteen days following Christmas and ending with the Epiphany in a very special way. It reminds us of how the belief in primitive clairvoyance that existed in early humanity lives on in folk legends. The content is essentially that Olaf Åsteson comes to the church door on Christmas night, falls into a kind of sleep-like state, and then, during the so-called thirteen nights, experiences the secrets of the spiritual world in his own way, as he is able to experience them as a simple, primitive child of nature.

We know that during these days, when the utmost physical darkness reigns on Earth, when the slightest sprouting and budding of vegetation takes place, when everything in the physical existence of the Earth is, so to speak, at a standstill, the Earth's soul awakens, because it is precisely then that it is in its full state of wakefulness as the Earth's soul. When the human soul now flows together in its spiritual core with what the spirit of the earth is experiencing, then the human soul, if it still has the primitive states of nature within itself, can open up to a vision of the spiritual world, which humanity will gradually have to regain through its striving into this spiritual world. And so we see how this Olaf Åsteson basically experiences what we in turn extract from the spiritual world. For whether we call this Brooksvalin, Kamaloka, or the soul world and spiritual world, whether we use other images than those used in the legend of Olaf Åsteson, does not matter. What matters is that we understand that humanity began its soul development from a primitive clairvoyance, from a connection with the spiritual world, but that this had to be lost so that humanity could acquire the thinking, the conscious standing within the world, through which it must pass, but from which it must now develop a higher view of the spiritual world. I would say that it is the same spiritual world that has left primitive clairvoyance, into which developed vision is now living itself back into. But human beings have gone through a state in which they live themselves into this spiritual world in a different way.

Now it is important to develop a feeling that the transformation of the earth's condition in the course of the year is really connected with an inner spiritual-soul becoming of the spiritual-soul being that is connected with the earth in the same way as the human soul is connected with the physical being of the human being. And anyone who thinks of the earth as what geologists claim it to be, as what the other natural sciences, with their materialistic outlook, would like to present it as today, knows as much about the earth as any human being knows about another human being when given a papier-mâché model of that person without it being filled with what the soul pours into the outer nature of the human being. What external natural science gives us about the earth is really only a papier-mache impression. And anyone who is not aware that there is a spiritual difference between the winter and summer states of the earth is like someone who does not see a difference between waking and sleeping. The great beings of nature in which we live undergo spiritual states of transformation just as man himself, who is a microcosmic imprint of the great macrocosm. And this is also the basis for the fact that experiencing, including spiritual experience, with nature really does have a certain meaning. And those who can bring themselves to realize that something is happening with the Earth's soul during these thirteen nights that can be experienced will have one of the paths through which they can live themselves more and more into the spiritual worlds.

The feeling for this sharing in what is experienced in the great world existence has been lost to humanity today. People know little more about the difference between winter and summer than that one has to light the lamp earlier in winter than in summer, that it is cold in winter and warm in summer. In earlier times, people really did have a sense of sharing in nature, which was expressed in their stories, albeit in a figurative way, about beings that roamed the land while the snowflakes fell and wandered through the countryside while the storm raged. In its deepest sense, this is no longer understood by today's materialistic human mind. In the deepest sense, however, people can grow together with this again if they turn their gaze to what old legends still tell us, especially legends as profound as the legend of Olaf Åsteson, which so beautifully illustrates how a simple, primitive person grows into the bright light of spiritual perception through physical unconsciousness. Let us now allow this legend to enter our souls, a legend that lived in earlier centuries, that was lost and has been recorded again from the memories of the people. It is one of the most beautiful legends of the North because it speaks in a wonderful way of deep world secrets, insofar as they are world secrets through which the human soul is connected with the world soul.

(This was followed by the recitation of “The Dream Song of Olaf Åsteson,” see page 173).

Since we are still together today, my dear friends, we may perhaps discuss a few things that may be useful to one or the other of you when you look back on what we have learned in the course of the years through spiritual science.

We know, as has also been emphasized in recent public lectures, that underlying what is visible to the outer senses as the outer human being is a spiritual core of the human being, which is composed, so to speak, of two members. We have come to know one part as that which appears before the spiritual eye when this spiritual eye experiences what is commonly referred to as “stepping before the gates of death”; the other part of the inner life appears before the human soul when the human being becomes aware that there is an inner observer present in all his experiences of will, an observer who is always present. So we can say that human thinking, when we deepen it through meditation, shows that within the human being, within his actual spiritual core, there is always something that, in relation to the outer physical body, contributes to the destruction of the human organism, to that destruction that ultimately ends in death. We know from these considerations that the real power of thinking does not lie in something constructive, but in something that is, in a sense, destructive. Because we are able to die, because we develop our organism in the course of life between birth and death in such a way that it can dissolve, can distribute itself into the elements of the world, we are able to create the organ through which we develop the noblest flower of physical human existence, thinking. But within human life, this life between birth and death, there is something like a seed of life for the future, a seed of life that is particularly suited to passing through the gate of death, something that develops in the stream of the will and can be observed as the characterized spectator.

As has been said, it must be repeated again and again that what spiritual vision brings before the human soul is not something that develops only through spiritual vision, but something that is always present, always there, and which human beings, especially in our present age, are not supposed to see; one may even say: are not allowed to see. For the development of spiritual life has progressed so far, especially in recent decades, that those who surrender themselves completely to what is called “spiritual life” in our materialistic age spread a veil over what lives within the human being. The concepts and ideas that are most highly developed in our present age are those that most strongly conceal what is spiritually present in human beings. In order to strengthen ourselves in the right way for our special task, insofar as we stand in spiritual science, we may, especially at this significant time of year, point to the particularly dark side of today's spiritual life, which must also exist, just as darkness must exist in the outer nature, but which must be perceived, whose existence must be brought to consciousness. We are, in a sense, living through a dark cultural period in terms of spiritual life. We do not necessarily have to point this out again and again, since we do appreciate the great achievements of which humanity in this dark age is so proud; but in terms of spiritual matters, the fact remains that the concepts and ideas created in our time , especially for those who most eagerly embrace them, conceal most of what lives in the human soul. And so the following may also be mentioned:

Our age is particularly proud of its clear thinking, which it claims to have acquired through significant scientific training. Our age is particularly proud, I say. However, not so proud that this would result in all people now wanting to think a great deal. No, that is not the result, but rather the result is that people say: Well, in our age, you have to think a lot if you want to know anything about the spiritual world. However, it is difficult to think about it yourself. But theologians do that, they think about it! So, since our age is a very advanced one, which is indeed superior to the dark age of belief in authority, we must listen to those who are able to think about spiritual matters, to the theologians. And our age is advanced in terms of legal concepts, the concepts of what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Our age is the age of thinking. But the fact that this idea has gone so far beyond belief in authority has not led everyone to want to submit to thinking more deeply about right and wrong; instead, it is the lawyers who think about it. And because we have already moved beyond the age of belief in authority, it must be left to enlightened lawyers to think about what is good and evil, what is right and wrong. And with regard to physical conditions, to physical healing: because we do not know what might be beneficial or harmful in this age that wants to be so free from belief in authority, we go to the doctors. This could be applied to all areas. Our age does not have many predispositions to despair like Faust, for example:

Now, alas! I have philosophy,
jurisprudence and medicine,
and, unfortunately, theology!
I have studied them all with ardent effort.

Here I stand, poor fool! And I am as wise as before...

The only thing that follows from this is that it actually wants to know nothing of what led Faust astray, but all the more of what others know clearly in the most diverse fields where one wants to decide on the welfare and misfortune of human beings.

Our age is so immensely proud of our thinking, so proud that those who have brought it to this point, let's say, have even read something philosophical in their lives—well, I won't go so far as to say that they have read Kant, but perhaps some excerpt from Kant—are clear that anyone who asserts anything in the spirit of the humanities about the spiritual worlds is sinning against the irrevocably established principles of Kantianism. It is often said that the entire nineteenth century worked to develop this human thinking, to examine this human thinking critically. And today, many who have heard only a little about these things call themselves “critical thinkers.” For example, there are people today who say that human beings have limits to their knowledge because they perceive the external world through their senses; but the senses can only give us what they produce within themselves, so human beings perceive the world as it affects their senses and therefore cannot get behind the things of the world, because they can never transcend the limits of their senses: human beings can only obtain images of reality! And many say, precisely from the depths of their philosophy, that the human soul has only images of the world and therefore can never come to the “thing in itself” in any way; that what we have through our senses, through our eyes, ears, and so on, can only be compared to mirror images. Certainly, if there is a mirror and it projects images, the image of a person, the image of a second person, and we look at the images, then we have a world of images. Now the philosophers come and say: just as a person who does not look directly at another person but at their reflection in a mirror has a world of images, just as they do not see the “thing in itself” of human beings but only images, so we actually have only images of the entire external world. When rays of light and color fall into our eyes and air waves into our ears: images, nothing but images! — The critical age has revealed that humans only create images in their souls and therefore can never see through the images to the “thing in itself.” In the nineteenth century, philosophers employed infinite acumen — I say this in all seriousness — to prove that humans only have images and cannot see the “thing in itself.” Where does this critical resignation actually come from, this insistence that revealing the pictorial nature of our perception leads to what are called “limits of knowledge”? It comes from the fact that in many respects the thinking of our time, in our enlightened age, has become a neglected thinking, a short-sighted thinking, a way of thinking that pedantically constructs a concept and cannot go beyond it, holding this concept up like a wooden puppet, and unable to find anything that this wooden puppet does not provide. It is almost unbelievable how much thinking in our time has hardened and become wooden.

I want to explain to you the whole story of this pictorial nature of our worldview and what so-called critical thinking, advanced thinking, has done, by comparing it with a mirror image. It is quite correct, in fact, what people assume, that the world, as it exists here in human consciousness, exists only because it makes an impression on us, creates images in our souls, and it is good that humanity has come to this realization through critical philosophy, through Kantianism. We can therefore say that the images we have of the external world are such that we can compare them with mirror images: we have a mirror, two people are standing in front of it, but we are not looking at the people, we are looking at the images. Thus, we have images of the world through what our soul creates as images of the world; we have images that we compare with two people whose mirror image we are looking at. But only someone who had never seen people, only images, would be able to philosophize: “I know nothing about people, only dead mirror images.” But this is how critical philosophers conclude. They remain stuck there. They would immediately find themselves contradicted if they could advance a little further from their jumping jack of thought, from dead thinking to living thinking. For if I stand in front of the mirror and there are two people standing in the mirror, and I see that one person is giving the other a good slap in the face, so that the other is even bleeding, then I would be a fool to say: One reflection has hit the other. — I no longer see just the reflection, but through the image I see real events. I have nothing but the image, but I see a highly real process through the mirror image. And I would be a fool to believe that this only happened in the mirror image. This means that critical philosophy grasps one thought: we are dealing with images — but it no longer grasps the other thought, that these images express something, that something lives within them. And when one grasps these images in a living way, then there is more than the images; then they point to what the “thing in itself” is, what the real external world is.

Can one still say that people who espouse such a “critical” philosophy are capable of thinking? Thinking, to a certain high degree, has fallen into disrepair in our time. It is truly neglected. But we have stopped at the criticism of thinking. I have often mentioned that this criticism, this critical philosophy, has even advanced in our culture and that a man in honest pursuit—they are all “honorable men,” the pursuit is entirely honest—has arrived at a “critique of language”: Fritz Mauthner has written a “critique of language,” three thick volumes, and a philosophical dictionary from this point of view, which has two even thicker volumes. And a whole journalistic herd follows in the footsteps of the journalist Fritz Mauthner and naturally considers this to be a great work. And in our time, when belief in authority has “no meaning,” very many who stand on precisely that party platform—like the newspapers for which Fritz Mauthner was a journalist—consider this to be an important work; for “there is no belief in authority today.”

Now, you see, Mauthner goes on to explain that humans form nouns and adjectives, but that they all mean nothing real. In the external world, we do not experience what words mean. We live ourselves so deeply into words that we do not actually have thoughts and images in our minds, but only words, words, words. — Man finds himself in language, language provides the vocabulary. And because he is accustomed to adhering to language, man only arrives at the signs of things that are given in words. — This is supposed to be something very significant. And if you read through Mauthner's three volumes — if you have done something that your soul reproaches you for, my dear friends, then it will be a good punishment for you to condemn yourselves to reading at least half of these volumes—then you will find that their author is convinced to the highest degree—yes, one cannot express it otherwise—that he is smarter than the smartest other people of the age. Of course, the person who is sitting at his desk writing his book is always smarter than the others!

So Fritz Mauthner has finally figured out that humans only ever have signs. He has even gone further. Look, he has come to say the following: Humans have eyes, ears, a sense of feeling—well, humans have a number of senses. Yes, but human beings could, for example, according to Fritz Mauthner, have not only eyes and ears and a sense of feeling and a sense of smell, but also completely different senses. They could, for example, have a sense other than sight. Then, just as they perceive images through their eyes, they would perceive the world quite differently with their other senses. So there would be many things that do not exist for humans today. And now the critical thinker even feels a little mystically inspired and says: The immeasurable richness of the world is therefore only given to us through our senses. And he calls these senses “random senses” because he believes it is a historical coincidence that we have precisely these senses. If we had other senses, the world would look different. So it is best to say that we have random senses. In other words, a random world! But the world is immeasurable. — It sounds nice! One of those who follow Fritz Mauthner has written a brochure entitled “Skepticism and Mysticism.” This pamphlet draws particular attention to how one can become a mystic from the depths of one's soul if one no longer believes in what the random senses can provide. We find a beautiful sentence on page 12 of the book, which says:

“The world flows toward us, and with the few poor holes of our random senses we take in what we can grasp and stick it to our old stock of words, since we have nothing else with which to hold it. But the world continues to flow, and our language continues to flow, only not in the same direction, but according to the accidents of linguistic history, for which no laws can be established."

That's a worldview too! What does it want? It says: The world is immeasurable, but we have a certain number of random senses, and that's where the world flows in. What do we do with what flows in? What do we do with it, according to this gentleman's random talk? We remember what these gentlemen call memory, we attach it, we stick it to the words we have received through language, and language in turn continues to flow. So we talk about what has flowed into us through the random senses from the immeasurable existence of the world in the signs of words. — What astute thinking! I say this again in all seriousness, my dear friends: it is astute thinking. In our time, one must be a clever person to think such a thing. And one can say of these people that they are not only honest people—they are all honorable—but that they are also significant thinkers. But they are entangled in the thinking that is the thinking of our age, and they have no will to break out of this thinking.

I have given myself a kind of “Christmas sorrow” — one cannot say joy, it has become a Christmas sorrow — by having to look at some of these things again out of this context, and I have written down a thought that is shaped exactly according to the pattern of the thinker who described what I have just read aloud. Let us look at it again:

"The world rushes toward us, and with the few poor holes of our random senses we take in what we can grasp and stick it to our old stock of words, since we have nothing else with which to hold it. But the world continues to flow, and our language continues to flow, only not in the same direction, but according to the vagaries of linguistic history, for which no laws can be established."

I applied the idea to another subject, exactly the same idea, the same thought form; the result is as follows: “Goethe's genius flows onto the paper, and with the few poor forms of his random letters, the paper absorbs what it can grasp and allows itself to be printed with what it can absorb according to the old stock of letters, since there is nothing else with which anything can be printed on it. But Goethe's genius also flows further, the written expression on the paper also flows further, only not in the same direction, but according to the randomness in which letters can be grouped, for which no laws can be established.” — It is exactly the same thought, I have paid close attention to every word, it is the same thought! If someone claims: The immeasurable world flows toward us, we take it in with the few random senses we have, stick it to our vocabulary; the world continues to flow, language flows in a different direction, according to the coincidences of linguistic history, and thus human knowledge flows away—that is exactly the same idea as when someone says: Goethe's genius flows through the 23 random letters because that is the only way the paper can record it; but Goethe's genius is never in there, it is immeasurable! The random letters cannot record it, they flow on. What is there on the paper also flows on and now groups itself according to the formations in which the letters can group themselves and whose laws cannot be recognized. If the very clever gentlemen now conclude from such premises: So what we get in the world is just the result of random senses, and one cannot arrive at what actually lies at the heart of the world, then that is exactly like someone thinking about how a human being can ever take in what actually lived in Goethe's genius. For it is clear that there is nothing of this genius except the grouping of 23 random letters; there is nothing else! These gentlemen have exactly the same idea, they just don't realize it. And as much as it is worth when someone says: Nothing, nothing, nothing can a human being ever know about Goethe's genius, because don't you see that nothing of it can flow to you? You can have nothing else than what the various groupings of 23 random characters give you – that is as much sense as the talk these gentlemen engage in about the possibility or impossibility of knowing the world. This whole way of thinking makes just as much sense—not the thinking of fools, but the thinking of those who are truly the clever people of today, who simply do not want to step outside the thinking of our age.

But there is really another side to the matter. We must be clear about this: this thinking that confronts us in such an example, where it establishes the limits of knowledge, this thinking is our thinking in the present age. This thinking prevails today, it lives everywhere. And whether you read this or that philosophical book that seems so profound, that often wants to solve — or conceal — the great mysteries of the world, or whether you read the newspaper, this thinking reigns everywhere. The way of thinking rules. It also rules the world. People today sip it with their morning coffee—not today, of course, because opinions are not allowed in the newspapers, but otherwise, when opinions are allowed in the newspapers. They sip it, and more and more daily newspapers are appearing that contain opinions. But this way of thinking also lives in the entire fabric of our social coexistence. I have tried to clarify this thinking in the philosophical development, but it could be clarified in the thoughts that people have about all possible living conditions: this thinking lives today in everything that people think about. And the fact that it lives is the reason why people cannot develop the will to truly feel what, for example, spiritual science wants to give. For it is not incomprehensible to a mind that is truly thinking. But of course, what spiritual science can offer must always remain incomprehensible to people who are, let us say, constructed according to Fritz Mauthner's model. But the majority of people today are constructed according to this model. This way of thinking really lives completely within our contemporary science. This is not to say anything against the significance and great achievements of this science; but that is not what matters. What matters is how the soul lives in our time, in our entire culture. Our time completely lacks the ability to be flexible in its thinking, to truly follow what must be followed if these thoughts are to comprehend what spiritual science has to communicate.

Now we may ask ourselves: How is it possible that a book such as the one I have here before me could be written: “Skepticism and Mysticism” by Gustav Landauer, a book that is dripping with self-satisfaction. When you have read it, I would say that you yourself are dripping with the whole atmosphere of self-satisfaction that is in it, just as you are dripping when you have read Mauthner's “Sprachkritik” (Critique of Language) or articles from the “Philosophisches Wörterbuch” (Philosophical Dictionary). How does that happen? You do not find out how it happens by following the train of thought. I can imagine very intelligent people picking up a book like this, reading it through, and saying: This is a fundamentally intelligent person! They are right, and Mauthner is also an intelligent person. That is not the point, because intelligence is expressed by forming the concepts that one can form in a certain logical way, talking them apart, and then forming them again in some way. That's not what it's about. You can be very intelligent in this or that field, perfectly intelligent, but when you enter a life that is sustained by the consciousness of spiritual knowledge, then with every step you take, a certain relationship to the world develops in such a way that you feel: You must go on and on. Every day you must perfect your concepts. You must develop the belief that you can always progress with your concepts. With someone who has written such a book, one has the feeling that he is intelligent in this way: December 21, 1915. I am intelligent, and through my intelligence I have achieved something very specific. I am now writing this in a book. I am writing what I am now in a book, because I am intelligent on December 21, 1915! The book will then be finished and reflect my cleverness! — You never have this feeling when you are truly knowledgeable. Instead, you have the feeling of constant becoming, of a constant necessity to purify all concepts, to develop them further. And as a rule, you don't have the feeling: On December 21, 1915, I am intelligent; now I am writing a book that reflects my intelligence; it will be finished in months or years — but when you have written a book, you do not really look back on the intelligence you had when you started writing the book, but rather, through the book, you have gained the feeling: How little you have actually achieved and how necessary it is for you to develop further through what you have written down. This setting out on the path of knowledge, this constant inner work, is something that the materialistic age hardly knows anymore; it often thinks it knows it, but it no longer really knows it. And, you see, the deepest reason is the one that can be put into words: these people are so unbridled in their vanity. I said: such a book oozes, it actually oozes vanity. The book is clever, but tremendously vain. That self-modesty, that humility that results from such a path of knowledge, as just described, is completely absent here. It is not there at all when one unconditionally attributes cleverness to December 21, 1915. This humility cannot be there.

Now you will say: Yes, people would be stupid if they thought they were clever. — They do not do so with their conscious mind, but they do so in their subconscious. They simply never learn to distinguish between what is true in their subconscious and what they pretend to themselves in their conscious mind. And so it is the Luciferic nature of human beings that actually drives humanity today to want to be clever, to stand at a certain level of cleverness and from there to be able to see everything, to be able to judge everything. But if you carry this Lucifer within you, then, by looking at the outer world with this Lucifer, you are led to Ahriman and see this outer world as materialistic, which is quite natural for our age. Then, when you begin to look at the world with Lucifer in your body, you encounter Ahriman when you look at it. For the two seek each other in human interaction with this world. That is why such thinking, which is so fundamentally flawed, does not even allow us to consider the following: When I use a word, it is obvious that it is only a sign for what the word means. Mauthner made the grandiose discovery that there are no nouns. There are none! They are not reality, of course not! Isn't it true that we grasp certain phenomena that we think of as frozen for a moment and call them by a noun? Certainly, nouns are not reality; neither are adjectives. That goes without saying. That is all true. But when I combine a noun and an adjective, when I set language in motion, it expresses reality, realities. Then the image, within the nature of the image, in that it is an image, transcends itself. All individual words are not reality, but we do not speak in individual words; we speak in contexts of words. And in them we have an immediate presence within reality. Three volumes had to be written today, and a two-volume dictionary on top of that, in order to present all these things to people with thoughts of infinite cleverness, who simply overlook the fact that, because individual words are only signs, the connection is not merely something that designates, but is present within reality. Infinite wisdom, infinite cleverness is being employed today to “prove” the greatest follies, as they say.

That foolishness should finally manifest itself in a critique of language, even in a critique of thinking, would not be particularly bad. But the same thinking that manifests itself in this foolishness, in this very clever, very intelligent foolishness, lives in all other thinking that contemporary humanity has. And if we want to take up the task that lies within our spiritual movement, it is really necessary to become aware that those who want to be spiritual scientists come to see their age in the right way, to really take their place in their age in the right way. So that, I would say, it really belongs to the practical side of our spiritual scientific worldview that we try to go beyond the thinking that we have seen today, that we do not go along with this thinking, but that we try to take thinking in a different direction. We will find spiritual science child's play to understand, my dear friends, if we only remove the obstacles that have entered the spiritual cultural life of the present through rigid, petrified thinking. We should therefore thoroughly eliminate from our own souls all belief in authority that appears today under the mask of freedom from authority. This is part of the practical inner life of our spiritual science. And it will become increasingly necessary that there are at least a few individuals who truly understand the situation that I have characterized today, and not only understand it, but take it seriously at every step of their lives. That is what matters. There is no need to display this outwardly, but much will have been achieved once there are a number of people who, as follows from these discussions, know how to stand their ground in their respective positions in life.

We can see in a certain area how, I would say, categorically our age demands that we once again come to a revival of thinking. Let us briefly place before our souls something that we have often placed before them in detail: At the beginning of our calendar, the being we have often characterized, the Christ being, passed through the life of a human organism and united with the earth's aura. As a result, after the earth had lost its meaning through the Luciferic seduction, it was actually given the right meaning for its further development. The event of Golgotha took place. Seers, who were for the most part seers of the old style, recorded this event as evangelists. Paul, who had a different kind of visionary nature—we have also characterized this—Paul, who through what is called the Damascus experience spiritually saw the Christ whom he had denied for so long when he heard about him only on the physical plane, recorded the mystery of Golgotha. From these records, a number of people found the connection of their souls with this Christ event. Through this connection with the Christ event in individual people, Christianity spread. At first it existed underground, so that the image can really come before our soul again and again: in ancient Rome, down below the earth, Christians, those who have already understood the mystery of Golgotha with their souls, hold their worship services. Above, what is happening is what is at the height of the times, what is the actual content of the culture of the times. Several centuries pass. What had been happening down in the catacombs, hidden and despised, now filled the world. And what had been the content of the times, the old Roman spiritual culture, disappeared. Christianity spread. But the time has now come when people have begun to think, when they have become intelligent, when they have become free of authority. Thinkers have appeared who have examined the Gospels: honest thinkers, intelligent thinkers. They are all “honorable men.” They have discovered that there is no historical evidence in the Gospels. They have studied these Gospels for decades with serious critical work. They came to the conclusion that there is no real historical evidence in the Gospels that Christ Jesus ever lived. There is nothing wrong with critical work. It is diligent. Those who know it are aware of its diligence; those who know it are aware of its intelligence. There is no reason to despise this critical wisdom lightly. But what is actually the case? The case is that people do not see what is really important. Christ Jesus did not want to make things so easy for people that historians could come along afterwards and prove the existence of Christ on earth as easily as they can prove the existence of Frederick the Great. Christ did not want to make things so easy for people — nor should he have done so. As true as it is that this critical work on the Gospels is intelligent and diligent, it is also true that this is not the way to prove the existence of Christ, for that would be materialistic proof. In everything that is proven externally, Ahriman is at work. But Ahriman should never be involved in proving the existence of Christ, which is why there is no historical proof. Humanity will therefore have to recognize that, even though Christ lived on Earth, he must be found through inner knowledge, not through historical documents. The Christ event must come to people in a spiritual way; nothing from materialistic truth-seeking must interfere. Nothing materialistic must interfere.

The most important event for the development of the Earth will never be proven in a materialistic way, because world history is meant to tell people: Your materialistic evidence, that which you still want to accept as evidence in the materialistic age, is only valid for that which exists in the realm of matter. You should not and must not have any materialistic proof for the spiritual. Even those who tear apart historical documents are right in this case. With regard to the Christ event in particular, it must be understood in our age that one can only come to Christ in a spiritual way. One will never find him in reality in an external way. One can be told that he exists, but one can only truly find Christ in a spiritual way. It is important to remember that the Christ event is an event about which all those who do not want to allow spiritual knowledge must live in misunderstanding.

It is strange: when one says what I have just said, that Christ can be recognized spiritually—that even what is historical can be recognized spiritually—certain people rack their brains over the fact that this is actually impossible, and if someone says it, it cannot be true! I have said this repeatedly. Now, our esteemed anthroposophical members are still such that here and there, in inappropriate places, they let certain things slip because they still do not carry what they have in their hearts and do not pour what they have in their hearts into the right attitude. This got through to a man to whom it was brought in a special form, that I had once said — this is a personal remark, but perhaps a personal remark may be made — that personally I had not started from the Bible with regard to my development in youth, but from natural science, and that I consider it of particular importance that I took this intellectual path and was actually convinced of the inner truth of what is written in the Bible before I had read it; that I was clear about this when I then read the Bible externally, that I had tested it within myself, that one can find the content of the Bible in a spiritual way before finding it externally afterwards.

This is of a personal nature, but it may serve as an illustration. Now, this came in an inappropriate way to a man who cannot understand that such a thing exists, for he is, forgive me, a theologian. He could not understand it. He wanted to explain the matter to his audience in a lecture, and he did so in the following way: He read in a book that I had once served as an altar boy. Altar boys are boys who assist at Mass. So he said to himself: Anyone who has done that cannot possibly have been unfamiliar with the Bible. Steiner overlooks the fact that this is precisely how he got to know the Bible. Later, these things came to him solely from his knowledge of the Bible. Yes, but there are two snags with this. Firstly, the whole story is not true, but that doesn't bother people today to claim something as fact that is not true. Secondly, as an altar boy at Mass, you never learn the Bible, but the missal; that has nothing to do with the Bible. But the important thing is to take into account that this man cannot imagine that there is a spiritual relationship. He can only imagine that one can arrive at the spiritual by means of letters and by clinging to letters. It is very important that we know such things, but know them practically. For our spiritual movement will not be able to flourish until we find the courage, not just outwardly, but deep within the core of our souls, to stand up for everything that is connected with the whole meaning and significance of our worldview. And one can say that, with regard to this connection with the spiritual world, a real low point has been reached, especially in our age. Today, it is precisely those people who consider themselves the most enlightened who feel least connected to the spiritual world. This is not meant as a reproach or criticism, but should be noted as a fact. Therefore, it will be particularly important in our time to revive an inner understanding of such significant world symbols as we encounter in all of this — for they are real symbols, not mere symbols — such as those surrounding the mystery of Christmas. For this Christmas mystery can connect deeply, deeply with human nature without being connected through the letter, through learning. However, we must then be able to make the Christmas mystery alive in every situation in life, especially in our own souls.

We look at it by awakening the mystery of Christmas in our souls and say to ourselves: Christmas reminds us of the descent of Christ Jesus to the earth, of the rebirth in human beings of what was lost through the Luciferic temptation. This rebirth takes place in various stages. One stage is the one we are in now. That which had to be lost in order for further development to take place is to be reborn; the feeling of unity between the human heart and the spiritual world is to be reborn; Christ is to be born within us — that is just another way of saying it. Precisely what we want, what we always strive for, is intimately connected with this Christmas mystery. And we should not view this Christmas mystery merely by putting up our Christmas tree on one or two days of the year, looking at it, and absorbing all kinds of edifying things, but we should see how it can truly appear to us throughout our entire existence in everything that surrounds us.

As a symbol, I would like to conclude with something that a significant poet, long since deceased, wrote out of his feelings for Christmas.

"Our church celebrates various festivals that touch the heart. It is hard to imagine anything more delightful than Pentecost and anything more solemn and holy than Easter. The sadness and melancholy of Holy Week and the solemnity of Sunday accompany us through life. One of the most beautiful festivals is celebrated by the Church almost in the middle of winter, when the nights are longest and the days shortest, when the sun is at its lowest in our part of the world, and snow covers all the fields: the festival of Christmas. As in many countries the day before the Lord's birthday is called Christmas Eve, so here it is called Holy Evening, the following day Holy Day, and the night between them Christmas. The Catholic Church celebrates Christmas Day as the day of the Savior's birth with its greatest ecclesiastical celebration. In most regions, midnight is already sanctified as the hour of the Lord's birth with a splendid night celebration, to which the bells invite people through the quiet, dark, wintry midnight air, to which the inhabitants hurry with lights or on dark, well-known paths from snowy mountains past frosty forests and through creaking orchards to the church, from which the solemn sounds come and which rises from the middle of the village, shrouded in icy trees with long, illuminated windows.

He goes on to describe what Christmas means to children. Then he describes how a cobbler lives in a remote old village and takes a wife from the neighboring village, not from his own village, and how the children of this cobbler couple learn about Christmas, just as children learn about it: really only by being told that the Holy Christ has brought them this or that gift. And when they are tired enough from the presents, they go to bed especially tired on that day and do not hear the midnight bells. So the children have not yet heard the midnight bells.

The children often visit the neighboring village. When they are old enough to go on their own, they visit their grandmother in the neighboring village. The grandmother is particularly fond of the children, as is often the case with grandparents who love their grandchildren more than their own children. Therefore, the grandmother is very happy to have the children with her, especially since she is too weak to go out. On a Christmas Eve that promises to be a beautiful Christmas Eve, the children are sent to their grandmother. The children go over in the morning and are supposed to return in the afternoon, as is possible in the countryside, from village to village, so that they can find the Christmas tree at home in the evening. But the day turns out differently than planned. The children get caught in a terrible snowstorm. They wander through the mountains. They lose their way and end up in a completely impassable area in a terrible snowstorm.

What the children go through is described very beautifully; how they experience a natural phenomenon in the night. It would be desirable for me to read this passage to you, because it cannot be retold as beautifully as it is described there; every word is important. The children have just come to a sheet of ice. They are inside the glacier. They hear the glacier cracking behind them in the night. You can imagine what an impression this makes on the children. - The story continues:

"Something began to develop for their eyes as well. As the children sat there, a pale light blossomed in the sky before them, in the midst of the stars, and formed a faint arc through them. It had a greenish glow that gently descended. But the arc grew brighter and brighter until the stars in front of it receded and faded. It also sent a glow into other parts of the sky, which flowed shimmeringly green, gently and vividly among the stars. Then sheaves of different lights stood at the height of the arc like the points of a crown and burned. It flowed brightly through the neighboring regions of the sky, sparkling softly and passing in gentle tremors through long spaces. Had the storm clouds in the sky become so tense from the unprecedented snowfall that they flowed out in these silent, magnificent streams of light, or was it some other cause of unfathomable nature? little by little it grew weaker and weaker, the sheaves died out first, until gradually and imperceptibly it became less and less, and again there was nothing in the sky but the thousand and thousand simple stars."

The children sat there through the night. They heard no sound of bells from below. They had only snow and ice around them, and the stars and the nocturnal apparition above them in the mountains, of which they had heard nothing until then. — The night passed. People were worried about the children. The whole village was sent out to look for them. The children were found and brought home. I will skip the rest and just say that the children were almost frozen from the cold, that they were put to bed, and that they were told they would get their Christmas presents. The mother went to the children. This is how it is told:

"The children were stunned by the commotion. They had been given something to eat and had been put to bed. Late in the evening, when they had recovered a little, some neighbors and friends had gathered in the living room and were talking about what had happened, but the mother was sitting in the bedroom by Sanna's bed, stroking her, when the girl said: “Mother, I saw the Holy Christ tonight when we were sitting on the mountain.”

It is a beautiful description. The children had grown up without any instruction about Christmas; they had to spend Christmas Eve in such a terrible situation, up in the mountains, in snow and ice, with only the stars above them and this natural phenomenon. They are found, brought home, and the girl says, “Mother, I saw the Holy Christ tonight!” — Saw! Saw! She saw him! — so she says.

There is a deep meaning in what we have often emphasized in the context of our spiritual science, namely, that we cannot find Christ only where we find him in the development of earthly time, historically placed at the beginning of our calendar, where the cult shows him to us, but that we can find him everywhere, especially when we look at the most serious aspects of life. where we find him in the development of the Earth's time, historically placed at the beginning of our calendar, where the cult shows him to us, but that we can find him everywhere, especially when we are confronted with the most serious moments of life in the world! We can already find Christ. And I would like to say that we, too, as spiritual students, can find him if we are sufficiently convinced that all our striving must be directed toward the rebirth of something spiritual in human evolution, and that this spiritual element, which must be born through the special activity of human souls and hearts, must be based on what was born of Earth's evolution through the completion of the Mystery of Golgotha. This is something we want to take up in this time. Can you, my dear friends, in the days of which we have spoken today and which are now approaching, find a true inner feeling for the becoming and weaving of the outer earthly existence, in its similarity to the sleeping and waking of the human being, can you experience a deeper sympathy for the outer events, then you will feel more and more the truth of the words: “Christ is here.” As he himself said: ”I will remain with you until the end of the earth!”

And he can always be found, if only one seeks him. This should be the thought that strengthens us, that empowers us, especially during the Christmas season, which we celebrate in our own way. Let us take up this thought and try to find with it what we must regard as the true content, the true depth of our spiritual scientific striving. Let us use our time, with our souls thus strengthened, to place ourselves in the right frame of mind at this time, as we now wish to do again, by looking from the general view we have taken of the spiritual world, with the feeling that this view can give us, strengthening our souls, to the spirits of those who stand in the great fields of events:

Spirits of your souls, active guardians,
May your wings bring
The pleading love of our souls,
Your protection to the people of Earth whom you trust,
So that, united with your power,
Our plea may shine with help,
To the souls that seek them lovingly.

And for those who have already passed through the gate of death:

Spirits of your souls, active guardians,
May your wings bring
The pleading love of our souls,
Your protection to the people of the familiar spheres,
That, united with your power,
Our plea may shine helpfully,
To the souls it lovingly seeks.

And the spirit we wanted to remember during these days, the spirit whose essence we want to take into our own being with humility and devotion, the spirit who showed us how he chose his earthly existence through the Christmas festival, the spirit who then went through the mystery of Golgotha, may he be with you and your difficult duties.