The Rudolf Steiner Archive

16. What Do Our Scholars Know About Theosophy?

[ 1 ] If a spiritual movement is to prevail in the course of human development—a movement that does not enjoy the recognition, or perhaps even the knowledge, of the so-called authoritative circles, the ruling intellectual circles—it must constantly struggle against the opposing forces that arise within human culture.

[ 2 ] To understand this, we need only recall what happened when Christianity had to assert itself in the world against old ways of thinking and an old intellectual current. We need only recall how, at the dawn of this new intellectual movement, Galileo, Copernicus, and Giordano Bruno had to struggle against the so-called authoritative, ruling circles. We may assume that the intellectual movement inaugurated by Giordano Bruno had to contend with traditional ways of thinking.

[ 3 ] The school of thought known as Theosophy, which has been represented in literature, lectures, and elsewhere for a number of years, finds itself in a similar situation today. If you recall the fate of such schools of thought—which were more or less unknown at the time of their emergence— you will find that while the manner in which they are met by the ruling parties and the so-called influential circles does change with the fashions of culture, the essential element—a lack of understanding coupled with a certain kind of narrow-mindedness—recurs time and again. It is, of course, no longer customary today to burn heretics, and in particular those who call themselves liberal circles would object to being lumped together with those who burned heretics. But perhaps that is less important. Burning heretics is no longer in vogue today. But if we examine the mindset from which the persecution of heretics and everything associated with it arose, if we examine the reasons for such persecution in relation to the human soul and compare what we find there with what is at work in the souls of those who today more or less oppose or stand against the theosophical movement, then we will find something very similar in the mindset and inner soul processes of the opponents.

[ 4 ] Of course, we do not wish to engage today with the entire broad spectrum of opponents of the theosophical worldview. Rather, we wish to limit ourselves to that which pertains to our contemporary scholarship, we wish to examine the relationship of contemporary scholarship to the worldview represented here—which is called theosophical and, as I have been attempting to name it for some time, spiritual-scientific—we wish to subject the attitude of scholarly circles toward this worldview to scrutiny,

[ 5 ] Perhaps it is not entirely meaningless to begin this discussion with minor symptoms. A very common small conversational encyclopedia, a so-called pocket conversational encyclopedia, which states on its title page or at least in its preface that it has been compiled by the best scholarly minds, shall serve as our starting point. When we look up the entry for “Theosophy,” we find only two words as an explanation: “Seeker of God, enthusiast.” Now, of course, such a scholarly treatment of the theosophist is no longer common in all similar reference works. But anyone wishing to learn about theosophy will gain no more insight from other similar reference books than from this brief remark.

[ 6 ] I have now attempted to examine, at least superficially, what can be found in the actual philosophical reference works. I do not intend to present you with a selection of quotes from such reference works. I would just like to cite, by way of example, what can be found in the Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Expressions, compiled from sources, published in Berlin in 1900. So, in one of the most recent works, which actually lists most theosophical terms, the following is included: [gap in the transcript.]* With these names, it amounts to about three lines, a little more. Anyone who tries to get an idea of theosophy from this excerpt will have to admit: even in such philosophical dictionaries, we find nothing more than a translation of the name that isn’t even accurate, followed by a few names listed.

[ 7 ] Nor does the situation look particularly promising if we seek to orient ourselves regarding what is presented here as theosophy by consulting what contemporary scholarship has to say on the matter. But all the more readily—as you will find—will this contemporary scholarship seek to pass judgment on what Theosophy is based on a few minor details it has picked up from some Theosophical pamphlet. We may have the curious experience of hearing a shrug of the shoulders and the remark, “What theosophical literature propagates is nothing more than a rehash of a few Buddhist concepts,” or, “It is nothing more than spiritualist superstition expressed in a different way.” You will be able to hear such things in abundance. But what you will rarely hear is a genuine answer to the question: “Yes, what exactly is Theosophy?” — You may encounter, perhaps not only in coffee-house gatherings, what actually happened recently in one such gathering, which is by no means insignificant for the overall attitude of our contemporaries toward Theosophy. There, one lady said to another: “How is it that you’ve become a Theosophist? That’s something dreadful, something terrible. Just think what you’re doing to your family; think how you’re putting yourself at odds with what other people think.”—She then fell silent for a few seconds and replied: “Hey, what is that actually—Theosophy?”

[ 8 ] This did not originate in scholarly circles, but given its nature, you could very well find something like it there. Time and again, you will find the judgment that theosophy is not scientific in the least, that it is merely the fanciful musings of a few eccentric individuals, and that, above all, it puts forward claims that cannot be proven.

[ 9 ] The intention here today, where the focus is on characterizing the relationship between our scholarly tradition and theosophy, is by no means to offer a critique—not even a critique of our relationship with scholarly circles. For no one knows better than the one who surveys our current academic education from a theosophical perspective that nothing can arise from today’s academic education, from the concepts concepts, and ideas that have been developed from today’s school education, can produce anything other than a haughty and somewhat condescending shrug at what theosophy asserts—and what, to that scholarship, cannot appear as anything other than fanaticism and entirely unscientific talk, simply because it is unable to understand it any better.

[ 10 ] We truly wish to be fair to this scholarship. The Theosophist really does take a certain stance here—and must do so—which I wish to illustrate with an example that did not occur within theosophical circles, but which could easily have done so. The theosophist finds himself in a similar position vis-à-vis contemporary scholarship when he rejects the disdain and the accusation of fanaticism, just as in the example of the recently deceased philosopher Eduard von Hartmann in relation to the materialistic-Darwinian interpretation of nature. This is not meant to take sides with Eduard von Hartmann’s “Philosophy of the Unconscious.” But one must repeatedly point out the manner in which he confronted his opponents. — It was in 1869 that the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” was published, a book for which the theosophist need not necessarily take sides, but a book that was, at the time, a bold act. And it is precisely in the relationship of this book to the scholarship of that time that we can find an example of the way in which the spiritual scientist or theosophist today once again faces his opponents. This “Philosophy of the Unconscious” was, in a certain sense, a bold act. It was a time when the waves of materialistic science were running high, when materialistic science had grown into a kind of materialistic religion; books such as Büchner’s *Force and Matter*, other works by Vogt, Moleschott, and the like—which saw in force and matter, in purely sensory material existence, the only reality—caused a sensation, went through many printings, and captured hearts and souls. In those days, anyone who did not join this chorus of materialism, which spoke of a self-creating spirit, was considered a fool and a simpleton. It was during this time, when it was believed that Darwin’s work provided the scientific basis for materialism, during this time when “philosophy” itself was a word regarded as something thoroughly outdated, that Eduard von Hartmann published his *Philosophy of the Unconscious*, a philosophy which, despite its great flaws, has the one merit of relentlessly tracing the world back to the spiritual, of seeking the foundation of the spiritual everywhere, in all phenomena, even if the spiritual is regarded as unconscious, even if it occupies a particularly high rank. One thing is certain: the spirit is sharply set against the materialist school of thought. While the Darwinist school at that time explained nature entirely in terms of force and matter, Eduard von Hartmann sought to conceive of it in such a way that the spirit should be evident as the inner purposefulness of a spiritual activity. — Then came those who believed they could look down on everything that spoke of the spirit with a shrug and judged: “There has never been anything so amateurish as this ‘Philosophy of the Unconscious.’ Here speaks a person who has actually learned nothing at all about all the phenomena that Darwinism now explains so scientifically.” — There were many counter-writings at that time. One was also published by an unknown author. The title page read: “The Unconscious from the Standpoint of the Theory of Descent and Darwinism.” It was a thorough refutation of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious.” The author demonstrated that he was well-versed in the very latest developments in natural science. Ernst Haeckel stated in a pamphlet that it was a pity the author had not revealed his name, since he himself could not have put forward anything better against Eduard von Hartmann than what is contained in this work. Oscar Schmidt wrote a pamphlet and declared that no natural scientist could have said anything better against Eduard von Hartmann’s boundless dilettantism than the anonymous author of this pamphlet. Let him reveal himself to us, and we will regard him as one of our own. — The pamphlet quickly sold out, and a second edition appeared with the author’s name. And that was enough to silence everyone. It was Eduard von Hartmann. Since that time, there has been a general silence among those who had written not about Eduard von Hartmann but, in their characteristic loquacity, about the dilettantism of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious”—specifically, about the pamphlet that had appeared without the author’s name.

[ 11 ] One may raise many objections to such a method, but one cannot deny that it was thoroughly effective. The person who had initially been portrayed as ignorant showed the scholarly circles that he could still be just as clever as they were. Let me use this trivial expression: it would be good, though somewhat anachronistic, to do the same. But easily, very easily, one who stands at the height of the theosophical worldview could also compile all the material that can be fabricated against theosophy today. This must be emphasized above all else: Theosophy is not something that is directed against genuine, true science, if it is properly understood. Theosophy will always be able to understand true, genuine science, just as Eduard von Hartmann was able to understand his opponents. The reverse is not so easily possible in either case. But we must also understand how this could have come about.

[ 12 ] If I were to give you a lecture today solely on what our scholars know about theosophy, today’s lecture could have been quite short, and I would hardly have needed to stand before you for more than a few seconds. But I would like to go further; I would like to speak about why and for what reasons our contemporary scholarship can know so little of what theosophy seeks to reveal as a new way of conceiving the things of the world.

[ 13 ] If we look around at our contemporary scholarly literature today, we will find that these perspectives differ, even in their outward appearance, from all literature from about a hundred years ago. If we pick up a book bearing a title such as *The Origin of Man, Man and His Place in the World*, we will find that we are told little more than how man once did not live on Earth, and how he then began his existence on Earth in a childlike, semi-animal state. We are then told that animal ancestors lived on Earth before this time and that these gradually evolved into modern humans. — If we pick up another book intended to teach us about the mysteries of the cosmos, we will find that we are told what can be seen through a telescope and what can be achieved with mathematics. In other words: everywhere, even where the highest questions are concerned, we encounter what I took the liberty of calling in my book on “Goethe’s Worldview”—factual fanaticism, that factual fanaticism which clings to sensory facts, to what our senses can perceive, or at most to what the senses equipped with instruments can perceive. This also includes everything that is presented today in the most detailed manner in all manner of popular writings, and what human beings are capable of conveying about the riddles and mysteries of the world solely on the basis of established scientific facts. And if we look around in the circles that draw exclusively from such books, we will find that there are actually all kinds of intermediate stages, but that these intermediate stages are to be found between two extremes. One extreme is the sober scholars. They will accept as scientific nothing other than what they see and what they can deduce from what they see using their intellect. There, the world is explored in every direction with instruments. There, written documents are sought; there, the course of time and the development of humanity are investigated based on pure facts. The one is supposed to be natural science; the other is supposed to be history.

[ 14 ] History sometimes leads one to quite strange things. Especially when it comes to experiences in spiritual science. There, one finds people who write thick books about the ancient Gnostics, for example, or about some branch of ancient spiritual wisdom, yet it never occurs to them to want to know anything about this spiritual wisdom themselves. They view it purely historically; they merely record the written documents and are satisfied with that. Today, one need not be a Gnostic to write about Gnosticism. This is virtually regarded as a principle in scholarly circles today. And the best principle is considered to be to be as little influenced as possible by the very things one is writing about. If you take this fanaticism for facts on the one hand, you have roughly what leads such scholarly circles to say: These things we can establish, these things we know; what goes beyond that is a matter of faith. Everyone is then free to believe or not believe whatever they wish. — The result of this attitude is a certain indifference toward all objects, thoughts, and entities that go beyond mere sensory facts. People then say: If someone needs them for their faith—we’ll leave them to it, but science has nothing to do with it. A thick partition is erected there between science and faith, and science is to be nothing other than that which can be perceived purely with the eye and the ear, nothing but the observation of facts and what is abstracted from them. Nothing else is to be examined. — But then something else arises that says, for example: It is not true that science stops somewhere; rather, it is true that human beings are constantly developing and that, through their creative work, they are constantly cultivating and unfolding new powers, so that they can eventually know everything—that there are no limits to knowledge. Although the ultimate objects of knowledge can only be reached in an infinitely distant future, they are such that we can continually draw closer to them. Boundaries must not be erected anywhere. It seems the height of presumption when such representatives appear who claim that this ability lies dormant in every human being. Just develop it, and you will see that the objects that were once objects of your faith can become objects of your knowledge and your wisdom. It is no different with the subjects relating to the immortality of the soul, to the spiritual world, to the macrocosm and microcosm in space, and to the entire development of humanity, than it is with the things we encounter in ordinary natural science. — Or what does a person who picks up a popular book on astronomy know from personal experience about what the book tells them? I ask you, how many knowledgeable people are there among those who believe in the materialist theory of creation? How many of those who swear by the materialist spirit have ever looked through a microscope and know how to investigate these things? How many believe in Haeckel, and how many are knowledgeable in this field? Anyone can become a researcher if they devote the time and energy to it. The same applies to spiritual matters.

[ 15 ] It is foolish to say that things come to an end. It is equally foolish to say that one must believe what is written in Haeckel’s account of creation, since one cannot investigate it oneself. Theosophy speaks of objects and things in the higher world in no other sense. People have become accustomed to using the word “theosophy” for this spiritual science. Not because it has God alone as the object of its contemplation, but because it distinguishes between the outer, sensory human being, who sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, and combines sensory perceptions through the intellect linked to the brain—and the other human being who dwells within this physical human being, who slumbers within and can be awakened, and who employs spiritual organs, spiritual sensory instruments, just as the body employs physical sensory instruments. Just as the body sees with the physical eye, so the spirit sees with the spiritual eye. And just as the body hears with the physical ear, so the spirit hears with the spiritual ear.

[ 16 ] When a person takes their spiritual development into their own hands, these spiritual organs of perception can be developed so that the inner human being can look into a spiritual world. Because such an inner human being is called divine, that is why I make this distinction. What the outer, sensory human being perceives provides sensory wisdom, and what the inner, divine human being perceives is, in contrast to sensory wisdom, theosophy—divine wisdom. This is what is meant when one speaks of theosophy. One does not speak of theosophy simply because the object of research is God, for God is something that could only be revealed to the occultist at the very end of things, at the summit of perfection. To investigate God, even though we know that we live, move, and have our being in Him—this is the least thing a theosophist would presume to do. Just as little as one who sits on the seashore and dips his hand into the sea would believe that he can scoop out the entire sea, so little will the theosophist believe that he can encompass God. But just as the one who sits on the seashore and scoops up a handful of water knows that what he takes out is of the same essence as the entire vast, all-encompassing sea, so too does the theosophist know that what he carries within himself as a divine spark is of the same nature and essence as the Deity. The Theosophist will not claim that his essence can encompass the Deity; nor will he claim that the infinite Deity dwells within his human soul, or that man himself is God. Such a thought would never occur to him. But what he does say, what he can experience and perceive, is something else entirely: namely, that within man lives a part of the Deity which is of the same nature and essence as the entire Deity, just as the mass of water in the hand is of the same nature and essence as the entire all-encompassing ocean, Just as the water in the hand and the water in the sea are of the same nature and essence, so too is that which dwells in the soul of the same nature and essence as the Godhead. That is why we call that which is within man divine, and the wisdom that man can explore in his innermost being, we call divine wisdom or theosophy.

[ 17 ] This is a line of reasoning that anyone would have to admit, if only they were willing to think logically. Theosophy is often criticized on the grounds that it requires human beings to undergo a process of development. But the fact is that not everyone is able to verify what Theosophy asserts. — No one who sees through things will ever claim that every human being, provided they have the necessary patience, strength, and perseverance, cannot attain what some individuals have attained in the course of human evolution. But there is something quite different in the so-called proofs of theosophical truths. There is much to be found in theosophical literature and in theosophical lectures, or to be heard elsewhere within the theosophical movement, about which those who have been shaped by our contemporary mindset say to themselves: These are assertions. One can accept them, but no theosophist proves them; he simply asserts them. — This talk of “proofs” is something that comes up again and again, something that is repeatedly held against Theosophy. What is the actual situation regarding this? The situation is as follows.

[ 18 ] What Theosophy teaches as higher spiritual wisdom can be explored when the powers that lie dormant in every human soul are awakened. These powers and abilities, which we call the powers and abilities of the seer—the spiritual perception of things—are necessary for exploring these matters. If one wishes to explore, if one wishes to discover the facts of the spiritual world, then one needs these abilities and powers. It is quite another matter, however, to understand what the spiritual explorer has found. So, mind you, to discover spiritual truths one needs the powers of the seer; to understand, one needs only clear, logical human reason that goes to the very last consequences. That is what matters. Anyone who claims they cannot understand what Theosophy asserts has not yet thought about it sufficiently. On the contrary, we will be able to better understand precisely what science asserts today; precisely what we, if we remain within true science, grasp today about the facts of nature, about the things of the seemingly lifeless and the living natural phenomena—even when we take the facts of cultural history—if we wish to understand them, we can never understand them if we approach them solely with materialistic scholarship, which is nothing more than materialistic fantasy. We can understand precisely what true science provides us with when we know the true science of the spiritual world. For those who see more deeply, for example, the science presented by Ernst Haeckel is only comprehensible if one has theosophy as a prerequisite, as a foundation.

[ 19 ] A comparison will help clarify what I mean. Imagine you have a picture before you that depicts, let’s say, some scene, some legend of a saint. You can try to understand this picture in two ways. In one way, you stand before the picture and try to bring to life in your own soul what lived in the painter’s soul. You try to evoke in your soul the spiritual content that the picture represents. There is something in it that perhaps lifts your soul inwardly, makes it feel exalted, something that enlivens your soul from within. But you can also relate to this picture in another way. You can go up to it and say, “That doesn’t interest me.” Nor am I particularly interested in what the painter had in mind. But I want to try to figure out how he mixed the colors, what materials are mixed into the paint he applied to the canvas. I want to examine how it is on the canvas, how much red and green paint was used, where straight and where curved lines were applied.

[ 20 ] These are two different ways of looking at a picture. It would be foolish to say of one: You are looking at something that is untrue. — No, he is looking at something that is certainly true. He observes the way the paint adheres to the canvas and how it is composed. He observes whether and how the colors have cracked, and so on. These can be genuine truths. Then the second person comes along and says to the first: “What you’re thinking isn’t right. That’s just a thought. What I’m investigating can be objectively determined.”

[ 21 ] Let me give another example to make sure we understand each other perfectly. Let’s say someone can play a sonata on a piano. You listen to this sonata with a musical ear; you revel in the magnificent realm of sounds that this sonata conveys to you. That is one way you can explore what is happening here. But another way could be the following. Someone comes along and says, “I’m not interested in what one hears with a musical ear. But there is a piano standing there, with strings stretched across it. These strings move. I now want to attach to these strings what we call ‘paper riders.’ They bounce off when the string moves, and through this I can study where the strings are moving and where they are at rest.” I want to disregard entirely what you hear with your ear. That cannot be objectively determined. — Just as this second observer relates to the first observer, so do the scholars you have described relate to the Theosophists. It would never occur to any Theosophist to deny their scholarship. Just as little as the one who raves about the spiritual content of a painting would say, “What you are investigating there regarding the color is not true,” just as little as the one with a musical ear would say, “What you are investigating with those little paper figures is not true”—for it is true—so too is what the natural scientist investigates in his subject matter. Nothing should be objected to this. But this natural science misses what is essential in the world process. Just as what is essential escapes the one who merely observes the paper cutouts, and also escapes the one who merely examines the color and perhaps the material, the canvas.

[ 22 ] Now there are those who say that there is a subjective realm that exists only in the soul and cannot be objectively verified. One must examine what can actually be verified. Out there, there is only the vibrating etheric matter, the vibrating substance. Certainly. As a theosophist, one replies to such a person: If you examine only the substance, you will find out there only your own substance, just as the one who plugs his ears finds only what can be seen on the little paper tabs.

[ 23 ] Just a few years ago, a great deal of nonsense was still being peddled regarding this objectivity in natural science. This is the so-called atomistic theory, in which what a person perceives as a sensory impression—what they perceive as sound, color, and so on—is called subjective and traced back to objective processes. And these processes were supposed to be vibrations of some substance. Back then, for example, it was always simply called “red.” Red, they said, is only in your eye. Out there in space there is nothing but an etheric vibration of so many millions of oscillations. — Thus this pseudoscience, which is no longer science but religion, transformed the world of perceptions into a vast number of atoms, all of which are in vibrating motion. This nonsense—transforming everything we experience in terms of vivid, living content into abstract processes that are nothing more than calculated entities, nothing but pondered and speculated entities—this nonsense has been receding somewhat lately. We see how even the atom and vibrating motion are now regarded by discerning natural scientists merely as a starting point for calculation, and how in the better circles of thought one no longer concerns oneself with the inaccuracy of atomic hypotheses and so on. But the idea has taken root in people’s minds to view the world as an objective nothingness, as mere materialistic vibrational processes, so that in the early years of the Theosophical Movement it also penetrated into it and into Theosophy itself. We have had to witness how the most spiritual movement has been most grievously afflicted by materialism. We have had to witness how, in the most diverse Theosophical books, one could read time and again: ‘this is such-and-such a vibration’ and ‘that is such-and-such a vibration.’ The English books, in particular, never tired of speaking of vibrations.

[ 24 ] It is a hallmark of our time that this materialistic tendency has been able to creep into the most spiritual movement. We will have our work cut out for us for a long time to come in overcoming this teething problem of Theosophy. But only when the time comes when all the talk of moving atoms has disappeared from within Theosophy, when that elaborate construct of some monads whirling down from the heights and absorbing everything—a grotesque materialistic idea—has vanished. Only when one recognizes that theosophy can only be about recognizing the spiritual as such, when one is clear that one leaves behind in materialistic science the vibrating paper riders and the study of colors and the canvas, and that theosophy is about the training of the higher senses, the knowledge of the higher senses, that it concerns what the human being sees with the higher soul forces, summarizes, and surveys, what he hears with the musical ear—that is, what the vibrating string expresses spatially—then one will be able to understand to some extent what Theosophy is.

[ 25 ] Therefore, we must also refrain—refrain entirely—from believing, for example, that some kind of harmony between modern scholarship and ‘theosophy’ is possible. That is not possible. — This harmony will only come when scholarship itself has progressed to the point where it can understand theosophy. Certainly, we are concerned with the study of colors—chemically—with the study of lines, with the study of the canvas, with the study of the paper slats on the vibrating strings, but this does not preclude the fact that, with the higher development of spiritual powers, the higher spiritual realm opens up within the very things we examine externally. Today’s scholarship is far removed from understanding such a thing. One becomes lenient toward this scholarship when one sees, for example, how utterly incapable is the person born of this scholarship of grasping something that is learned in the deepest sense and at the same time has arisen from certain spiritual sciences. I know that for many who may be sitting here with a background in physics, I am saying something highly objectionable. But it is something that symptomatically characterizes what I have to speak about. What physicist would not speak disparagingly of what is called Goethe’s Theory of Colors? To speak of it today is an impossibility, but there will come a time—and it is not too far off—when everything that today exists as an objection to Goethe’s theory of colors will be recognized as an outdated prejudice. You can read more about Goethe’s theory of colors in my book on “Goethe’s Worldview.”

[ 26 ] Goethe’s theory of colors springs from a spiritual worldview, and for those who can grasp this, the theory itself is proof of the depth of Goethe’s thought. But it does not proceed from the prejudice that color is vibrating ether. Rather, it stands on a foundation that can be described as I shall now attempt to do. I ask you to follow me in my subtle line of thought. When the person who sees looks out and sees the color red, his eye first perceives red. Then the physicist comes along and says, this red is only subjective. It is a process in space or in the brain. But what is really out there is nothing but vibrating etheric movement. Now, if someone comes along and says, “What you see there is merely an illusion; it is nothing but vibrating etheric motion,” then one might object as follows. Try to imagine this vibrating etheric motion. Is it colorless? It must be colorless, since you are trying to explain the color through the vibrations. So what is out there must be colorless. I ask, does it perhaps have other properties, does it perhaps have the property of warmth? Then the physicist comes along and says, warmth, too, comes only from vibrating motion. But these people are at their most absurd when they say that these vibrations have no sensory properties, but only those that we can conceive of. But if one regards what the senses tell us as subjective, then one must also accept what one thinks as subjective. And then one must also say that what you have calculated there as a vibrating mass of mist is all the more subjective; it has never been perceived, but only calculated. All of this is subjectively calculated. Anyone who is clear that what we experience within ourselves is objective, and that the objective can become the most subjective, has a right to speak of the fact that the calculated also has an objective existence. Such a person will also not come to regard red and green, C-sharp and G, as merely subjective phenomena.

[ 27 ] I have now told you a whole series of things that are considered terrible heresies by anyone with a scientific mindset today. Well, people often say that times have changed. Yes, times have changed since the days of Giordano Bruno. Back then, the dogma of infallibility did not yet apply. Today, as you know, the dogma of infallibility applies in certain Catholic circles. But this dogma of infallibility did not arise solely from Catholicism. There it was born as an external law, as an external dogma. But as a mindset, the dogma of infallibility also lives on in the spirit of materialistic thinkers, of monistic free-thinkers. They consider themselves—I won’t say each one a little pope—but at least so infallible that they regard as superstitious everything that does not originate from their own circles. And if anyone opposes these infallible physicists and psychiatrists—they will not say that they are infallible, but one senses it—then he is dismissed. He is no longer burned, but rendered impossible by the means that are in vogue today.

[ 28 ] For theosophists, the issue is not whether they find approval. Approval is of the utmost indifference to the truth. To one who has grasped the truth of a mathematical theorem, it can be completely irrelevant whether a million people agree or not. Truths are not decided by majority vote. Whoever has recognized a truth has recognized it and needs no approval. Thus, the Theosophical Movement will have the greatest regard for those who are cautious in their convictions. It does not want children, but rather people who form their judgments with the utmost caution, based on the deepest scrutiny. The call for caution is something that inspires my deepest sympathy.

[ 29 ] From what I have attempted to present, you will have gathered that Theosophy is far from criticizing contemporary scholarship. Should the Theosophist fight against it? He would be doing something very foolish, for it would be like someone who views a painting with displeasure wanting to fight against the one who studies the chemical composition of the colors. If, for example, a figure like Ernst Haeckel is defended from a Theosophical standpoint, that need not be incorrect. One can defend it if one recognizes it from a higher vantage point, sees how it appears there, and knows how to place things within the context of world evolution. The Theosophist will know how to assign the correct position to contemporary developments in every field.

[ 30 ] Such is the nature of the newly emerging spiritual movement, which seeks to view the world as it has always been viewed by select individuals of exceptional spiritual insight. But in recent centuries it has not been possible to present this spiritual science in the manner in which it was presented in the past. What is called Theosophy today is a small part of a comprehensive world wisdom, of what is called the secret science. This is something that has always existed among select human individuals for millennia—indeed, ever since humanity has existed. However, in the form in which individual great spirits possessed it, it could not be given to the masses. Yet it was not withheld from the masses nonetheless.

[ 31 ] If you examine the legends and myths of different peoples—if you examine them with an open mind—you will see that these legends and myths are the figurative expression of a science that contains more wisdom than modern science offers. Modern science would regard it as fantasy if one were to say that there is wisdom in these fairy tales. Furthermore, this universal wisdom has been proclaimed in various ways across different religions, depending on how one people or another applied it in different ways according to their temperament and climate. When we survey all that has been given to humanity in such diverse forms, it leads us to a common core, to a comprehensive world wisdom. Not everything can be handed over to the broader humanity today, for the one who ascends to this world wisdom must undergo certain inner trials. This world wisdom can be entrusted only to those who undergo these trials. Even the elementary part was formerly transmitted only within the closest circle of well-prepared students possessing the appropriate intellectual, moral, and character traits. There are still people today who consider it wrong for the occult wisdom of Theosophy to be transmitted to the great masses of humanity. But this criticism is unfounded because there is simply no other way today. Anyone who understands the structure of the contemporary spirit of the age knows that inner truth and wisdom feel alienated from the religious worldview because people can no longer understand them. It used to be different. Back then, the wisdom now proclaimed by Theosophy was the possession of the individual. The masses were given, in images, the wisdom intended for them. The minds of the masses were suited to receiving these images. The masses could live with these images alone. Truth was found in the religions; truth was found in the fundamental religious views. This is what Theosophy makes clear to us once again in the deepest sense. In ancient times, people could grasp it through feeling. Today, the times demand that they also be able to comprehend what is contained in the religions. Thus, what is called esoteric science is compelled to step forward, to contribute something to the vindication of the religions, to provide at least the elementary aspects of spiritual truth. How empty and barren a time it would be if humanity were alienated from all knowledge of the spiritual worlds and all connection with them. Only those who fail to see through the matter can believe that humanity could exist without a connection to the spiritual, without faith in the spirit and immortality. Just as a plant needs nourishing juices, so the soul needs that which underlies it as the spiritual. Theosophy does not seek to found a new religion. But it seeks to bring the truth back to humanity in a form suitable for modern people, in the form of intellectual understanding. Thus, Theosophy will present the ancient truth in a new form to our contemporaries, undeterred by those who, proceeding from materialistic superstition, turn against this spiritual current.

[ 32 ] Just as the external natural sciences rely on what they investigate and calculate with the aid of the microscope and telescope, so too will theosophy make use of the most important instrument of which Goethe speaks: What the trained ear of the musician is, that is the human soul in relation to all tools—and furthermore:

Mysterious in broad daylight
Nature cannot be stripped of its veil,
And what it chooses not to reveal to your mind,
You cannot force from it with levers and screws.

[ 33 ] Those who see through the world are the most perfect instruments, and, supported by spiritual insight, theosophy will produce more and more such instruments.

[ 34 ] The answer to the question of what our scholars know about the very essence of theosophy is: nothing. — They cannot know anything because all their habits of thought lead them to nothing other than viewing theosophy as fanciful nonsense. But whoever has grasped that scholarship cannot yet engage with theosophy, which has emerged from entirely different foundations, will also understand how necessary it will be for this scholarship to shed deeper light on the structure of the spirit. What kind of fruits does this scholarship not produce? But only a true understanding of the soul can make such things—as they are known to today’s scholarship—comprehensible. Or, what is one to think—one who has regarded Goethe, Schopenhauer, Conrad Ferdinand Meyer, and so on as great minds—what is one to think when this materialistic scholarship has gone so far that in a little book on Goethe’s illness, on Schopenhauer’s illness—and in other works as well—one can find these illnesses explained from the standpoint of materialistic psychiatry? Circular insanity is the name given to a certain type of mental illness. Dementia praecox is another, and paranoia a third. These three forms of insanity are used as a basis to show that even great minds, who are regarded as leaders of humanity, can exhibit symptoms that are considered symptoms of mental illness. In Schopenhauer, one found the symptoms of circular insanity; in Tasso and Rousseau, those of paranoia, and so on. Indeed, the same author has designated an even greater number, an even larger group of people, as feeble-minded. For it is the author of the book on the physiological feeble-mindedness of women, thereby affecting the second half of all humanity. It would be easy to view the author from his own perspective and scrutinize him thoroughly. — But none of these things are a laughing matter. Materialist science must, however, address them, because they are partial truths. One can only arrive at the correct understanding, however, by perceiving the spirit at work behind them. Then one sees that often a higher spiritual development must be paid for with the same symptoms, just as, on the other hand, health is paid for with other symptoms. This is possible only when one views them from above, that is, from the theosophical standpoint.

[ 35 ] There is one more thing I would like to say. You know that I have referred to ancient times of development, when today’s civilization did not yet exist, when there was a continent between present-day Europe and America—the continent of ancient Atlantis. I have already pointed out that this Atlantis is being rediscovered by natural scientists. In the journal *Kosmos*, issue 10, a natural scientist speaks of animals and plants that lived on this Atlantis. Such a natural scientist will admit this, but he will not admit that other human beings lived there at that time. He will not admit that the ancient Atlantean land was covered by a vast sea of mist, that the soil of Atlantis was not covered by the kind of air that makes up our atmosphere today, that the expression used by the ancient Central European peoples in their myths—“Land of Mist”—points to something real, to something actual, that our Atlantean ancestors lived in a land of mist. I have pointed this out on several occasions. — A few days ago, a lecture was given at a renowned natural history society in which it was noted that, most likely, during the time of our Atlantean ancestors, very vast landmasses on Earth were covered in fog. This conclusion is drawn externally and speculatively from various other phenomena. And above all, it is pointed out that plants requiring sunlight—those that grow in the desert—are of more recent origin and did not yet exist at that time, whereas those requiring little sunlight, which could exist in Nebelheim, are the older ones.

[ 36 ] Here you can see how modern science, lagging behind, is telling you what Theosophy has already said. We foresee a time when modern science will gradually have to acknowledge these other things as well. The relationship in the future will not be such that theosophy will have to accommodate itself to the fanciful, objective atomic theories, but rather that the facts proclaimed by theosophy from a higher perspective will be substantiated by external science. That will be the course that future development will take. Even if today’s scholars know nothing of this yet, their own progress will point them in that direction. — No thinker should doubt that with a developed soul one can see and perceive more than with the mere senses and the mere intellect. The recognition of the evolved human being as the highest, most perfect instrument for exploring the world—that is what Theosophy seeks to establish. Everything else follows naturally. If you say that humanity has reached the highest stages and will not develop further, then you have no need for Theosophy. But if you say that the laws that have prevailed in the past will also prevail in the future, that some have always stood higher than others in their surroundings—if you admit that, then you are already, in principle, of a theosophical mindset. One does not become a theosophist simply by uttering the words “theosophy,” “brotherhood,” “unity,” and so on. Brotherhood is what all good people recognize. — When I see how people are always talking about brotherhood and then also see how they feel an inner delight when they speak of brotherhood, harmony, and unity, I am always reminded of the stove and the first principle of the Theosophical Society, which calls for forming the core of a universal brotherhood of humanity. It is useless to say to the stove: “Hey, dear stove, heat the room and make it warm.” — If you want the stove to heat, then you must put fuel in it and light it. You must put fuel into it. That is the spiritual power, the ability to see and perceive through the opening up of the higher worlds. Through the opening up of the spiritual world, that truth and wisdom will take root in human souls, which, as wisdom and knowledge, must of themselves lead to universal human brotherhood. Thus we will then achieve what is expressed in the first principle of the Theosophical Program, when human beings can become instruments that look into the spiritual worlds. When the organs of perception hidden within the human soul are brought forth, then Theosophy will be a progress that can be pursued. If we compare this attitude, which arises from Theosophy, with the attitude of Theosophists—of great, sublime personalities who lived in times past—we also find it in a sentence penned by Herder: Our delicate, tangible, and finely sensitive nature has developed all the senses that God has given it. It cannot do without any of them, for what results from the combined use of the organs is clear to all. They are the vowels of life, and so on.

[ 37 ] Even if only the external physical senses are taken into account here, we can still say in the theosophical sense: the physical and mental senses must be developed, for from the harmony of the mental and physical organs of perception will spring forth not only the vowels of life, but also those of eternal, infinite, spiritual life.

From the violence that binds all beings,
The person who overcomes themselves is set free

[ 38 ] appears in Goethe’s poem “Die Geheimnisse” (The Mysteries). Man is neither free nor unfree; he is in the process of development.