World Mysteries and Theosophy
GA 54
23 November 1905, Berlin
Translated by Manfred Maier and Nicholas Stanton
Brotherhood and the Fight for Survival
It is our task today to speak about two soul contents, one of which is a wonderful and inner ideal called Brotherhood1Although “brotherhood” is a reasonable translation of the German, it is not totally satisfactory. There is no suitable gender-neutral form, “sisterhood” doesn't even appear in the standard Microsoft spelling dictionary and using it requires the combination “brother/sisterhood” or “brotherhood/sisterhood” neither of which reads easily. I have therefore elected to translate, “bruderschaft” as “mutual help,” which works well throughout this lecture. or Mutual Help, the other, which we meet especially in daily life, is the survival of the fittest—Mutual Help and the Fight for Survival. Those of you who concern themselves even a little with our Spiritual Scientific Movement know that our first aim is to form the core of a mutual help which is founded on an all embracing love for people, without regard for race, sex, creed, or profession. Thus the Anthroposophical Society2This lecture was actually given under the auspices of the Theosophical Society. We have changed this to the Anthroposophical Society since Rudolf Steiner's work continued in that organization unchanged in content and intent. itself puts this principle of an all-embracing mutual help as the spearhead of its movement, as the most important of its ideals. With this it has shown that it is one of those cultural streams, which above all are necessary today, in which this extensive ethical striving for mutual help is seen closely connected with what altogether is the aim of man's evolution.
Those of us who are consciously striving in Spiritual Science are convinced that the deepest recognition of the Spiritual World, if it is truly and totally taking hold of a person, must lead to mutual help, that the most noble fruit of deep inner knowing is just this mutual help. This Spiritual Scientific World View seems to go against what people have found recently. In certain circles it is repeatedly pointed out how progress is brought about by competition and strife, that our strength develops through working against resistance, that our will and intellectual initiatives are strengthened because our power is put against an opponent. The worldview of Friedrich Nietzsche, which arose out of a spiritual basis, states among other things advocating contention, the following; “I love the critic. I love the strongly critical more than the gentle critic.” This we can find in various forms especially with Nietzsche. It can be found again in established economic views that in the fight of all against all in free enterprise there is a strong force for progress. How often has it been said that we progress best if we push ourselves forward for our own good. The word “individualism” has become a slogan in the area of the outer material life; however, it is really in the field of the inner spiritual life that it has true validity.
If people develop as much as they can in the economic field they will be most useful for their fellows because if they become economically powerful they benefit everyone. This is the creed of many national economists and sociologists. From a different side we hear repeated in different ways that we shall not just fit into a mold, that we must develop all our powers, that without limit we must live ourselves out, that we shall unfold what lies within, and thus we can be most useful to our fellows. There are many among us who cannot do enough to support this principle. The Spiritual Scientific Worldview does not ignore the necessity of the Fight for Survival, particularly in our time, but we are also clear that while this Fight for Survival makes such a strong impression, the deepest significance of the principle of mutual help must be brought to people's general awareness.
Is it really true what many believe, that people grow strong by working against a resistance? Is it really above all else their aggressive activities, which make them big and strong?
I showed you in the lecture, which I was able to give about the idea of peace, the following; the principle of the Fight for Survival is emphasized in our life nowadays because science has made it into a universal natural world principle. Especially in the west it is believed since some time that those beings in the world are best adapted who are able to fight their enemies, to subdue them and to succeed in the Fight for Survival.
Huxley the natural scientist says, if we look at life in nature it looks like a gladiator's “free for all,” the strongest is the victor, and the weaker ones must perish. If one would believe the natural scientists one would have to assume that all beings that are now living in the world would be able to overcome their predecessors. There is even a school of sociology, which has attempted to make out of this principle of the Fight for Survival a teaching of the evolution of mankind. In a book called “From Darwin to Nietzsche” by Alexander Tille he tried to show that the happiness of mankind in the future depends on recklessly inscribing this “Fight for Survival” onto the flag of the evolution, that one has to take care that the weaker ones perish, and that the strong and powerful multiply. In the Fight for Survival the weak ones have to perish, so he says we need a social order which subdues the weak ones because they are a burden, injurious.
Now I must ask you; who is stronger? The one who has an ideal spiritual power but a weak body or the one who has less spiritual power but a robust body? As you can see one cannot generalize. It is difficult to decide who should survive in the Fight for Survival. If one were to be practical, one would have to solve this question first. Now let us ask ourselves what human life really shows us; has the principle of mutual help or the Fight for Survival brought about greater changes, or have both contributed to the evolution of mankind?
With a few words I want to indicate once more what I have said in my lecture about the idea of peace. Even natural science of today does not really teach anymore what was taught a decade ago. I told you about the basic lecture of the Russian researcher Kefler (1880) in which he showed that the kind of animals are best adapted and progressive that help each other in mutual relationships, and not those who excel in aggressive behavior. I do not want to say with this that in the world of the animals there is no fighting and war, they are certainly there, that is not the question. It is rather: What enhances evolution more, war or mutual help? Also the following question was raised; do those kinds survive in which the individuals constantly fight with each other or those where they help each other? It was shown in this research that it is not the fighting but the mutual help, which was the real stimulus to progress. I mentioned the book by Kropotkin called “Mutual Help in Animal and Man.” Among the ideas, which today are being put forward with regard to these questions, we find a number of relevant concepts.
What has mutual help in man's evolution achieved? We only have to look at our own ancestors in this region where we now are. One could easily imagine that hunting and fighting were the main forces for forming out the character of these human beings, but if you look deeper into history you will find that this is not true. Just those among the Germanic tribes flourished best who developed the principle of mutual help to a high level. We specially find this principle of mutual help influencing more than anything the way material possessions were ordered in the time before and after the tribal migrations. To a large extent there was a common ownership of the land. The Communities of Villages where the people lived had common land ownership with the exception of a few things belonging directly to the household, the tools, and maybe a garden, all else was common possession. From time to time all the land was redistributed and newly divided among the people. It could be seen that those tribes became powerful which were able to bring the application of mutual help to an extraordinarily high level in relation to material goods.
If we proceed a few hundred years further we find that this principle appears again in a most fruitful manner. Mutual help, as it lived in the old communities of villages, in the old ways of life in which people found their freedom in brotherly, sisterly common life, shows particularly in the following example: If someone died all their personal possessions were burned because nobody wanted to own what had belonged to them during life. After one broke with this principle through various circumstances, single individuals managed to gain large tracts of land and the people within these fiefdoms were forced into servitude. Through this the principle of mutual help appeared in a different form. Those who felt suppressed by the Feudal Lord wanted to free themselves from this oppression and we see in the Middle Ages a powerful movement for freedom sweeping through all of Europe. This movement stood under the sign of a universal mutual help out of which a common culture blossomed, the so-called culture of the cities, the middle of the Middle Ages. Those human beings who could not stand the bonded servitude on the fiefdoms, escaped from the Feudal Lords to seek freedom in the growing cities. People came from Scotland, France, Russia, from all sides and brought about the free cities. Through this the principle of mutual help developed, and in the way it worked it greatly enhanced the development of the culture. Those who had common professions and trades began to form sort of trade unions which were later called Guilds, Brother/Sisterhoods which one joined through a vow or conscious commitment. These guilds were more than just unions of craftsmen or traders. They developed out of practical life to a high moral level. Mutual support, mutual help was cultivated to a high degree in those organizations.
Many things, which no one attends to much today, were guided by the principle of mutual support. For instance, the members of such a Guild helped out if somebody fell ill. Day by day two members were called to be at the bedside of the sick one. He or she got food. Even beyond his or her death this brotherliness and sisterliness continued. After somebody died it was considered an honor by other members of the Guild to provide in the proper manner for the burial of the deceased one and it was part of this honor to care for the well being of the widow/widower and her or his children. You can see out of what I have said what understanding of morality in common life was created. This morality was developed on the basis of a moral awareness of which modern people can hardly get a true picture. Don't believe that I want to criticize modern circumstances; they are necessary in the same way as it was necessary that the circumstances in the Middle Ages developed in their way. We must understand that there were different phases of development leading to the present.
In those free cities during the Middle Ages one spoke about a just price and a just trade. What was meant by that? I can tell you on hand of a concrete example. If out of the surrounding holdings produce was brought into the city, it was rigidly forbidden that those goods be sold in the first days in any different manner than in the accustomed small units, not wholesale. Nobody was allowed to buy large amounts and nobody could become a wholesaler. It never would have occurred to them that price would be regulated by supply and demand; rather one was able to regulate both. The trade groups in the cities or the guilds established, according to what was necessary to produce the goods, the price for these goods. Nobody was allowed to go above or below a set price. If we look even in the work relationships we see how a thorough understanding of people's needs was available. If we look at the wages of that time, in consideration of the most different circumstances we have to say, “The way a worker was paid can in no way be compared to the earning of wages nowadays.” These circumstances are often most wrongly interpreted by scientists.
Those Brother/Sisterhoods were evolved according to practical points of view. Because of that they continued in a practical manner, they appeared in the cities because it was only natural that those who had the same trade in a city would come together in mutual help, so the guilds grew from city to city.
People were, at that time, not united under police rulings but under practical points of view. Anyone who takes the trouble to study the circumstances, which were commonly visible in the cities of Europe, will soon find out that we deal here with a certain faith in the deepening of this mutual help principle. It shows specially if we look at the fruit which developed. You can now look at the highest peak of this development at the extensive products of art, at the cathedrals and churches, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. They could not have come about without such a deepening of the mutual help principle. From a cultural/historical point of view, we can comprehend Dante's Divine Comedy, an immense work, only if we understand the establishment of the mutual help principle at that time. If you look further at what developed in these cities under the influence of this principle, you will find, for instance, the art of printing, engraving, papermaking, watch making, and all the later inventions, prepared under the free principle of mutual help. What we are used to call the burger or freeman of the city developed out of the establishment of this principle help in the Middle Ages. Much, which came about because of scientific and artistic deepening, would not have been possible without this development. If one wanted to build a cathedral, let's say the cathedral of Cologne, or any other, we see that at first a building guild was formed in which cooperation came about agreed upon by the members. One can, if one has an intuitive eye for it, see this principle of mutual help even in the architecture. You can see it in each of the cities of the Middle Age and you find it everywhere whether you go to the North of Scotland, to Venice or to the Russian or Polish cities.
We have to emphasize that this principle of mutual help developed under the influence of a materialistic culture. In everything that appeared as the highest fruits of this culture we see, the material, the physical. It was a necessary development and for this to happen rightly the mutual help principle was necessary at that time. Out of an abstraction this mutual help principle came about and because of this intellectual thinking our life is split. Today one doesn't know anymore, one doesn't understand how the Fight for Survival and the mutual help principle can function together in a relationship. On one hand spiritual life has become more and more abstract; morality and justice, ideas about the state, and different social relationships, are understood through more and more abstract principles, and the Fight for Survival is more and more separated from everything that people regard as ideal.
At that time, in the middle of the Middle Ages, there was a harmony between what people felt as their ideals and what they really did and if it was ever shown that one can be an idealist and a pragmatist at the same time it was during the Middle Ages. Even the relation of the Roman Law to life was a harmonious one, but if you look at it today you will find how our practice of law, our jurisprudence, is floating above the moral life. Many say, “We know what is good and right, but it is not practical.” It comes about that thoughts concerning the highest principle are separated from life. Only in the sixteenth century we see spiritual life developing under the principle of the intellect. In the Middle Ages a member of a guild, sitting with a jury of twelve to judge some offense which another member of the guild had committed, was a brother or sister of the one who had to be tried, life bound with life. Everyone understood the other's work and everyone tried to understand how he or she could have left the “straight and narrow.” One, so to speak, looked into one's brother or sister and one wanted to look into him or her.
Nowadays our jurisprudence is such that the judge and the prosecutor are only interested in the books of law; both see only a case in front of them to which they must apply the law. Just imagine how this separates morality from the practice of law. This condition progressed even more in the last century. In the Middle Ages expert knowledge and trust developed under the principle of mutual help and became the means of real progress. Today “expert knowledge and trust” are more and more ignored. The judgment of the expert is today almost completely bypassed in favor of the abstract interpretation of the law. The majority opinion is what counts today, not expertise. The rule of the opinion of the majority had to come, but as little as one can vote in mathematics to obtain a true result—three times three is always nine—so it is in the realm of jurisprudence. However, it is impossible to work according to the principle of the expert without the principle of mutual help, and brotherly and sisterly love.
The Fight for Survival has its place in life because humanity is composed of individual beings. Because all must go their separate ways in life, they are dependent on this Fight for Survival. In a certain relationship the saying of Ruckert is relevant. “As the rose beautifies herself, she beautifies the garden.” If we don't attempt to develop all our faculties we will have little success in helping our brothers and sisters. However, to develop our faculties requires a certain egoism, because initiative is connected to egoism. Those who understand how to be not only followers, who understand that they are not just subject to their environment, who are able to go down into their inner selves where the sources are, the fountains of their powers, they will develop to powerful and able people, and they will have the possibility to serve others much more than those who are constantly given to all possible influences in their surroundings. It is possible that this attitude, so necessary for people, could lead to a one-sidedness. It will only bear its proper fruits if it is paired with the principle of brotherly and sisterly love.
I have taken the free city guilds of the Middle Ages as an example in order to show you that the practical life became strong under the principle of mutual personal individual help. Where did they get their strength?—because they lived with their fellows in a spirit of mutual help. It is right to make oneself as strong as possible, but the question is can we really become strong without love? He who really develops to a true soul recognition must answer this question with a decisive, “No!”
We see throughout nature models for the cooperation of singular beings within a totality. Take the human body; it consists of millions and trillions of self-sufficient, living beings, or cells. If you take a part of this human body and look at it under the microscope you will find that it is composed of independent beings. How do they function together? How does selflessness come about in forming the totality? None of our cells takes its separation in an egoistic manner.
The wonderful tool of thought, the brain, also consists of millions of fine cells, but each one acts in its place in a harmonious way. What causes the cooperation of these small cells?—that a higher being expresses itself through those tiny living beings. It is the human soul that causes this effect, but this soul could never act here on earth if these millions of small beings would not have given up their selfhood to serve a large common being which we call the soul. The soul sees with the cells of the eye, thinks with the cells of the brain, lives in the cells of the blood; here we see what community signifies. Union—community—means that a higher being presses itself through the unified members. It is a universal principle of life; five people, who are together, who think and feel harmoniously together in common, are more than one plus one plus one plus one plus one. They are the sum of five as little as our body is the sum of our five senses. The living together, the in-each-other-living of human beings, means something similar as the living in each other of the cells of the human body. A new higher being is among these five—even among two or three; “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there I am among them.” It is not the one or the other or the third, but something entirely new that comes into appearance through the unification, but it only comes about if the individual lives in the other one—if the single one obtains his powers not only from himself but also out of the others. It can only happen if each of us lives selflessly in the others.
Thus human communities are mystery places where higher spiritual beings descend to act through the individual human beings just as the soul expresses itself in the members of the body. In our materialistic age one does not easily believe this, but in the Spiritual Scientific World View, it is not only an image but in the highest sense, reality. Because of this spiritual scientists are not speaking of abstract things if they talk about folk-spirit or folk-soul or family-spirit or about the spirit of some community. One cannot see the spirits who live in communities but they are there. They are there because of the sisterly, brotherly love of the personalities working in these communities. As the body has a soul, so a guild or community also has a soul, and I repeat, it is not spoken allegorically but must be taken as a full reality.
Those who work together in mutual help are magicians because they pull in higher beings. One does not call upon the machinations of spiritism if one works together in a community in sisterly, brotherly love. Higher beings manifest themselves there. If we give up ourselves to mutual help, through this giving up to the community a powerful strengthening of our organs takes place. If we then speak or act as a member of such a community there speaks or acts in us not the singular soul only but the spirit of the community. This is the secret of progress for the future of mankind: To work out of communities. In the same way as an epoch is followed by the next one and each one has its particular task so also the Middle Ages relate to our time and ours to the future one. The work of the Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods of Middle Ages laid the foundations for the practical arts. A materialistic way of life followed only after their fruits had appeared. The basis of their consciousness was the sisterliness and brotherliness that was more or less gone after the abstract social-state principle and the abstract spiritual life took the place of the real in-each-other feelings.
It is the task of the future to found again Brother/Sisterhoods out of the spirit, out of the highest ideals of the soul. Life has so far brought about the most manifold unions; it has also brought about a terrible Fight for Survival, which nowadays reaches its peak. The Spiritual Scientific World View wants to lead towards the highest treasures of mankind in the sense of the mutual help principle, and you will see that the Spiritual Scientific World Movement will extend this mutual help principle everywhere to replace the Fight for Survival. We must learn to lead community life. We shall not believe that the one or the other is able to accomplish anything by him or herself.
Everyone would of course like to know how one combines the Fight for Survival with sisterly and brotherly love—that's simple: We have to learn to replace the fighting with positive work, to replace fighting and war by the search for ideals. One understands nowadays little of what that implies. One does not know what fight one talks about because one speaks in today's life about nothing else but fighting. We have the class struggles, the fight for peace, the fight for women's rights, the fight for land and so on everywhere, regardless in what direction we look, we see fighting.
The Spiritual Scientific World View strives to put in place of this fight, positive work. Those who have lived into this worldview know that fighting has never achieved any real results in any area of life. Try to introduce into life what in your experience and recognition is shown to be the right thing and make it effective without fighting against your opponent. It can of course only be an ideal but such an ideal must be present, introduced into life as Spiritual Scientific basic statement. Human beings who unite with other human beings and who use their powers for the benefit of all are those who will produce the basis for a proper evolution into the future. The Anthroposophical Society wants to be a forerunner of this and, because of this, it is not a society based on propaganda but a sisterly and brotherly society. In this society we are effective through the work of every member. One has only to understand it rightly—we have the most effect if we do not want to push our own opinion but if we work out of what we see in the eyes of our sisters and brothers, if we search in the thoughts and feelings of our fellows, and make ourselves their servant. We work best in such a circle if we are able in practical life to disregard our own opinion. If we understand that our best forces spring out of community and that community is not just understood as an abstract principle but primary at every turn of the road, at every moment of life in a Anthroposophical manner. Only then we will be able to proceed, however, we must not be impatient with this.
What does Spiritual Science show us? She shows us a higher reality, and it is this consciousness of a higher reality, which brings us ahead in putting into effect the mutual help principle.
Today, some people call Anthroposophists, impractical idealists, but before long one will see that they will be the most practical ones, because they are able to deal with the forces of life. Nobody will doubt that one would injure a person if one throws a stone at their head, but that it is much worse to send towards a man a feeling of hate, that this hurts the soul of a man much more than a stone hurts the body, this does not enter the mind. It entirely depends in what attitude we confront a fellow man, and our power to work fruitfully into the future also depends exactly on that. If we try to live community in this way we foster the principle of mutual help practically. To be tolerant means in the sense of Spiritual Science something quite different from what one understands usually about it. It means also to respect the freedom of thought in others. To push others away from their place is an insult, but if one does the same thing in thought nobody would say this is an injustice. We talk a lot about “regard for the other's opinion,” but are not really willing to apply this principle ourselves.
The “Word” today has almost no meaning, one hears it and one has heard nothing. One has to learn to listen with one's soul, to get hold of the most intimate things with our soul. What later manifests itself in physical life is always present in the spirit first. So we must suppress our opinion and really listen completely to the other, not only listen to the word but even to the feeling. Even then, if in us a feeling will stir that it is wrong what the other one says, it is much more powerful to be able to listen as long as the other one talks than to jump into their speech. This listening creates a completely different understanding—you feel as if the soul of the other starts to warm you through, to shine through you, if you confront “her” in this manner with absolute tolerance.
We shall not only grant the freedom of person but complete freedom. We shall even treasure the freedom of the other's opinion. This stands only as an example for many things. If one cuts off someone's speech one does something similar to kicking the other from the point of view of the spiritual world. If one brings oneself as far as to understand that it is much more destructive to cut somebody off than to give them a kick, only then one comes as far as to understand mutual help or community right into one's soul. Then it becomes a reality. The greatness of the spiritual scientific movement is that it brings to us a new conviction of spiritual forces which stream from man to man, the higher mutual help principle. You can imagine for yourself how far man is away from such a spiritual mutual help principle. Everyone can attempt as time permits to send thoughts of love and friendship to their loved ones. We usually think such a thing insignificant. If you recognize that a thought has a power in the same way as an electrical wave, which goes from one apparatus to a receiver, then you will also understand better the mutual help principle. Then slowly a common consciousness becomes available, it becomes practical.
From this we can see how the Spiritual Scientific Worldview understands the Fight for Survival, and mutual help at work. We know exactly that many who find themselves on this or that place in life would just go under if they wouldn't howl with the wolves, if they wouldn't pursue this Fight for Survival as ruthlessly as the others. For the one who thinks materialistically there is almost no escape from this Fight for Survival. We should, of course, do our duty on the place where karma puts us, but we do the right thing if we are clear that we could achieve much more if we would forego to look for quick success. Maybe you stand in pain in regard to the one you hurt in the Fight for Survival but, overcome yourself, develop a loving attitude and let your thoughts stream from soul to soul. If you are a materialist you might think you didn't achieve anything, but after what I have told you, you should recognize that this must later on have its effect. Because nothing is lost that happens in the spirit.
In this way we are able with fearful soul, with pain in our hearts, to take up the Fight for Survival and transform it through our working together. In this way, to work in this Fight for Survival means, in a practical sense to change it. We are not able to do it from today to tomorrow, that's beyond all doubt. But if we work in this way upon our own soul in love, we become more useful to ourselves, and then to a greater extent to mankind. If we are stuck in self-centered isolation, our talents are uprooted like a plant pulled out of the ground. As little as an eye is still an eye if it is torn out of one's head so little is a human soul a human soul if it is separated from community. You will see that we educate our talents best if we live in sisterly and brotherly community, that we live most intensely if we are rooted in the totality. Of course we have to wait till that which forms roots in the totality ripens to fruit in quiet inwardness.
We may not lose ourselves into the outside world nor into ourselves, because it is true in the highest spiritual sense what the poet said that one has to be quiet in oneself if one's faculties are to appear, but those faculties are rooted in the world. We are only able to strengthen them and to improve ourselves if we live in community, because it is true in the sense of genuine mutual help that working in a sisterly and brotherly way makes us strongest in the Fight for Survival and we will find most of our powers in the stillness of our hearts if we develop our total personality, our total individuality in community with our human sisters and brothers. It is true that a talent is formed in quietude. It is also true that, in the stream of the world, character is formed and with it the whole of one's being and the totality of humanity.
Bruderschaft und Daseinskampf
Es ist heute unsere Aufgabe, über zwei Seeleninhalte zu sprechen, von denen der eine ein großes, die Menschheit, seit sie wirklich fühlt, durchdringendes Ideal darstellt, Bruderschaft, und der andere etwas, was uns insbesondere heute im Leben auf Schritt und Tritt begegnet, der Daseinskampf: Bruderschaft und Daseinskampf. Diejenigen von Ihnen, welche sich nur ein wenig mit den Zielen der geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung befaßt haben, kennen ja unseren ersten Grundsatz, den Kern einer auf allgemeiner Menschenliebe gegründeten Bruderschaft zu bilden, ohne Unterschied von Rasse, Geschlecht, Beruf, Bekenntnis und so weiter. Damit hat die Theosophische Gesellschaft selbst dieses Prinzip einer allgemeinen Bruderschaft an die Spitze ihrer Bewegung gestellt und zum wichtigsten ihrer Ideale gemacht. Angezeigt hat sie dadurch, daß sie von denjenigen Kulturbestrebungen, die uns heute vor allen andern Dingen not tun, diesen großen ethischen Zug nach der Bruderschaft hin als innig zusammenhängend ansieht mit dem, was überhaupt das Ziel der Menschheitsentwickelung ist.
Der geisteswissenschaftlich Strebende ist überzeugt, und nicht nur überzeugt, sondern sich ganz klar darüber, daß die tiefe Erkenntnis, die Erkenntnis der geistigen Welt, wenn sie wahrhaft und wirklich den Menschen ergreift, zur Bruderschaft führen muß, daß die edelste Frucht tiefer, innerster Erkenntnis eben diese Bruderschaft ist. Damit allerdings scheint die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltanschauung manchem zu widersprechen, was in den letzten Zeiten an die Menschheit herangetreten ist. Es wird gerade in gewissen Kreisen immer wieder und wieder auf die fortschrittlich wirkende Kraft des Kampfes hingewiesen, und wie oft können wir es heute noch hören, daß des Menschen Kräfte wachsen am Widerstand, daß der Mensch stark wird an Willen und intellektueller Initiative dadurch, daß er seine Kräfte an dem Gegner messen muß. Eine Weltanschauung, die aus geistvollen Grundlagen hervorgegangen ist, die Weltanschauung Friedrich Nietzsches, hat unter manchen andern kampfbegeisterten Sätzen auch diesen: Ich liebe den Kritiker, ich liebe den großen Kritiker mehr als den kleinen. — Das können wir in den verschiedensten Abänderungen gerade bei Nietzsche als etwas, was ganz in seine Lebensanschauungen hineingehört, immer wieder und wieder finden. Mit gewissen wirtschaftlichen Anschauungen, die seit langem herrschen, hängt es zusammen, daß man in dem Kampfe aller gegen alle in der allgemeinen Konkurrenz einen mächtigen Hebel des Fortschritts sieht. Wie oft wurde gesagt, daß dadurch die Menschheit am besten vorwärtsschreiten könne, daß der einzelne sich selbst, so gut es geht, nützt und sich zur Geltung bringt. Das Wort Individualismus ist geradezu zu einem Schlagwort geworden, freilich mehr auf dem Gebiete des äußeren materiellen Lebens, aber auch nicht ohne Gültigkeit auf dem Gebiete inneren geistigen Lebens.
Daß der Mensch seinen Mitmenschen am meisten nütze, wenn er so viel wie möglich wirtschaftlich aus dem Leben herausschlägt, denn dadurch, daß er wirtschaftlich stark wird, kann er auch der Allgemeinheit mehr nützen: das ist das Glaubensbekenntnis vieler Nationalökonomen und Soziologen. Auf der andern Seite hören wir, wie immer wieder betont wird, daß der Mensch nicht aufgehen soll in einer Schablone, daß er die in ihm liegenden Kräfte allseitig entwickeln, daß er sich rückhaltlos ausleben soll, daß er zur Entfaltung bringen soll, was in seinem Inneren liegt und daß er dadurch den Mitmenschen am meisten nützen könne. Es gibt viele unter unseren Volksgenossen, die geradezu ängstlich sind in der Verfolgung dieses Prinzips, die nicht genug darin tun können, sich auszuleben. Die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltanschauung verkennt nicht die Notwendigkeit des Kampfes ums Dasein, gerade in unserer Zeit, aber gleichzeitig ist sich diese Weltanschauung auch klar darüber, daß heute, wo dieser Kampf ums Dasein die mächtigsten Wogen schlägt, das Prinzip der Bruderschaft in seiner tiefen Bedeutung dem Verständnis wieder nähergebracht werden muß.
Die wichtigste Frage wird diese sein: Ist es denn richtig, was von so vielen geglaubt wird, daß des Menschen Kräfte vorzüglich am Widerstand wachsen, daß es vor allen Dingen der Kampf ist, den der Mensch zu führen hat, welcher ihn groß und stark gemacht hat? Ich habe in dem Vortrage über die Friedensidee, den ich vor Ihnen halten durfte, bereits darauf hingewiesen, daß dieses Prinzip des Kampfes ums Dasein im Menschenleben heute eine starke Nahrung dadurch erhält, daß die Naturwissenschaft es zu einem allgemeinen natürlichen Weltprinzip gemacht hat, daß sie, namentlich im Westen, eine Zeitlang geglaubt hat, diejenigen Wesen in der Welt seien am zweckdienlichsten gestaltet, welche ihren Gegner aus dem Felde geschlagen haben und in diesem Daseinskampfe übriggeblieben sind.
Der Naturforscher Huxley sagt: Wenn wir das Leben draußen ansehen, erscheint es uns wie ein Gladiatorenkampf, der Stärkste bleibt Sieger, die andern gehen zugrunde. — Wenn man den Naturforschern glauben würde, müßte man annehmen, daß alle die Wesen, welche heute die Welt bevölkern, in der Lage gewesen sind, die andern, die noch früher da waren, aus dem Felde zu schlagen. Es gibt auch eine Soziologenschule, welche aus diesem Prinzip des Kampfes ums Dasein heraus geradezu eine Entwickelungslehre für die Menschheit hat machen wollen. In einem Buche, betitelt «Von Darwin bis Nietzsche», hat der Dekan Alexander Tille zu zeigen versucht, daß das Glück der Menschheit für die Zukunft davon abhängt, daß man rückhaltlos diesen Kampf ums Dasein auf die Fahne der Entwickelung der Menschheit schreibe, daß man dafür sorge, daß das Unfähige zugrunde gehe, daß man dagegen das Starke und Kräftige im Daseinskampfe züchten und fördern müsse. Der Schwache solle zugrunde gehen. Wir brauchten eine solche Gesellschaftsordnung, die den Schwachen unterdrücke, weil er schädlich sei. — Ich frage Sie: Wer ist der Starke, derjenige der eine ideale Geisteskraft, aber einen schwächlichen Körper hat, oder der andere, welcher eine weniger hohe Geisteskraft mit einem robusten Körper besitzt? — Mit allgemeinen Regeln ist hier wenig getan, wie Sie sehen. Schwer ist es, zu entscheiden, wer eigentlich übrigbleiben sollte im Daseinskampfe. Wenn es sich um praktische Maßnahmen handeln würde, so müßte zuerst diese Frage entschieden werden. Wir fragen uns nun, was zeigt sich uns, wenn wir das menschliche Leben betrachten? Hat in der Entwickelung der Menschheit das Prinzip der Bruderschaft oder das Prinzip des Daseinskampfes Großes geleistet, oder haben sie beide etwas zu der Entwickelung der Menschheit beigetragen?
Nur mit flüchtigen Worten möchte ich nochmals darauf aufmerksam machen, was ich schon in dem Vortrag über die Friedensidee gesagt habe, daß selbst die Naturwissenschaft von heute nicht mehr auf dem Boden steht, auf dem sie noch vor einem Jahrzehnt gestanden hat. Ich habe schon auf den grundlegenden Vortrag des russischen Forschers Keßler vom Jahre 1880 hingewiesen, in dem gezeigt worden ist, daß die entwicklungsfähigen und eigentlich fortschreitenden Tierarten nicht diejenigen sind, welche den größten Kampf führen, sondern welche sich gegenseitig beistehen, einander Hilfe leisten. Damit sollte nicht behauptet werden, daß Kampf und Krieg in der Tierwelt nicht bestehen. Gewiß sind sie vorhanden, aber eine andere Frage ist es, was die Entwickelung mehr fördert, der Krieg oder die gegenseitige Hilfeleistung? Es wurde ferner die Frage aufgeworfen: Überleben diejenigen Arten, deren Individuen fortwährend miteinander kämpfen, oder diejenigen, welche sich gegenseitig Hilfe leisten? Hier ist durch die angedeutete Forschung schon nachgewiesen, daß nicht der Kampf, sondern die Hilfeleistung das eigentlich Fortschrittfördernde ist. Ich habe schon auf das Buch des Fürsten Kropotkin «Gegenseitige Hilfe im Tierreich und Menschenieben» hingewiesen. Zu dem, was heute ausgeführt wird zu den Fragen, die uns hier beschäftigen, finden Sie in dem Buche manchen schönen Beitrag.
Was hat also Bruderschaft in der Menschheitsentwickelung geleistet? Wir brauchen uns nur die eigenen Vorfahren auf demselben Boden, auf dem wir heute leben, einmal anzuschauen. Man kann leicht die Vorstellung bekommen, als ob Jagd und Krieg das eigentlich Fördernde gewesen wäre und hauptsächlich den Charakter jener Menschen bedingt habe. Wer aber tiefer auf die Geschichte eingeht, wird finden, daß dies nicht richtig ist, daß gerade diejenigen, auch unter den germanischen Stämmen, am besten gediehen sind, welche das Prinzip der Bruderschaft in außerordentlicher Weise ausgebildet hatten. Wir finden dieses Prinzip der Bruderschaft vor allen Dingen in der Art und Weise ausgebildet, wie in den Zeiten vor und nach der Völkerwanderung der Besitz geregelt war. In ausgedehntestem Maße gab es da einen Gemeinbesitz an Grund und Boden. Die Dorfmark, in welcher die Menschen beisammen wohnten, hatte einen gemeinsamen Grundbesitz, und mit Ausnahme des wenigen, was unmittelbar zum Hausgebrauch gehört, mit Ausnahme der Werkzeuge, vielleicht auch eines Gartens, war alles, was Besitz war, gemeinschaftlich. Von Zeit zu Zeit wurde der Grund und Boden von neuem wieder unter den Menschen aufgeteilt, und es zeigte sich, daß diese Stämme dadurch stark geworden waren, daß sie die Bruderschaft in bezug auf materielle Güter bis zu einer außerordentlichen Höhe getrieben hatten.
Wenn wir einige Jahrhunderte weitergehen, finden wir, daß dieses Prinzip uns in außerordentlich fruchtbringender Weise entgegentritt. Das Prinzip der Bruderschaft, wie es ausgeprägt ist in der alten Dorfmark, in den alten Zuständen, wo die Menschen ihre Freiheit im brüderlichen Zusammenleben fanden, drückte sich besonders charakteristisch darin aus, daß man so weit ging, das, was der einzelne besaß, bei seinem Tode auf seinem Grunde zu verbrennen, weil man nichts, was einem einzelnen als Einzelbesitz gehörte, nach dem Tode desselben besitzen wollte. Als mit diesem Prinzip gebrochen worden war infolge verschiedener Verhältnisse, namentlich weil einzelne sich Großgrundbesitz angeeignet hatten und die Menschen in der umliegenden Gegend dadurch zur Leibeigenschaft und zu Frondiensten gezwungen waren, da machte sich das Prinzip der Bruderschaft in einer andern, leuchtenden Weise geltend. Die, welche bedrückt waren von den Herren, den Besitzenden, wollten sich von ihrem Druck freimachen. So sehen wir in der Mitte des Mittelalters eine große, gewaltige Freiheitsbewegung durch ganz Europa gehen. Diese Freiheitsbewegung stand im Zeichen der allgemeinen Bruderschaft, aus der eine allgemeine Kultur hervorblühte. Wir sind in der sogenannten Städtekultur in der Mitte des Mittelalters. Diejenigen Menschen, welche es nicht aushalten konnten unter der Fronarbeit auf den Gütern, entflohen ihren Herren und suchten ihre Freiheit in den erweiterten Städten. Da kamen die Menschen von oben herunter, von Schottland, Frankreich und Rußland, von allen Seiten her kamen sie und brachten die freien Städte zusammen. Dadurch entwickelte sich das Prinzip der Bruderschaft, und in der Art, wie es sich betätigte, wurde es im höchsten Maße kulturfördernd. Diejenigen, welche gemeinschaftliche, gleichartige Beschäftigungen hatten, schlossen sich zu Vereinigungen zusammen, die man Schwurbruderschaften nannte und die später zu den Gilden auswuchsen. Diese Schwurbruderschaften waren weit mehr als bloße Vereinigungen der gewerblichen oder handeltreibenden Menschen. Sie entwickelten sich aus dem praktischen Leben heraus zu einer moralischen Höhe. Das gegenseitige Sich-Beistehen, die gegenseitige Hilfeleistung war in hohem Maße bei diesen Bruderschaften ausgebildet, und viele Dinge, um die sich heute fast niemand mehr kümmert, waren Gegenstand solchen Beistandes. So leisteten sich zum Beispiel die Angehörigen einer solchen Bruderschaft in der Weise Hilfe, daß sie sich in Krankheitsfällen unterstützten. Es wurden von Tag zu Tag zwei Brüder bestimmt, die am Bette eines kranken Bruders Wache halten mußten. Es wurden die Kranken mit Nahrungsmitteln unterstützt, ja es wurde selbst über den Tod hinaus brüderlich gedacht, indem es als ganz besonders ehrenvoll galt, den zur Bruderschaft Gehörigen in entsprechender Weise zu begraben. Endlich gehörte es auch zur Ehre der Schwurbruderschaft, die Witwen und Waisen zu versorgen. Daraus sehen Sie, wie ein Verständnis für die Moral im Gemeinschaftsleben erwuchs, wie sich diese Moral auf dem Grunde eines Bewußtseins bildete, von dem sich der heutige Mensch schwer eine Vorstellung machen kann. Glauben Sie nicht, daß hier in irgendeiner Weise die gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse getadelt werden sollen. Sie sind notwendig geworden, so wie es auch nötig gewesen ist, daß die mittelalterlichen Verhältnisse in ihrer Art zum Ausdrucke gekommen sind. Verstehen müssen wir nur, daß es auch andere Phasen der Entwickelung gab als die heutige.
In den freien Städten des Mittelalters sprach man überall von einem «Gerichtspreis», von einem «Gerichtsmarkt». Was war damit gemeint? Ich will es an einem konkreten Beispiele anschaulich machen. Wenn von den umliegenden Ländereien Produkte in eine Stadt gebracht wurden, so war es streng verboten, daß sie in den ersten Tagen anders als im Kleinverkauf abgesetzt wurden. Niemand durfte im großen kaufen und Zwischenhändler werden. Niemals war damals daran gedacht worden, daß der Preis durch Angebot und Nachfrage geregelt werden sollte. Man verstand damals beides zu regulieren. Die Gruppen in den Städten oder die Gilden mußten den Mitgliedern, welche nach Darlegung dessen, was erforderlich war, um Waren herzustellen, um Produzent zu werden, aufgenommen worden waren, den Preis für diese Produkte feststellen. Niemand durfte den Preis überschreiten. Wenn wir selbst über die Arbeitsverhältnisse ein wenig Umschau halten, dann sehen wir, wie ein gründliches Verständnis vorhanden war für das, was ein Mensch nötig hatte. Wenn wir die Arbeitslöhne der damaligen Zeit unter Berücksichtigung der ganz andern Verhältnisse betrachten, so müssen wir uns sagen, wie damals ein Arbeiter entlohnt war, das hält keinen Vergleich aus mit der Entlohnung von heute. Oftmals ist diese Tatsache von den Forschern ganz falsch gedeutet worden.
Nach praktischen Gesichtspunkten waren diese Bruderschaften gestaltet und daher bildeten sie sich auch allmählich nach solchen praktischen Gesichtspunkten aus. Sie griffen dann von einer Stadt zur andern über, denn es war natürlich, daß diejenigen, welche in den verschiedenen Städten ein gemeinsames Handwerk und gemeinsame Interessen hatten, sich miteinander verbanden und sich gegenseitig unterstützten. So dehnten sich die Verbände von Stadt zu Stadt aus.
Die Menschheit war damals noch nicht unter Polizeimaßregeln vereinigt, sondern unter praktischen Gesichtspunkten. Wer sich die Mühe nimmt, die Verhältnisse zu studieren, welche damals gleichmäßig in den Städten Europas sichtbar waren, der merkt sehr bald, daß wir es hier mit einer ganz bestimmten Phase der Vertiefung des Bruderschaftsprinzips zu tun haben. Das zeigt sich besonders, wenn wir sehen, welche Frucht sich daraus entwickelt hat. Wir könnten zunächst auf die höchsten Gipfel hinweisen, auf die gewaltigen Kunstleistungen des i2. und 1i3. Jahrhunderts. Sie wären nicht möglich gewesen ohne diese Vertiefung des Bruderschaftsprinzips. Dantes gewaltiges Werk, «Die Göttliche Komödie», verstehen wir kulturhistorisch nur dann, wenn wir die Ausprägung des Bruderschaftsprinzips verstehen. Sehen Sie sich ferner an, was in den Städten unter den Einflüssen dieses Prinzips entstanden ist, zum Beispiel wie Buchdruckerkunst, Kupferdruck, Papierbereitung, Uhrmacherkunst und die später erscheinenden Erfindungen sich unter dem freien Prinzip der Bruderschaft vorbereiteten. Was wir das Bürgertum zu nennen gewohnt sind, geht aus der Pflege des Bruderschaftsprinzips in den mittelalterlichen Städten hervor. Vieles, was durch die wissenschaftliche und künstlerische Vertiefung hervorgebracht worden ist, wäre nicht möglich gewesen ohne die Pflege dieses Bruderschaftsprinzips. Wenn ein Dom gebaut werden sollte, nehmen wir den Kölner Dom oder irgendeinen andern, dann sehen wir, daß sich zunächst eine Vereinigung bildete, eine sogenannte Baugilde, wodurch ein entschiedenes Zusammenwirken der Mitglieder einer solchen Gilde entstand. Man kann, wenn man einen intuitiven Blick dafür hat, sogar in dem Baustil dieses Bruderschaftsprinzip zum Ausdruck gebracht sehen, man kann es zum Ausdruck gebracht sehen fast in jeder mittelalterlichen Stadt, und Sie finden es überall, ob Sie nach dem Norden von Schottland oder nach Venedig gehen, ob Sie sich russische oder polnische Städte ansehen.
Das eine müssen wir betonen, daß das Bruderschaftsprinzip unter dem Einflusse einer entschieden in die materielle Kultur hineingehenden Zeitströmung herausgekommen ist, und deshalb sehen wir sowohl in dem, was als höhere Kultur hervorgeht, wie in dem, was als Frucht jener Zeit uns bleibt, überall das Materielle, das Physische. Es mußte einmal gepflegt werden, und um es richtig zu pflegen, es auszugestalten, war dieses Bruderschaftsprinzip dazumal nötig. Aus einer Abstraktion heraus ist dieses Bruderschaftsprinzip seinerzeit hervorgegangen und durch diese Abstraktion, durch dieses verstandesmäßige Denken ist unser Leben gespalten worden, so daß man heute nicht mehr recht weiß, nicht mehr recht begreift, wie Daseinskampf und Bruderschaftsprinzip in ihrer gegenseitigen Beziehung zusammenwirken. Auf der einen Seite wurde das Geistesleben immer abstrakter und abstrakter. Moral und Gerechtigkeit, Anschauungen in bezug auf das Staatswesen und die andern gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse wurden unter immer abstraktere Grundsätze gebracht, und der Daseinskampf wurde immer mehr und mehr durch eine Kluft von dem getrennt, was der Mensch eigentlich als sein Ideal fühlt. Dazumal, in der Mitte des Mittelalters, bestand eine Harmonie zwischen dem, was man als sein Ideal fühlte und dem, was man wirklich tat, und wenn je einmal gezeigt worden ist, daß man Idealist und Praktiker zugleich sein kann, so ist das im Mittelalter der Fall gewesen. Auch das Verhältnis des römischen Rechtes zum Leben war noch ein harmonisches. Schauen Sie sich dagegen heute die Sache an, dann finden Sie, wie unsere Rechtsverhältnisse über dem moralischen Leben schweben. Viele sagen: Wir wissen, was gut, recht und billig ist, aber praktisch ist es nicht. — Das kommt davon her, daß das Denken über die höchsten Prinzipien vom Leben abgetrennt ist.
Vom 16. Jahrhundert ab sehen wir das geistige Leben mehr unter den Grundsätzen des Verstandes sich entwickeln. Derjenige, der aus seiner Gilde heraus, mit den andern zwölf Schöffen zusammen zu Gericht saß über irgendein Vergehen, das ein Mitglied der Gilde begangen hatte, er war der Bruder dessen, der gerichtet werden sollte. Leben verband sich mit Leben. Jeder wußte, was der andere arbeitete, und jeder versuchte zu begreifen, warum er einmal abweichen konnte von dem richtigen Wege. Man sah gleichsam in den Bruder hinein und wollte in ihn hineinsehen.
Jetzt hat sich eine Jurisprudenz herausgebildet der Art, daß den Richter und den Anwalt nur das Gesetzbuch interessiert, daß beide nur einen «Fall» sehen, auf den sie das Gesetz anzuwenden haben. Betrachten Sie nur, wie alles, was moralisch gedacht ist, von der Rechtswissenschaft losgelöst ist. Diesen Zustand haben wir immer mehr im letzten Jahrhundert sich entwickeln sehen, während im Mittelalter unter dem Prinzip der Bruderschaft sich etwas herausgebildet hatte, was notwendig und wichtig ist für jeden gedeihlichen Fortschritt: Sachverständigkeit und Vertrauen, die heute als Prinzip immer mehr in Fortfall kommen. Das Urteil des Sachverständigen ist heute fast ganz zurückgetreten gegenüber der abstrakten Jurisprudenz, gegenüber dem abstrakten Parlamentarismus. Der Allerweltsverstand, die Majorität soll heute das Maßgebende sein, nicht das Sachverständnis. Die Bevorzugung der Majorität mußte kommen. Aber ebensowenig wie man in der Mathematik abstimmen kann, um ein richtiges Resultat herauszubringen — denn 3 mal 3 ist immer 9 und 3 mal 9 ist immer 27 —, so ist es auch da. Unmöglich wäre es, das Prinzip des Sachverständigen durchzuführen ohne das Prinzip der Bruderschaft, der Bruderliebe.
Der Daseinskampf hat seine Berechtigung im Leben. Dadurch, daß der Mensch ein Sonderwesen ist, daß er als einzelner seinen Weg durch das Leben gehen muß, ist er auf diesen Daseinskampf angewiesen. In gewisser Beziehung gilt auch hier das Wort Rückerts: Wenn die Rose selbst sich schmückt, schmückt sie auch den Garten. — Machen wir uns nicht fähig, unseren Mitmenschen zu helfen, so werden wir ihnen auch schlecht helfen können. Sehen wir nicht zu, daß alle unsere Anlagen ausgebildet werden, so werden wir auch nur geringen Erfolg haben, unseren Brüdern zu helfen. Um diese Anlagen zur Entwickelung zu bringen, muß ein gewisser Egoismus vorhanden sein, denn Initiative hängt mit Egoismus zusammen. Wer es versteht, sich nicht führen zu lassen, wer es versteht, nicht jedes Bild aus der Umgebung auf sich wirken zu lassen, sondern hinabzusteigen in sein Inneres, wo die Quellen der Kräfte sind, der wird sich zu einem kräftigen und fähigen Menschen ausbilden und bei ihm wird die Möglichkeit, andern Dienste zu leisten, viel mehr vorhanden sein als bei dem, welcher sich allen möglichen Einflüssen seiner Umgebung fügt. Es liegt nahe, daß dieses Prinzip, das für den Menschen notwendig ist, ins Radikale ausgearbeitet werden kann. Nur dann wird aber dieses Prinzip die richtigen Früchte tragen, wenn es gepaart ist mit dem Prinzip der Bruderliebe.
Ich habe gerade aus diesem Grunde die freien Städtegilden des Mittelalters als praktisches Beispiel angeführt, um zu zeigen, wie das Praktische gerade unter dem Prinzip der gegenseitigen persönlichen, individuellen Hilfeleistung so stark geworden ist. Woraus haben sie die Stärke gesogen? Daraus, daß sie mit ihren Mitmenschen in Bruderschaft gelebt haben. Recht ist es, sich so stark wie möglich zu machen. Aber die Frage ist, ob wir überhaupt stark werden können Ohne die Bruderliebe. Diese Frage muß derjenige, der sich zu einer wirklichen Seelenkenntnis aufschwingt, mit einem entschiedenen Nein beantworten.
Wir sehen in der ganzen Natur Vorbilder des Zusammenwirkens von Einzelwesen in einem Ganzen. Nehmen Sie bloß den menschlichen Körper. Er besteht aus selbständigen Wesen, aus Millionen und Abermillionen von einzelnen selbständigen Lebewesen oder Zellen. Wenn Sie einen Teil dieses menschlichen Körpers unter dem Mikroskop betrachten, so finden Sie, daß er geradezu aus solchen selbständigen Wesen zusammengesetzt ist. Wie wirken sie aber zusammen? Wie ist dasjenige selbstlos geworden, das in der Natur ein Ganzes bilden soll? Keine unserer Zellen macht ihre Sonderheit in egoistischer Weise geltend. Das Wunderwerkzeug des Gedankens, das Gehirn, ist ebenfalls aus Millionen feiner Zellen gebildet, aber jede wirkt an ihrem Platze in harmonischer Weise mit den andern. Was bewirkt das Zusammenwirken dieser kleinen Zellen, was bewirkt es, daß ein höheres Wesen innerhalb dieser kleinen Lebewesen zum Ausdrucke kommt? Des Menschen Seele ist es, die diese Wirkung hervorbringt. Aber niemals könnte die menschliche Seele hier auf Erden wirken, wenn nicht diese Millionen kleiner Wesen ihre Selbstheit aufgeben und sich in den Dienst des großen, gemeinsamen Wesens stellen würden, das wir als die Seele bezeichnen. Die Seele sieht mit den Zellen des Auges, denkt mit den Zellen des Gehirns, lebt mit den Zellen des Blutes. Da sehen wir, was Vereinigung bedeutet. Vereinigung bedeutet die Möglichkeit, daß ein höheres Wesen durch die vereinigten Glieder sich ausdrückt. Das ist ein allgemeines Prinzip in allem Leben. Fünf Menschen, die zusammen sind, harmonisch miteinander denken und fühlen, sind mehr als 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1, sie sind nicht bloß die Summe aus den fünf, ebensowenig wie unser Körper die Summe aus den fünf Sinnen ist, sondern das Zusammenleben, das Ineinanderleben der Menschen bedeutet etwas ganz Ähnliches, wie das Ineinanderleben der Zellen des menschlichen Körpers. Eine neue, höhere Wesenheit ist mitten unter den fünfen, ja schon unter zweien oder dreien. «Wo zwei oder drei in meinem Namen vereinigt sind, da bin ich mitten unter ihnen.» Es ist nicht der eine und der andere und der dritte, sondern etwas ganz Neues, was durch die Vereinigung entsteht. Aber es entsteht nur, wenn der einzelne in dem andern lebt, wenn der einzelne seine Kraft nicht bloß aus sich selbst, sondern auch aus den andern schöpft. Das kann aber nur geschehen, wenn er selbstlos in dem andern lebt. So sind die menschlichen Vereinigungen die geheimnisvollen Stätten, in welche sich höhere geistige Wesenheiten herniedersenken, um durch die einzelnen Menschen zu wirken, wie die Seele durch die Glieder des Körpers wirkt.
In unserem materialistischen Zeitalter wird man das nicht leicht glauben, aber in der geisteswissenschaftlichen Weltanschauung ist es nicht bloß etwas Bildliches, sondern im höchsten Grade Wirkliches. Daher spricht der Geisteswissenschafter nicht bloß von abstrakten Dingen, wenn er von dem Volksgeist oder von der Volksseele oder von dem Familiengeist oder von dem Geiste einer andern Gemeinschaft spricht. Sehen kann man diesen Geist nicht, der in einer Vereinigung wirkt, aber da ist er, und er ist da durch die Bruderliebe der in dieser Vereinigung wirkenden Persönlichkeiten. Wie der Körper eine Seele hat, so hat eine Gilde, eine Bruderschaft auch eine Seele, und ich wiederhole noch einmal, es ist das nicht bloß bildlich gesprochen, sondern als volle Wirklichkeit zu nehmen.
Zauberer sind die Menschen, die in der Bruderschaft zusammen wirken, weil sie höhere Wesen in ihren Kreis ziehen. Man braucht sich nicht mehr auf die Machinationen des Spiritismus zu berufen, wenn man mit Bruderliebe in einer Gemeinschaft zusammenwirkt. Höhere Wesen manifestieren sich da. Geben wir uns in der Bruderschaft auf, so ist dieses Aufgeben, dieses Aufgehen in der Gesamtheit eine Stählung, eine Kräftigung unserer Organe. Wenn wir dann als Mitglied einer solchen Gemeinschaft handeln oder reden, so handelt oder redet in uns nicht die einzelne Seele, sondern der Geist der Gemeinschaft. Das ist das Geheimnis des Fortschritts der zukünftigen Menschheit, aus Gemeinschaften heraus zu wirken. Wie eine Epoche die andere ablöst und jede ihre eigene Aufgabe hat, so ist es auch mit der mittelalterlichen Epoche im Verhältnis zu der unsrigen, mit unserer Epoche im Verhältnis zu der zukünftigen. Im unmittelbaren praktischen Leben, bei der Grundlegung der nützlichen Künste, haben die mittelalterlichen Bruderschaften gewirkt. Ein materialistisches Leben haben sie erst gezeigt, nachdem sie ihre Früchte erhalten hatten, ihre Bewußtseinsgrundlage, nämlich die Brüderlichkeit, aber mehr oder weniger geschwunden war, nachdem das abstrakte Staatsprinzip, das abstrakte, geistige Leben anstelle wirklichen Ineinanderfühlens getreten war. Der Zukunft obliegt es, wieder Bruderschaften zu begründen, und zwar aus dem Geistigen, aus den höchsten Idealen der Seele heraus. Das Leben der Menschen hat bisher die mannigfaltigsten Vereinigungen gezeitigt, es hat einen furchtbaren Daseinskampf hervorgerufen, der heute geradezu an seinem Gipfelpunkte angekommen ist. Die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltanschauung will die höchsten Güter der Menschheit im Sinne des Bruderschaftsprinzips ausbilden, und so sehen Sie dann, daß die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltbewegung auf allen Gebieten dieses Bruderschaftsprinzip an die Stelle des Daseinskampfes setzt. Ein Gemeinschaftsleben müssen wir führen lernen. Wir dürfen nicht glauben, daß der eine oder der andere imstande sei, dieses oder jenes durchzuführen.
Es möchte wohl ein jeder gerne wissen, wie man Daseinskampf und Bruderliebe miteinander vereinigt. Das ist sehr einfach. Wir müssen lernen, den Kampf durch positive Arbeit zu ersetzen, den Kampf, den Krieg zu ersetzen durch das Ideal. Man versteht heute nur noch zu wenig, was das heißt. Man weiß nicht, von welchem Kampf man spricht, denn man spricht im Leben überhaupt nur noch von Kämpfen. Da haben wir den sozialen Kampf, den Kampf um den Frieden, den Kampf um die Emanzipation der Frau, den Kampf um Grund und Boden und so weiter, überall, wohin wir blicken, sehen wir Kampf.
Die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltanschauung strebt nun dahin, an die Stelle dieses Kampfes die positive Arbeit zu setzen. Derjenige, der sich eingelebt hat in diese Weltanschauung, der weiß, daß das Kämpfen auf keinem Gebiete des Lebens zu einem wirklichen Resultate führt. Suchen Sie das, was sich in Ihrer Erfahrung und vor Ihrer Erkenntnis als das Richtige erweist, in das Leben einzuführen, es geltend zu machen, ohne den Gegner zu bekämpfen. Es kann natürlich nur ein Ideal sein, aber es muß ein solches Ideal vorhanden sein, das heute als geisteswissenschaftlicher Grundsatz in das Leben einzuführen ist. Menschen, die sich an Menschen schließen und die ihre Kraft für alle einsetzen, das sind diejenigen, welche die Grundlage abgeben für eine gedeihliche Entwickelung in die Zukunft hinein. Die Theosophische Gesellschaft will selbst in dieser Beziehung mustergültig sein, sie ist deshalb nicht eine Propagandagesellschaft wie andere, sondern eine Brudergesellschaft. In ihr wirkt man durch die Arbeit eines jeden einzelnen der Mitglieder. Man muß das nur einmal richtig verstehen. Derjenige wirkt am besten, der nicht seine Meinung durchsetzen will, sondern das, was er seinen Mitbrüdern an den Augen ansieht; der in den Gedanken und Gefühlen der Mitmenschen forscht und sich zu deren Diener macht. Der wirkt am besten innerhalb dieses Kreises, der im praktischen Leben durchführen kann, die eigene Meinung nicht zu schonen. Wenn wir in dieser Weise zu verstehen suchen, daß unsere besten Kräfte aus der Vereinigung entspringen und daß die Vereinigung nicht bloß als abstrakter Grundsatz festzuhalten, sondern vor allen Dingen in theosophischer Weise bei jedem Handgriffe, in jedem Augenblicke des Lebens zu betätigen ist, dann werden wir vorwärtskommen. Wir dürfen nur keine Ungeduld haben in diesem Vorwärtskommen.
Was zeigt uns also die Geisteswissenschaft? Sie zeigt uns eine höhere Wirklichkeit, und dieses Bewußtsein einer höheren Wirklichkeit ist es, was uns in der Betätigung des Bruderschaftsprinzips vorwärtsbringt.
Man nennt heute noch die Theosophen unpraktische Idealisten. Es wird nicht lange dauern, so werden sie sich als die Praktischsten erweisen, weil sie mit den Kräften des Lebens rechnen. Niemand wird daran zweifeln, daß man einen Menschen verletzt, wenn man ihm einen Stein an den Kopf wirft. Daß es aber viel schlimmer ist, dem Menschen ein Haßgefühl zuzusenden, das die Seele des Menschen viel mehr verletzt als der Stein den Körper, das wird nicht bedacht. Es kommt ganz darauf an, in welcher Gesinnung wir den Mitmenschen gegenüberstehen. Es hängt aber auch gerade davon unsere Kraft für ein gedeihliches Wirken in der Zukunft ab. Wenn wir uns bemühen, so in Bruderschaft zu leben, dann führen wir das Prinzip der Bruderschaft praktisch aus.
Tolerant sein, heißt in geisteswissenschaftlichem Sinne noch etwas anderes, als was man gewöhnlich darunter versteht. Es heißt, auch die Freiheit des Gedankens der andern zu achten. Einen andern von seinem Platze wegzuschieben, ist eine Rüpelhaftigkeit, wenn man aber in Gedanken dasselbe tut, so fällt niemandem ein, daß dies ein Unrecht ist. Wir sprechen zwar viel von der Schätzung der fremden Meinung, sind aber nicht geneigt, dies für uns selbst gelten zu lassen.
Ein Wort hat für uns fast noch keine Bedeutung, man hört es und hat es doch nicht gehört. Wir müssen aber lernen, mit der Seele zuzuhören, wir müssen verstehen, die intimsten Dinge mit der Seele zu erfassen. Immer ist erst im Geiste vorhanden, was später im physischen Leben wird. Unterdrücken müssen wir also unsere Meinung, um den andern ganz zu hören, nicht bloß das Wort, sondern sogar das Gefühl, auch dann, wenn sich in uns das Gefühl regen sollte, daß es falsch ist, was der andere sagt. Es ist viel kraftvoller, zuhören zu können, solange der andere spricht, als ihm in die Rede zu fallen. Das gibt ein ganz anderes gegenseitiges Verständnis. Sie fühlen dann, wie wenn die Seele des andern Sie durchwärmte, durchleuchtete, wenn Sie ihr in dieser Weise mit absoluter Toleranz entgegentreten. Nicht bloß Freiheit der Person sollen wir gewähren, sondern völlige Freiheit, ja sogar die Freiheit der fremden Meinung sollen wir schätzen. Das ist nur ein Beispiel für vieles. Derjenige, der dem andern ins Wort fällt, der tut von einer geistigen Weltanschauung aus betrachtet etwas Ähnliches wie der, welcher dem andern physisch einen Fußtritt gibt. Bringt man es dazu, zu begreifen, daß es eine viel stärkere Beeinflussung ist, einem andern ins Wort zu fallen, als ihm einen Fußtritt zu geben, dann erst kommt man dazu, die Bruderschaft bis in die Seele hinein zu verstehen, dann wird sie eine Tatsache. Das ist das Große der geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung, daß sie uns einen neuen Glauben, eine neue Überzeugung von den geistigen Kräften, die von Mensch zu Mensch strömen, bringt. Das ist das höhere, geistige Bruderschaftsprinzip. Jeder mag sich ausmalen, wie weit die Menschheit von solchem geistigem Bruderschaftsprinzip entfernt ist. Jeder mag sich darin ausbilden, wenn er Zeit dazu findet, seinen Lieben Gedanken der Liebe und Freundschaft zuzusenden. Der Mensch hält das gewöhnlich für etwas Bedeutungsloses. Aber wenn Sie einmal dahin gelangen, einzusehen, daß der Gedanke ebensogut eine Kraft ist wie die elektrische Welle, die von einem Apparat ausgeht und zum Empfangsapparat überströmt, dann werden Sie auch das Bruderschaftsprinzip besser verstehen, dann wird allmählich das gemeinschaftliche Bewußtsein deutlicher, dann wird es praktisch.
Von diesem Gesichtspunkt aus können wir uns klar darüber werden, wie die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltanschauung den Daseinskampf und das Bruderschaftsverhältnis auffaßt. Wir wissen ganz genau, daß mancher, der an diesen oder jenen Platz im Leben gestellt ist, einfach unterginge, wenn er nicht mit den Wölfen heulen würde, wenn er diesen Daseinskampf nicht ebenso grausam führen würde wie viele andere. Für denjenigen, der materialistisch denkt, gibt es fast kein Entrinnen aus diesem Daseinskampf. Wir sollen zwar an dem Platze unsere Pflicht tun, an den uns das Karma hingestellt hat. Wir tun aber das Richtige, wenn wir uns klar sind, daß wir viel mehr leisten würden, wenn wir darauf verzichteten, in der unmittelbaren Gegenwart die Erfolge zu sehen, die wir erreichen wollen. Bringen Sie es übers Herz, wenn Sie vielleicht mit blutender Seele im Daseinskampfe stehen, demjenigen, dem Sie wehe getan haben im Daseinskampfe, in liebevoller Gesinnung von Seele zu Seele Ihre Gedanken zuströmen zu lassen, dann werden Sie als Materialist vielleicht denken, Sie haben nichts getan. Nach diesen Auseinandersetzungen aber werden Sie einsehen, daß dies später seine Wirkung haben muß, denn nichts, das wissen wir, ist verloren, was im Geistigen vorgeht.
So können wir manchmal mit zagender Seele, mit Wehmut im Herzen den Daseinskampf aufnehmen und durch unsere Mitarbeit denselben umwandeln. So in diesem Daseinskampfe arbeiten, heißt in praktischer Beziehung den Daseinskampf ändern. Nicht von heute auf morgen ist das möglich, aber daß wir es können, ist außer allem Zweifel. Wenn wir an der eigenen Seele im Sinne der Bruderliebe arbeiten, dann nützen wir dadurch, daß wir uns nützen, am meisten der Menschheit, denn wahr ist es, daß unsere Fähigkeiten entwurzelt sind wie eine aus dem Boden gerissene Pflanze, wenn wir im selbstischen Sondersein verharren. Sowenig ein Auge noch ein Auge ist, wenn es aus dem Kopfe gerissen wird, sowenig ist eine menschliche Seele noch eine Menschenseele, wenn sie sich von der menschlichen Gemeinschaft trennt. Und Sie werden sehen, daß wir unsere Talente dann am besten ausbilden, wenn wir in brüderlicher Gemeinschaft leben, daß wir am intensivsten leben, wenn wir im Ganzen wurzeln. Freilich müssen wir abwarten, bis das, was Wurzel schlägt im Ganzen, durch stille Einkehr in sich selbst zur Frucht reift.
Wir dürfen uns weder in der Außenwelt noch in uns selbst verlieren, denn wahr ist es im höchsten geistigen Sinne, was der Dichter gesagt hat, daß man stille bei sich selbst sein muß, wenn unsere Talente heraustreten sollen. Aber diese Talente wurzeln doch in der Welt. Sie stärken und uns dem Charakter nach bessern können wir nur dann, wenn wir in der Gemeinschaft leben. Deshalb ist es wahr im Sinne des echten wahren Bruderschaftsprinzips, daß die Brüderlichkeit den Menschen gerade im Daseinskampfe am allerstärksten macht, und er wird am meisten von seinen Kräften in der Stille seines Herzens finden, wenn er seine ganze Persönlichkeit, seine ganze Individualität mit den andern Menschenbrüdern zusammen ausbildet. Wahr ist es: Es bildet ein Talent sich in der Stille —, wahr ist es aber auch: Es bildet ein Charakter und damit der ganze Mensch und die ganze Menschheit sich im Strome der Welt.
Brotherhood and the Struggle for Existence
Today, it is our task to speak about two spiritual concepts, one of which represents a great ideal that has permeated humanity since it first began to feel: brotherhood. The other is something that we encounter at every turn in life, especially today: the struggle for existence. Brotherhood and the struggle for existence. Those of you who have studied the goals of the spiritual science movement even a little are familiar with our first principle, which is to form a brotherhood based on universal human love, without distinction of race, gender, profession, creed, and so on. The Theosophical Society itself has placed this principle of universal brotherhood at the forefront of its movement and made it the most important of its ideals. It has shown that it regards this great ethical striving for brotherhood as intimately connected with what is the goal of human development in general, among all the cultural endeavors that are most necessary to us today.
Those who strive for spiritual science are convinced, and not only convinced but quite clear about it, that deep knowledge, knowledge of the spiritual world, when it truly and really grips human beings, must lead to brotherhood, that the noblest fruit of deep, innermost knowledge is precisely this brotherhood. However, the spiritual-scientific worldview seems to contradict some of what has come to humanity in recent times. In certain circles, in particular, the progressive power of struggle is repeatedly emphasized, and how often do we still hear today that human strength grows through resistance, that human beings become strong in will and intellectual initiative by having to measure their strength against their opponents. A worldview that emerged from spiritual foundations, the worldview of Friedrich Nietzsche, includes among many other battle-enthusiastic statements this one: I love the critic, I love the great critic more than the small one. We can find this again and again in various variations, especially in Nietzsche, as something that belongs entirely to his outlook on life. It is connected with certain economic views that have long prevailed that the struggle of all against all in general competition is seen as a powerful lever of progress. How often has it been said that humanity can best advance by each individual making the best use of themselves and asserting themselves. The word individualism has become a buzzword, admittedly more in the realm of external material life, but also not without validity in the realm of inner spiritual life. That people are most useful to their fellow human beings when they get as much out of life as possible economically, because by becoming economically strong, they can also be of greater use to the community: this is the creed of many economists and sociologists. On the other hand, we hear it emphasized time and again that people should not be confined to a mold, that they should develop their inner strengths in all areas, that they should live their lives to the fullest, that they should bring to fruition what lies within them, and that in this way they can be of the greatest benefit to their fellow human beings. There are many among our compatriots who are downright anxious in their pursuit of this principle, who cannot do enough to live life to the fullest. The spiritual-scientific worldview does not ignore the necessity of the struggle for existence, especially in our time, but at the same time this worldview is also clear that today, when this struggle for existence is at its most intense, the principle of brotherhood in its deepest meaning must be brought closer to understanding again.The most important question will be this: Is it true, as so many believe, that human strength grows best through resistance, that it is above all the struggle that man has to wage that has made him great and strong? In the lecture on the idea of peace that I had the privilege of giving before you, I already pointed out that this principle of the struggle for existence in human life today is strongly nourished by the fact that natural science has made it a general natural world principle, that, especially in the West, for a time believed that those beings in the world were most suitably designed who had defeated their opponents and remained in this struggle for existence.
The naturalist Huxley says: When we look at life outside, it appears to us like a gladiatorial contest, the strongest remain victorious, the others perish. — If one were to believe the naturalists, one would have to assume that all the creatures that populate the world today were able to defeat those that were there before them. There is also a school of sociologists that has sought to develop a theory of human evolution based on this principle of the struggle for existence. In a book entitled “From Darwin to Nietzsche,” Dean Alexander Tille has attempted to show that the future happiness of humanity depends on unreservedly writing this struggle for existence on the banner of human development, on ensuring that the incapable perish, and on breeding and promoting the strong and powerful in the struggle for existence. The weak should perish. We need a social order that suppresses the weak because they are harmful. I ask you: who is the strong one, the one who has an ideal mental power but a weak body, or the other who has a less high mental power but a robust body? As you can see, general rules are of little use here. It is difficult to decide who should actually survive in the struggle for existence. If practical measures were to be taken, this question would have to be decided first. We now ask ourselves, what do we see when we look at human life? In the development of humanity, has the principle of brotherhood or the principle of the struggle for existence achieved great things, or have both contributed to the development of humanity?
I would just like to briefly reiterate what I already said in my lecture on the idea of peace, namely that even today's natural science no longer stands on the same ground it stood on a decade ago. I have already referred to the fundamental lecture given by the Russian researcher Kessler in 1880, in which he showed that the animal species capable of development and actually progressing are not those that fight the hardest, but those that support and help each other. This is not to say that struggle and war do not exist in the animal world. Certainly they do exist, but another question is: what promotes development more, war or mutual assistance? The question was also raised: do those species survive whose individuals are constantly fighting each other, or those that help each other? Here, the research mentioned above has already proven that it is not fighting, but helping each other that actually promotes progress. I have already referred to Prince Kropotkin's book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. You will find many fine contributions in this book to the questions we are discussing here today.
So what has brotherhood achieved in the development of humanity? We need only look at our own ancestors on the same soil on which we live today. It is easy to get the mental image that hunting and war were the real driving forces and mainly determined the character of those people. But if we delve deeper into history, we will find that this is not true, that it was precisely those, even among the Germanic tribes, who had developed the principle of brotherhood in an extraordinary way who prospered best. We find this principle of brotherhood developed above all in the way property was regulated in the times before and after the migration of peoples. To a very large extent, there was common ownership of land. The village, in which the people lived together, had common land, and with the exception of the few things that were directly related to household use, with the exception of tools, perhaps also a garden, everything that was owned was communal. From time to time, the land was redistributed among the people, and it became apparent that these tribes had grown strong by taking brotherhood in relation to material goods to an extraordinary level.
If we fast forward a few centuries, we find that this principle has proven to be extremely fruitful. The principle of brotherhood, as expressed in the old village community, in the old conditions, where people found their freedom in fraternal coexistence, was expressed in a particularly characteristic way in that people went so far as to burn what the individual owned on his land upon his death, because they did not want to own anything that belonged to an individual as his personal property after his death. When this principle was broken as a result of various circumstances, namely because individuals had acquired large estates and the people in the surrounding area were thus forced into serfdom and compulsory labor, the principle of brotherhood asserted itself in another, more striking way. Those who were oppressed by the lords, the owners, wanted to free themselves from their oppression. Thus, in the middle of the Middle Ages, we see a great, powerful freedom movement sweeping through Europe. This freedom movement was marked by a general brotherhood, from which a general culture blossomed. We are in the so-called city culture of the Middle Ages. Those people who could not bear the forced labor on the estates fled from their masters and sought their freedom in the expanding cities. People came down from the north, from Scotland, France, and Russia; they came from all sides and brought the free cities together. This led to the development of the principle of brotherhood, and in the way it operated, it promoted culture to the highest degree. Those who had similar occupations joined together in associations called sworn brotherhoods, which later grew into guilds. These sworn brotherhoods were much more than mere associations of tradesmen or merchants. They developed from practical life to a moral height. Mutual support and mutual assistance were highly developed in these brotherhoods, and many things that almost no one cares about today were the subject of such assistance. For example, the members of such a brotherhood helped each other by supporting each other in cases of illness. Every day, two brothers were appointed to keep watch at the bedside of a sick brother. The sick were provided with food, and even after death, brotherly thoughts continued, as it was considered a great honor to bury members of the brotherhood in an appropriate manner. Finally, it was also part of the honor of the sworn brotherhood to care for widows and orphans. From this you can see how an understanding of morality grew in community life, how this morality was formed on the basis of a consciousness that is difficult for people today to form a mental image of. Do not think that this is in any way a condemnation of present-day conditions. They have become necessary, just as it was necessary for medieval conditions to find expression in their own way. We must simply understand that there have been other phases of development besides the present one.
In the free cities of the Middle Ages, people everywhere spoke of a “court price” and a “court market.” What did this mean? I will illustrate this with a concrete example. When products from the surrounding countryside were brought to a city, it was strictly forbidden to sell them in any way other than in small quantities during the first few days. No one was allowed to buy in bulk and become a middleman. At that time, no one had ever thought that prices should be regulated by supply and demand. People understood how to regulate both. The groups in the cities or the guilds had to determine the price of these products for their members, who had been accepted after explaining what was necessary to produce goods and become producers. No one was allowed to exceed the price. If we take a look at working conditions ourselves, we can see how there was a thorough understanding of what a person needed. If we consider the wages of that time, taking into account the completely different conditions, we have to admit that the wages of a worker at that time cannot be compared with the wages of today. This fact has often been completely misinterpreted by researchers.
These brotherhoods were organized according to practical considerations and therefore gradually developed according to such practical considerations. They then spread from one city to another, because it was natural for those who had a common craft and common interests in different cities to join together and support each other. Thus, the associations expanded from city to city.
At that time, humanity was not yet united under police measures, but under practical considerations. Anyone who takes the trouble to study the conditions that were uniformly visible in the cities of Europe at that time will soon realize that we are dealing here with a very specific phase of the deepening of the principle of brotherhood. This is particularly evident when we see the fruits that have developed from it. We could first point to the highest peaks, to the tremendous artistic achievements of the 12th and 13th centuries. They would not have been possible without this deepening of the principle of brotherhood. We can only understand Dante's tremendous work, “The Divine Comedy,” in terms of cultural history if we understand the expression of the principle of brotherhood. Consider, too, what arose in the cities under the influence of this principle, for example, how the art of printing, copperplate engraving, paper making, watchmaking, and the inventions that appeared later were prepared under the free principle of brotherhood. What we are accustomed to calling the bourgeoisie emerged from the cultivation of the principle of brotherhood in medieval cities. Much of what has been produced through scientific and artistic advancement would not have been possible without the cultivation of this principle of brotherhood. If a cathedral was to be built, take Cologne Cathedral or any other, we see that first of all an association was formed, a so-called building guild, which resulted in a decisive cooperation between the members of such a guild. If you have an intuitive eye for it, you can even see this principle of brotherhood expressed in the architectural style; you can see it expressed in almost every medieval city, and you will find it everywhere, whether you go to the north of Scotland or to Venice, whether you look at Russian or Polish cities.
We must emphasize that the principle of brotherhood emerged under the influence of a trend that was decisively entering material culture, and therefore we see the material, the physical, everywhere, both in what emerges as higher culture and in what remains as the fruit of that time. It had to be cultivated at one time, and in order to cultivate it properly, to develop it, this principle of brotherhood was necessary at that time. This principle of brotherhood emerged from an abstraction at that time, and through this abstraction, through this intellectual thinking, our life has been divided, so that today we no longer really know, no longer really understand, how the struggle for existence and the principle of brotherhood interact in their mutual relationship. On the one hand, intellectual life became more and more abstract. Morality and justice, views on the state and other social conditions were brought under increasingly abstract principles, and the struggle for existence became more and more separated by a gulf from what people actually felt to be their ideal. Back then, in the middle of the Middle Ages, there was harmony between what people felt to be their ideal and what they actually did, and if it has ever been shown that one can be both an idealist and a practitioner, it was in the Middle Ages. The relationship between Roman law and life was also still harmonious. If you look at the situation today, however, you will find that our legal relationships hover above moral life. Many say: We know what is good, right, and fair, but it is not practical. This is because thinking about the highest principles is separated from life.
From the 16th century onwards, we see spiritual life developing more under the principles of reason. The person who sat in court with the other twelve jurors from his guild to judge some offense committed by a member of the guild was the brother of the person who was to be judged. Life was connected with life. Everyone knew what the other was working on, and everyone tried to understand why he might have strayed from the right path. They looked into their brother, as it were, and wanted to see inside him.
Now a form of jurisprudence has developed in which the judge and the lawyer are only interested in the law book, in which both see only a “case” to which they must apply the law. Just consider how everything that is morally conceived is detached from jurisprudence. We have seen this state of affairs develop more and more in the last century, whereas in the Middle Ages, under the principle of brotherhood, something had developed that is necessary and important for any prosperous progress: expertise and trust, which today are increasingly falling into disuse as principles. Today, the expert's judgment has almost completely receded in favor of abstract jurisprudence and abstract parliamentarianism. Common sense and the majority are now supposed to be the decisive factors, not expertise. The preference for the majority was bound to come. But just as one cannot vote in mathematics to produce a correct result—because 3 times 3 is always 9 and 3 times 9 is always 27—so it is here. It would be impossible to implement the principle of expertise without the principle of brotherhood, of brotherly love.
The struggle for existence has its justification in life. Because human beings are special creatures, because they must go their own way through life as individuals, they are dependent on this struggle for existence. In a certain sense, Rückert's words also apply here: when the rose adorns itself, it also adorns the garden. — If we do not enable ourselves to help our fellow human beings, we will also be unable to help them effectively. If we do not ensure that all our talents are developed, we will also have little success in helping our brothers. In order to develop these talents, a certain amount of egoism must be present, for initiative is linked to egoism. Those who know how to avoid being led, who know how to avoid letting every image from their surroundings affect them, but instead descend into their inner selves, where the sources of strength lie, will develop into strong and capable people, and they will have much more opportunity to serve others than those who submit to all possible influences from their surroundings. It stands to reason that this principle, which is necessary for human beings, can be developed to its radical conclusion. However, this principle will only bear the right fruit if it is paired with the principle of brotherly love.It is precisely for this reason that I have cited the free city guilds of the Middle Ages as a practical example to show how practical matters became so strong under the principle of mutual personal, individual assistance. Where did they draw their strength from? From the fact that they lived in brotherhood with their fellow human beings. It is right to make oneself as strong as possible. But the question is whether we can become strong at all without brotherly love. Anyone who rises to a true knowledge of the soul must answer this question with a decisive no.
Throughout nature, we see examples of individual beings working together as a whole. Take the human body, for example. It consists of independent beings, millions and millions of individual independent living beings or cells. If you look at a part of this human body under a microscope, you will find that it is composed of such independent beings. But how do they work together? How has that which is to form a whole in nature become selfless? None of our cells asserts its uniqueness in a selfish way. The marvelous tool of thought, the brain, is also made up of millions of fine cells, but each one works harmoniously with the others in its place. What is the effect of the interaction of these small cells, what causes a higher being to express itself within these small living beings? It is the human soul that produces this effect. But the human soul could never act here on earth if these millions of small beings did not give up their individuality and place themselves at the service of the great, common being that we call the soul. The soul sees with the cells of the eye, thinks with the cells of the brain, lives with the cells of the blood. Here we see what union means. Union means the possibility for a higher being to express itself through the united members. This is a general principle in all life. Five people who are together, thinking and feeling harmoniously with one another, are more than 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1; they are not merely the sum of the five, just as our body is not the sum of the five senses. Rather, the coexistence, the interliving of human beings, means something very similar to the interliving of the cells of the human body. A new, higher entity is in the midst of the five, indeed already in the midst of two or three. “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” It is not the one and the other and the third, but something entirely new that arises through the union. But it only comes into being when the individual lives in the other, when the individual draws his strength not only from himself but also from the others. However, this can only happen if he lives selflessly in the other. Thus, human associations are the mysterious places where higher spiritual beings descend in order to work through individual human beings, just as the soul works through the limbs of the body.
In our materialistic age, this is not easy to believe, but in the spiritual scientific worldview it is not merely something figurative, but something highly real. Therefore, the spiritual scientist is not merely speaking of abstract things when he speaks of the national spirit or the national soul or the family spirit or the spirit of another community. You cannot see this spirit that works in a union, but it is there, and it is there through the brotherly love of the personalities working in this union. Just as the body has a soul, so a guild or a brotherhood also has a soul, and I repeat once again that this is not merely figurative, but to be taken as complete reality.
Magicians are the people who work together in the brotherhood because they draw higher beings into their circle. There is no longer any need to resort to the machinations of spiritualism when one works together in a community with brotherly love. Higher beings manifest themselves there. When we surrender ourselves to the brotherhood, this surrender, this merging into the whole, strengthens and fortifies our organs. When we then act or speak as members of such a community, it is not the individual soul that acts or speaks in us, but the spirit of the community. This is the secret of the progress of future humanity: to work out of communities. Just as one epoch replaces another and each has its own task, so it is with the medieval epoch in relation to ours, with our epoch in relation to the future. In immediate practical life, in laying the foundations of the useful arts, the medieval brotherhoods were effective. They only showed a materialistic life after they had received their fruits, after their basis of consciousness, namely brotherhood, had more or less disappeared, after the abstract principle of the state, the abstract, spiritual life, had replaced real empathy. It is up to the future to reestablish brotherhoods, and to do so from the spiritual, from the highest ideals of the soul. Human life has so far produced the most diverse associations; it has given rise to a terrible struggle for existence, which has now reached its peak. The spiritual-scientific worldview seeks to develop the highest goods of humanity in the spirit of the principle of brotherhood, and so you will see that the spiritual-scientific world movement replaces the struggle for existence with this principle of brotherhood in all areas. We must learn to live in community. We must not believe that one person or another is capable of accomplishing this or that.
Everyone would probably like to know how to reconcile the struggle for existence with brotherly love. It is very simple. We must learn to replace struggle with positive work, to replace struggle and war with the ideal. Today, people understand too little what that means. People do not know which struggle they are talking about, because in life they only talk about struggles. We have the social struggle, the struggle for peace, the struggle for the emancipation of women, the struggle for land, and so on. Everywhere we look, we see struggle.
The spiritual-scientific worldview now strives to replace this struggle with positive work. Those who have become familiar with this worldview know that struggle in no area of life leads to real results. Seek to introduce into life what proves to be right in your experience and before your knowledge, to assert it without fighting your opponent. Of course, it can only be an ideal, but such an ideal must exist, which today must be introduced into life as a spiritual-scientific principle. People who join with other people and who use their strength for the benefit of all are those who provide the foundation for prosperous development in the future. The Theosophical Society wants to be exemplary in this regard; it is therefore not a propaganda society like others, but a brotherhood. In it, one works through the work of each individual member. One must understand this correctly. Those who work best are those who do not want to impose their opinions, but rather see what their brothers and sisters need; those who explore the thoughts and feelings of their fellow human beings and make themselves their servants. Those who work best within this circle are those who can put into practice the principle of not sparing their own opinions. If we try to understand in this way that our best powers spring from unity and that unity is not merely to be held as an abstract principle, but above all is to be applied in a theosophical way in every action, in every moment of life, then we will make progress. We must only not be impatient in this progress.So what does Spiritual Science show us? It shows us a higher reality, and it is this awareness of a higher reality that advances us in the practice of the principle of brotherhood.
Even today, theosophists are still called impractical idealists. It will not be long before they prove to be the most practical, because they reckon with the forces of life. No one will doubt that you hurt a person when you throw a stone at their head. But it is not considered that it is much worse to send a person a feeling of hatred, which hurts the soul much more than the stone hurts the body. It all depends on the attitude with which we face our fellow human beings. But our power to work fruitfully in the future also depends on this. If we strive to live in brotherhood, then we are putting the principle of brotherhood into practice.
In the spiritual-scientific sense, being tolerant means something different from what is usually understood by the term. It means respecting the freedom of thought of others. Pushing someone else out of their place is rude, but when we do the same thing in our thoughts, no one thinks that this is wrong. We talk a lot about valuing the opinions of others, but we are not inclined to apply this to ourselves.
A word has almost no meaning for us; we hear it and yet we have not heard it. But we must learn to listen with our soul; we must understand how to grasp the most intimate things with our soul. What later becomes physical life always first exists in the spirit. We must therefore suppress our opinion in order to listen fully to the other person, not only to the words, but even to the feelings, even if we feel that what the other person is saying is wrong. It is much more powerful to be able to listen while the other person is speaking than to interrupt them. This creates a completely different mutual understanding. You then feel as if the other person's soul is warming and illuminating you when you approach them in this way with absolute tolerance. We should not only grant freedom to the person, but we should value complete freedom, even the freedom of foreign opinion. This is just one example of many. From a spiritual worldview, the person who interrupts the other is doing something similar to the person who physically kicks the other. Only when we understand that interrupting another person has a much stronger influence than kicking them do we begin to understand brotherhood in our souls, and only then does it become a reality. This is the greatness of the spiritual science movement: it brings us a new faith, a new conviction in the spiritual forces that flow from person to person. This is the higher, spiritual principle of brotherhood. Everyone can imagine how far humanity is from such a spiritual principle of brotherhood. Everyone can train themselves in it, if they find the time, by sending their loved ones thoughts of love and friendship. People usually consider this to be something insignificant. But once you come to realize that a thought is just as much a force as the electric wave that emanates from one device and flows to the receiving device, then you will also understand the principle of brotherhood better, then the communal consciousness will gradually become clearer, then it will become practical.
From this point of view, we can gain a clear understanding of how the spiritual-scientific worldview views the struggle for existence and the relationship of brotherhood. We know very well that many who find themselves in this or that position in life would simply perish if they did not howl with the wolves, if they did not wage this struggle for existence as cruelly as many others. For those who think materialistically, there is almost no escape from this struggle for existence. We should do our duty in the place where karma has placed us. But we are doing the right thing when we realize that we would achieve much more if we refrained from seeing the successes we want to achieve in the immediate present. If you find yourself in the struggle of existence with a bleeding soul, bring yourself to let your thoughts flow in a loving spirit from soul to soul to those whom you have hurt in the struggle of existence. Then, as a materialist, you may think that you have done nothing. But after these conflicts, you will realize that this must have an effect later, because we know that nothing that happens in the spiritual realm is lost.
So sometimes we can take up the struggle for existence with a timid soul and melancholy in our hearts, and transform it through our cooperation. Working in this struggle for existence means, in practical terms, changing the struggle for existence. This is not possible overnight, but there is no doubt that we can do it. When we work on our own souls in the spirit of brotherly love, we benefit humanity most by benefiting ourselves, for it is true that our abilities are uprooted like a plant torn from the ground if we remain in our selfish separateness. Just as an eye is no longer an eye when it is torn from the head, so a human soul is no longer a human soul when it separates itself from the human community. And you will see that we develop our talents best when we live in brotherly community, that we live most intensely when we are rooted in the whole. Of course, we must wait until what takes root in the whole matures into fruit through quiet contemplation within ourselves.
We must not lose ourselves in the outside world or in ourselves, for it is true in the highest spiritual sense what the poet said, that we must be quiet within ourselves if our talents are to emerge. But these talents are rooted in the world. They can only strengthen us and improve our character if we live in community. Therefore, it is true in the sense of the genuine principle of brotherhood that brotherhood makes people strongest in the struggle for existence, and they will find most of their strength in the silence of their hearts when they develop their whole personality, their whole individuality, together with their fellow human beings. It is true that talent is formed in silence, but it is also true that character, and with it the whole person and all of humanity, is formed in the stream of the world.