Human History in the Light of Spiritual Investigation
GA 61
29 February 1912, Berlin
Translator is R.H. Bruce
Death in Man, Animal, and Plant
In one of his works Tolstoi expressed surprise—one might almost say disapproval—that in exploring modern science he found every kind of investigation concerning the evolution of the insect world, concerning what seemed to him insignificant things in the organic body or elsewhere in the world, whereas he found nothing in science itself concerning the important, the essential things, concerning the questions which stir every heart. Tolstoi said that above all he found nothing whatever concerning the nature of death. From a certain point of view one cannot entirely disagree with such an objection to the modern scientific spirit, coming from so distinguished a source. Nevertheless from another aspect one may stress the point that, if such an utterance is meant as a reproach, it is indeed to a certain extent unjust towards modern science, and this for the very simple reason that modern science has long owed its magnitude and importance to that very sphere in which answers to questions connected with the nature of death have been sought in the main without success. On the basis of the conception of the world represented here, it is certainly not necessary to inveigh against deficiencies in modern science. We can admire in the very highest degree the splendid achievements, the truly significant successes, both in their own sphere and also with respect to their application in practical life and in human society; here the opinion has repeatedly been expressed that Spiritual Science has certainly no need to lag behind in any kind of admiration pointing in this direction. At the same time, however, the most important achievements of the modern scientific world stand on a footing that gives no foundation for those points of contact which must definitely be reached, when questions concerning death, immortality and the like, are to be examined. Modern science cannot do this, because from her starting point she has in the first place set herself the task of investigating material life. But wherever death intervenes in existence, we find, when we look more closely, the point of contact which draws the spiritual and the material together. Certainly, when these subjects are under discussion, there is no need to agree with the many cheap attacks on the efforts of modern science. Indeed, we may even say (and this, too, has been often emphasized here) that when the great questions of conscience are to be examined, we may—even as spiritual scientists—find ourselves with reference to the feeling of scientific responsibility and scientific conscience, more drawn to the procedure adopted today by external natural science—although it is unable to penetrate to the most weighty problems lying behind life—than to many facile explanations springing from dilettante theosophical or other spiritual-scientific sources. These often give—especially with regard to method—too easy answers to such questions as we are dealing with today.
Recently, indeed, some approach has been made from the standpoint of science, to the problem of the death of created beings. This has come about in a peculiar way. Apart from many separate attempts which have been made, analyses of which would carry us too far today, one investigator at least may be mentioned, who has handled the question of the nature of death in a significant book. This writer has adopted a strange attitude towards the question, so strange that we are obliged to say again, as we did in a similar case, concerning the explanations of the origin of man: as spiritual scientist one feels peculiarly placed with regard to modern natural science; for whenever one is faced with a fact, we find that precisely from the standpoint of Spiritual Science, we can fully accept this fact and can see in it strong proofs of that which Spiritual Science represents. Faced, however, with the theories and hypotheses advanced by the adherents of the present-day world conception, in a more or less materialistic or, as it is considered more elegant to say, in a monistic way, then indeed it is a different matter. Here, one feels that, sincerely as we may agree concerning the facts brought forward in modern times, we cannot always declare ourselves in agreement with the theories and hypotheses, which those who believe they are on the sure ground of natural science feel bound to construct on what is produced as natural-scientific fact.
The research worker who has written on the nature of death from the standpoint of his natural science has called attention to something very interesting, precisely in connection with Spiritual Science. This is Metschnikoff, the man who for long was Director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. He seeks clarity—so far as it is possible to obtain it today—concerning the data, the actualities, which bring about the death of the living being. In the first place, when considering such a question, we must not take into account what are called violent deaths, though we may perhaps have occasion later to refer to these violent deaths brought about by accidents or otherwise. When, however, we discuss the question of the nature of death—Metschnikoff, too, draws attention to this—we must see it as established in natural existence, must study it as appertaining, so to speak, to the phenomena of life, must be able to bring the phenomena of life before our eyes in such a way that death belongs among them. So, then, the riddle of death can be solved only in the case of so-called natural death, which is brought about at the end of life, just as other natural processes are brought about in the course of a life. Since this is only an introduction to what is to be said about natural science, it is impossible to go into the interesting details of the arguments of the above-mentioned investigator and thinker. It must, however, be pointed out that in studying the actualities of life he calls attention to the fact that in the processes of life itself, in that whereby life is to some extent evolved and perfected, the naturalist really meets with nothing which could give a real reason why death, the annihilation of the being, encroaches upon life. By numerous examples, Metschnikoff seeks to show how whoever follows the course of life sees everywhere that death makes its appearance without our being able to give the ready explanation people are prone to give, when the span of life is drawing towards death; that this is brought about by exhaustion. This investigator calls attention to numerous facts which prove that although the processes of life continue, and continue in an unenfeebled condition so that there can be no question of exhaustion in life itself, yet at a certain point of time death intervenes; so that this investigator arrives at the—it must be admitted—extremely remarkable position in which fundamentally every death, every ending of life in the animal, vegetable or human kingdom is to be attributed to external influences—the action of certain enemies of life which, in the course of a lifetime, obtain the upper hand and which finally, fighting against life, work as a poison on it, and at last destroy it. Whereas, then, for this investigator, the organism itself everywhere shows signs that it does not actually come to an end through its own exhaustion, this individual expects to see—when death approaches—such enemies of life appearing in one form or another, as poison phenomena making an end of life. Here, then, we have before us a hypothesis of natural science—it is indeed no more than this—which, as it stands, traces every natural death to external influences, to the action of poison phenomena brought about by external living beings of the plant or animal kingdom which make their appearance as enemies of life and at certain moments destroy the organism.
Such an interpretation employs all means to come to some kind of understanding of the nature of death within the actual material phenomena. In pursuing such a course, the reasoner strives to ignore as far as possible the fact that the spiritual element may intervene actively and effectively in organic life, and that perhaps this spiritual element as such may have something to do with death as we meet it in the outside world. It is not unthinkable—although at first sight this must appear absurd to those who maintain a more or less materialistic or monistic attitude—that those very enemies which appear as poisonous forces in relation to the organism might be enlisted as necessary accompanying phenomena of the spiritual forces which permeate organic beings, strengthening and stimulating them on their path towards death. It would not be unthinkable that the powerful spirit which, on the one hand, is directed to use the organism as its instrument in the physical world, might, on the other hand, make it possible through its operations for those hostile forces to seize upon the organism and destroy it.—In any case, if we allow ourselves to be influenced by such an explanation as that just quoted, there is one thing we must not disregard; namely, that modern natural science with its interest in merely material phenomena actually makes the investigation of the death of the organism an easy matter. But in reality it should not make light of it. And this leads me to emphasize that it will not be easy for Spiritual Science—which, from our own day onwards, must make the effort to take its place in the evolution of mankind—to carry out investigations concerning certain questions so simply as those world conceptions often do which expect to be able to determine something about the great riddles of existence merely out of external material facts.
Hence, from the very outset attention must be drawn to the fact that from the way in which modern natural science observes phenomena, no real distinction is made by those who feel they are standing on its firm ground between death in the plant world, the animal world, and the human world. But what have these three in common except the destruction of an external phenomenon? This, however, they share, to all intents and purposes, with the destruction of a machine: the cessation of the connection of the parts. Looking only at the external phenomena it is easy to speak of death, insofar as this death may then be spoken of as uniformly similar in plant, animal, and man. We may see where this leads, by a case which I have often quoted to a number of the audience sitting here, but which is always interesting when the relation of science to such a question is being considered. I do not wish on an occasion like this to refer to the ordinary popular writings which make it their business to carry into wider circles the results natural science is supposed to have obtained; on the contrary, if the connection with natural science is to be established, I should wish always to point to the arguments of this kind accepted as the best. Here, then, with reference to this question, we have always the opportunity to point to a distinguished book which is at the same time easy to understand; namely, the “Physiology” of no less a writer than the great English scientist, Huxley, translated into German by Professor J. Rosenthal. In the first pages of this work the subject of death is dealt with in few words but in a very remarkable way, which shows us immediately how inadequate on the whole is the thinking—the judgment on such questions, not the research—of present-day science. T.H. Huxley writing on Physiology says something to this effect: The life of man is dependent on three things, and when they are destroyed death must supervene. Then he continues: If, in the first place, the brain is destroyed, or, secondly, the pulmonary breathing is stifled, or thirdly if the action of the heart is inhibited, man's death must ensue; yet, strangely enough (though one cannot be sure nowadays that this strangeness will be felt in those wide circles in which the habits of thought have allowed themselves to be influenced by materialistic wisdom), strangely enough, Huxley says that it cannot be stated without reserve that, if the three above-named functions of the human organism are inhibited, the death of the living human being must ensue. One might rather think that supposing the brain no longer functioned, if the activity of the lungs and heart could be artificially maintained, life might still continue for a time, even without the action of the brain. Whether this is felt to be strange is only a question of habits of thought; for, actually, we should say: The life of a man when he cannot use his brain in the physical world cannot for a human being really be called a continuance of life. It must be admitted that life is ended for a man when that for which he needs the instrument of his brain can no longer play its part. And then if by some means the activities of heart and lungs could be maintained, that might be approximately a continuance of life, perhaps in the sense of a plant existence, and, if one wished to preserve a completely open mind, one might speak of that death which must still take place when the action of the heart and lungs ceases, as of a plant death added to the former death.
To speak, then, of human death so open-mindedly can only be justified when death is imminent because the man can no longer make use of the most important instrument whereby he carries on his life in the physical world—in his actual consciousness. And the ceasing of his consciousness in the physical world, insofar as it is bound up with the indispensability of a brain, must, for the human being alone, be designated as death. How superficially such things are studied is amply shown by Huxley himself when, in those pages where he speaks of death, he draws attention to natural science having not yet succeeded in progressing in the same way as, in his opinion, what he calls “an old doctrine” progresses; namely, by following the spiritual, essential actualities of the soul, through its journeying in the further course of existence, after the passage through the gate of death. Not yet, remarks Huxley, can modern natural science follow up what it has to follow: the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and so on which compose the human organism, and which fall asunder when the man has passed through the gate of death.—Hence, this investigator considered that natural science could contribute something towards the problem of the meaning of death: that is, if the path could be followed which is taken after death by the materials composing the human organism during lifetime. And it is interesting and significant that, at the end of this first treatise on physiology by an important scientist, we find a reference to words which we can understand when spoken by the gloomy, melancholic Prince of Denmark, Hamlet—but which we should not have expected to find quoted when so serious a question is raised as the nature of death in the world. If we inquire into the nature of death in man, it is exclusively the destiny of the being of man that interests us. We can never be content with knowing the relation to one another of the various materials, the individual components, which have combined to form the exterior corporeality, so long as the essential soul and spirit of man made use of the external instruments. Out of his gloomy melancholy, Hamlet may say:
“Imperial Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away,
O that that earth which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a hole t'expel the winter's flaw.”
This the melancholic may say, and we understand it in its dramatic connection; but when the naturalist calls attention to the way the molecules and atoms once in the body of Caesar might go on living in some other being, it may be, as Huxley suggests, in a dog or in a hole in the wall; whoever is in real earnest feels in the depths of his thinking how impossible it is that such a thought should approach the great problems of the world riddles.—And this is no disparagement of natural science which has to accomplish its achievements on the material plane. It is only to point out how, on the one hand, natural science should perceive and observe its limitations, and should answer the questions about material processes and the destiny of substances, while, on the other hand, those students who wish—on what they can learn by conscientious research concerning the destiny of substance—to build up a world conception of such a problem as death, in essentials far overstep the boundaries of which they should be conscious, if they want to remain on the ground of external, material facts. As I have said, it is not so easy for Spiritual Science, because from its point of view it is necessary to examine separately the phenomena of what may be called death in plants, of what is called death in animals, and also, apart from these, what in particular constitutes death in the human kingdom.
No conception of death in the plant world can be obtained by studying plants as they are very often studied now; that is, by observing each individual plant as a separate entity. It would, of course, lead us much too far today to explain again in detail what has been already indicated in former lectures; namely, that Spiritual Science must regard the earth as a vast living being, of which the life principle has indeed altered in the course of evolution. Were we to examine the life principle of the earth throughout the ages, we should find that in the far-distant past, the earth was a completely different entity, that it has been through a process which has now led to the increased suppression of the life of the earth as a whole in favor of the individual life kingdom, in favor of the vegetable, animal and human kingdoms. But even in our present time, Spiritual Science cannot think of the earth as the merely physical combination of external substances, as it is regarded from the standpoint of modern physics, geology, and mineralogy. On the contrary, in all that is presented as the mineral basis of our existence, the ground which we tread, Spiritual Science must see something which, as the solid foundation of the whole earth organism, stands out just like, or similar to, the solid skeleton as it is differentiated from the soft parts of the human organism. As in the human being the solid skeleton inclines to become a kind of merely physical system, a merely physical aggregation of organs, so, in the vast earth organism we must regard what confronts us as physical and chemical in its action, as a kind of skeleton of the earth. It is merely separated off from the whole life of the earth, and everything which happens on the earth, everything carried out in the earth processes, must in the sense of Spiritual Science be considered as a unity. Thus, when we study plants individually, we are just as wrong if we ascribe to each plant the possibility of an individual existence as we should be if we looked at a single human hair or nail and tried to study it as an individuality. The hair or the nail has significance only, and its inner principle can only be recognized when it is studied not as an individual by itself but in conjunction with the whole organism to which it belongs. In this sense the single plant and everything vegetable upon the earth belongs primarily to the earth organism.
I must add this remark: The assertions thus maintained by Spiritual Science are to be recognized in the ways already specified in these lectures; so that we are not applying to the world around us the conclusions reached in the study of man himself. It is true it is often said that Spiritual Science presents occurrences in the universe after the analogy of processes taking place in man. We may indeed sometimes feel obliged for the sake of the presentation to make use of such analogies, because what the research of Spiritual Science perceives in the universe is illustrated and symbolized in the human organism; for the human organism primarily represents the connection of the bodily with the spiritual, and man is best understood when the connection between human and spiritual is made clear. That the earth, however, is an organism, and that what exists as a plant is embedded in the vast organism of the earth, belonging to it as hair and nails belong to the human organism, this, for Spiritual Science, is something not inferred by analogy, not at all the result of a mere deduction. On the contrary, it is the result of investigations by the spiritual scientist, along the lines described or indicated here, which can be pursued in detail in the book “Knowledge of the Higher Worlds.”—The essential in such research is that by it the investigator himself widens his consciousness, ceasing to live in himself alone, and that he is no longer influenced only by what the senses can perceive and the reason bound to the instrument of the brain can apprehend. The result of such research is that the man frees himself from the bodily instrument, that he becomes a participator in a spiritual world; then, in his own circle, in his spiritual horizon, he possesses not only what is presented to the external senses and the reason, but perceives the spiritual beings and spiritual forces. Thus, for the spiritual investigator, there exists what may be called the soul of the earth, a soul element giving life to the whole earth, just as the soul existing in man gives life to the human organism. The spiritual investigator widens his consciousness to a horizon where the soul element giving life to the whole earth comes directly under his notice. And then, for him the plant world is no longer merely the sum of the individual plants, for then he knows that what may be called the earth soul has to do with everything living and growing as a plant on the earth.
Yet the question is still: How are we to conceive that the plants begin and end their existence? How are we to picture, so to speak, the birth and death of a plant? We shall see at once that these words applied to the plant kingdom have, fundamentally, no more real significance than if we were to say, when a man's hair falls out that the hair is dead. Once a man rises to the thought that with regard to the earth he is dealing with an ensouled organism, he acquires a completely new outlook on the beginning and end of life in the plant world. To anyone not merely following the single plant individual purely externally, from seed to seed again, but rather bearing in mind the sum total of plant life on the earth, it will be obvious that here something different is at work from what may be called the beginning and end of life in the animal, or the human, kingdom. We see that the play of the elements in the course of the year is closely connected with the rise and decay of plants, with the exception of those which we count as perennials; but it is quite a different connection from that which exists, for instance, in animals. In animals we seldom find death so closely bound up with the external phenomena, as we see the withering of the plants bound up with certain phenomena of the whole earth nature when, for instance, autumn is coming on. In reality, people regard the life of a plant abstractly, detached from the fact that it is embedded in the whole earth existence; this is because they study only the single plant and do not consider the rhythmic, up and down undulation, of the life of the year, which at a definite time impels the germinating plants to sprout, brings them to a certain maturity, and, again at a definite time, causes them to wither. If we contemplate this whole process, externally sound observation, even if it has not penetrated the nature of Spiritual Science, may say: Here we are not dealing merely with the rise and decay of individual plants, but with the whole earth process, with something living and weaving in the whole existence of the earth. Where, however, do we find anything of which we can say that what it shows in its own phenomena explains how the invisible, spiritual element that we must think of as ensouling the earth is connected with the sprouting and withering of the plant? Where do we find anything at all which meets our spiritual eye so as to make this outer process intelligible to us?
Here it becomes evident to the spiritual scientist that he has something within himself to explain this living and weaving in the plant world, something which, if only it is studied in the right light, will account for the rise and decay of life in the plant world. We find in human nature what we call the ordinary phenomena of our consciousness. We know very well, however, that these phenomena can be experienced by the human being only during his waking day life, from waking up to falling asleep. The process of falling asleep, the process of waking up, are noteworthy incidents in human life. For what do we perceive? In falling asleep we become aware of a plunging of the whole inner processes of the soul into an indeterminate darkness; we are aware of the fading of our thoughts and ideas, our feelings and the impulses of our will into the darkness of sleep; at waking we become aware of the emerging of the whole of this soul content. Of this, man is conscious. Now it would doubtless be absurd to think that sleep has nothing to do with what exists as evolution of the consciousness in the whole human organism. We know how important regular, periodical sleep is for our physical life, insofar as spirit and soul live in it. We know what we owe to regular sleep. We have only to be reminded of what is constantly experienced by a man who needs a retentive memory. We say: If a man wants to avoid wearing his memory out, so that it becomes unserviceable, if he wants to keep his memory in good order, he must constantly sleep on the things to be remembered. If he has something very long to learn by heart it is clearly noticeable how much in the whole activity of remembering he owes to regular sleep. Apart from this, however, it appears quite natural that the weariness or exhaustion we notice as the result of our waking life is brought about by the life of our consciousness. By allowing the processes of our soul—our life of ideas, of feeling and of willing—to be overworked, we do violence to the delicate construction of our organism, as regards our will processes, even to the coarser parts. Quite superficial observation can teach us that tiredness of nerves, muscles and other organs is brought about solely by the encroachment into our organism of the conscious manifestations of our ideas, feeling, and will. We know quite well that if we give ourselves up to the ordinary musing of the day, where one thought gives place to another, the brain becomes less tired than if we set our thoughts to work under the compulsion of some method or doctrine. We know, too, that the muscles of the heart and lungs work throughout the whole of life without requiring sleep or rest, because weariness does not enter into this, since as a rule the organism evokes, in the unconscious or the subconscious, only appropriate activities. Only when we consciously encroach upon the organism do we produce weariness.—Hence we may say: We see the processes of the soul encroaching upon the life of the body—we see how what is active in the soul works itself out in our bodily life—in that which is evoked by the processes of the body which may be called normal—the activities of the heart and lungs and the other continuous processes of life. Here no weariness, no exhaustion, enters in. It is when conscious processes intrude that weariness enters. We become aware of a deterioration, a destruction of the organism through the encroachment of consciousness.
Here we have reached the point at which we can see the significance and function of sleep. What is worn out in the organism during the day, what is destroyed by conscious activities must, when the conscious activities are discontinued, be restored again in sleep. Here the organism must be left to itself to follow the processes inborn, inherent in it. Here we stand at the point where we can say: Again Spiritual Science coincides remarkably with what the facts of natural science tell us—even in the form adduced by the already-mentioned Russian scientist who was for many years Director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Now, can we not say that consciousness itself, man's spiritual life itself, causes—in order that it may subsist, that it may indeed be there at all—the exhaustion and weariness of the organism? And so, in order to throw a little light on this investigator's hypothesis, we might answer the question: Why, then, do the enemies of life described by him come into our organism? By saying: Because, fundamentally, the consciousness process always confronts what is merely organic life in man as a kind of poisoning process, and we could not rise to our higher spiritual life at all if we did not destroy the organism. In the very processes hostile to the organism lies the whole potentiality of our consciousness. When we speak of the effect of poison with reference to organic activity, we are bound to say: What we must regard as the blessing, the salvation of our life—namely, that we can be a conscious being in a physical body and can develop conscious activity—we owe to the circumstance that, with our conscious life, we encroach destructively, poisonously, upon our organism. Only, for the ordinary conscious life, this process of poisoning and destruction is by no means irreparable; on the contrary, the organism has been attacked in such a way that when the process of destruction has reached a certain point the conscious spiritual life withdraws, leaving the organism to its own activity. So then sleep intervenes; and in it, while the organism is left to its own activity, what has been destroyed through the conscious phenomena of the soul life, is restored again. The spiritual scientist is well aware of the many ingenious, more or less significant hypotheses which have been advanced concerning sleep and fatigue; one would have to speak at great length to analyze these hypotheses. Here, however, it is not our concern to explain these purely materialistic hypotheses, but to establish the fact that consciousness with its content must itself intrude destructively into the organism which contains the external instrument of the consciousness, and that the sleep condition compensates for the destructive process which is thus really repaired. Hence we may say: Sleep is the healer of those conditions which, as processes of ill health, consciousness is obliged to bring about in the organism.
Now when the spiritual scientist has come so far as not only to see what the normal, external consciousness sees—namely, that on falling asleep the conscious ideas and so on sink into indeterminate darkness—when he comes to the point of actually observing what goes on around him, even when this normal, ordinary consciousness disappears, then he also reaches the point of being able to follow the process of falling asleep and waking. It is self-knowledge in the widest sense that a man makes his own through spiritual research. And then he comes to a true conception of those processes which accompany falling asleep, and which are processes of building up, of the bourgeoning of life in the organism. Actually, through spiritual research, through all reasoning and thinking in the light of Spiritual Science, we experience something of this bourgeoning life in the mere bodily organism, every time we fall asleep; but—as it goes no farther than the mere organism—it has only the value of plant life.—What can be experienced every evening on falling asleep may be described thus: You see your own organism with the whole of your soul life; you see what has filled your consciousness during your day life sink out of sight; but as compensation you see, springing up in your own organism, processes which are restorative, not destructive—which, nevertheless, within you are only like the sprouting of plant life. Thus during sleep we have in our organism something like the experience of spontaneous vegetation. The experience of falling asleep, with the fading away of conscious ideas, is something like a springtime experience in which we see what is only plant-like in our organism emerging out of the unconscious. The moment of falling asleep may in this sense be regarded as completely parallel with the emerging of the sprouting, growing plant world in spring.
When we look at plant life in this way, we give up the idea of comparing this sprouting forth of the plants in spring with a human birth or, in general, with what can be called birth in man or in any living animal being; we come to understand that the great earth mother is a complete organism in herself experiencing in spring—in that part of the earth where it is springtime—what man for his part experiences when he falls asleep. The mistake most often made in such comparisons in usually the result of things not being viewed in their reality, but rather considered in connection with external circumstances. It will satisfy the imagination of many to be able to compare the sprouting of plants in the spring with something in the human being periodically repeated, which does not actually represent death and birth; but if a man is following his imagination only he may wish to compare the germinating of the plant world in spring with man's moment of waking. This is wrong. It is not the waking, the return of the soul content, with which the springtime is comparable; it is with the falling asleep, the fading away of the inner spiritual life, the actualities of the soul, and the germination of the merely organic, the merely vegetable in man. If, through the clairvoyant faculty, man can follow consciously at the moment of waking how his ideas and all that he remembers emerge from indeterminate darkness, then there is present again something bringing about the necessary destruction of the whole germinated inner vegetation. It is actually as if with the rising of our ideas on waking in the morning, autumn conditions had blown over everything which had grown up overnight: an inner process comparable for the whole earth with the withering of the plants towards autumn. Only, the earth is not represented as man is by two states of consciousness—waking and sleeping; while one half of the earth is asleep the other half is always awake, so that sleep always follows the sun's journey from one hemisphere to the other. Thus, then, with the earth we are dealing with a vast organism which lives its sleep life from spring to autumn, the sleep life which we are shown in the external organs, in what sprouts and grows in the plant kingdom, and in autumn withdraws into its spiritual sphere, into what is the soul of the earth; for the life of the earth is in the season from autumn to spring. Hence, we cannot speak of a real death or a real birth in plants at all, only of a sleeping and waking of the whole earth organism. As in human beings sleeping and waking is repeated rhythmically in the course of twenty-four hours, and as we do not speak in this connection of the death and birth of our thought world either, if we wish to speak correctly, should we speak of the life and death of plants. We should keep the whole earth organism in view, regarding the plant process belonging to the whole earth organism as a waking up and falling asleep of the earth. When we are feeling most pleasure in what is springing out of the earth, when we remember how men of earlier times, out of their joy in the sprouting life, kept the Feast of St. John, that is precisely the time for the earth which is midnight for man, with respect to his organism and external bodily nature. And when men prepare to celebrate the Christmas festival, when life without is dead, then we are dealing with the spiritual processes of earth. At this time man best finds his connection with the whole spiritual life of the earth; he realizes what he has indicated (from a correct instinct) by fixing mankind's spiritual festivals in winter. I know what objections external natural science can raise against this, but natural science does not consider man's correct instincts.
Now let us try to investigate what we can call death in the animal kingdom, not indeed by making judgments through analogy but rather, by expressing once more, through a process in the human being, what Spiritual Science has to give.
Now we must notice that our soul life, if we study it carefully, certainly shows a different course from that which consists in its furtherance and fructifying through the alternation of waking and sleeping. It should be pointed out that through the whole of a man's life—from his childhood, for as long as he can consciously remember—he is experiencing a kind of maturing process. Ever more and more mature does a man become through what he can absorb of life's experience. This maturing process is accomplished in a strange way. We remember—and through this alone is it possible for an ego to speak within us—all that we have experienced back to a certain point in our childhood; but we remember only the things connected with our ideas, with our thoughts. This is a very remarkable fact, but everyone in himself can follow up the statement. When you remember a painful or a pleasurable occurrence which took place perhaps thirty years ago, you will say: I can quite well recall all the details of the ideas which came into my mind, so that I can reconstruct them in my conception of the incident; but the pain or the pleasure connected with the occurrence at that time does not remain in my soul so vividly as objects of thought generally do. They have faded, severed themselves from the idea, and sunk into indeterminate darkness. We might say: We can always retrieve the ideas from the deep strata of our soul life, but—apart from exceptions—we must leave submerged our memories of what we have experienced as feelings, impulses, or passions. What we have experienced in the way of feeling remains submerged, detached from the bare ideas. Is it entirely lost? Does it lapse into nothingness? Emphatically No. For one who has not studied human life really conscientiously and in detail, it may seem to be so; but a conscientious observer studying from every point of view, will find the following: If we observe a human being at a definite juncture of his life; for example, in his fortieth year, we find him in a certain condition, a condition of soul but also of bodily health or sickness. The man appears to us as gloomily melancholic, easily depressed, or cheerful, or in some way of a phlegmatic or other temperament, easily grasping at the actualities of the world, easily absorbing what pleasure and joy can give him, and so on. The soul condition should not always be separated from the bodily; for the condition of soul appearing in a man is dependent on the way the bodily functions work. If we thus observe the soul mood and the whole disposition of a man at any age of his life, we shall soon find out what has become of the feeling experiences separated from the ideas which could only be remembered later as mental images. We shall find that what became detached as the mood of heart and soul has united itself with our deeper organization; it cannot be remembered in our inner life, but it expresses itself in the inner life, expresses itself, indeed, even as far as in health and sickness. Where are these moods lingering since we cannot remember them? They are submerged in the life of body and soul, and constitute a definite disposition in the man's whole life. Thus it appears to us that as we need memory for the whole course of our conscious life, as in sleep memory always plunges into indeterminate darkness, so our experiences of heart and soul sink down into the darkness of our own being and work upon our whole disposition.
So we have a second element at work in man. And now if we direct our gaze away from man to the whole earth organism, which we are studying as an ensouled being, we do not indeed study it as if the forces of soul and spirit at work in it are organized in the same way as the soul of man. For Spiritual Science shows us that many such beings as man dwell in the soul sphere of the earth; so that the soul of the earth presents a multiplicity, whereas that of man is a unity. Nevertheless, with respect to what has just been described, what is of a soul nature in the earth can quite well be compared with the soul experiences in man himself.—When we see how our moods of heart and soul sink down into our own organism, work on our body and come to expression in our whole disposition, we recognize a parallel to this in the sum total of processes carried out on earth, and indeed in all that finds expression in the origin of the living animal being. In ourselves, a process of body and soul is only set free through what is forced down into the darkness of our bodily disposition by the experiences of our heart and soul. For the earth, the corresponding experiences of soul and spirit are, as it were, crystallized in the birth and death of an animal being.—I know very well that a man who thinks out of hypotheses he can form a world conception which apparently stands firmly on the ground of natural science, may be disgusted by this explanation. I can sympathize with such a man. But the time will come when the direction of human thought and judgment leading to the elucidation of the processes of earthly death and birth will in the next spiritual evolution take the path indicated here; for all that we see as fact in natural science leads us to this conclusion.—Just as a man sees the moods of his soul which shape his organic disposition sinking into his bodily organism, so does he see externally in the earth organism the corresponding process of the rise of the animal world.
So, then, we find in the human being still another process: we see how out of the whole organism the so-called higher feelings and emotions emerge again in the soul. What is the characteristic of these? Whoever deals with this question without prejudice, but also without false asceticism, without false piety and hypocrisy, will say: What we may call the higher moral feelings and those moods in a man which develop into enthusiasm for all that is good, beautiful and true, for all that brings about the progress of the world, this is alive in us only because we are able, by the disposition of our heart and soul, to rise above everything originally implanted in us by instinct; so that, in our spiritual feelings, in our spiritual enthusiasm, we raise ourselves above all that the bodily organism alone can arouse. This can go so far that he whose enthusiasm is in his spiritual life sets so much store by the object of it, that it is a light thing for him even to give his physical life for the sake of what has inspired his higher moral and aesthetic feelings. Here we see that which lives as the spiritual element in this enthusiasm rise, with the suppression of our merely organic nature, in a mood which primarily has nothing to do with the course of the organic life. Thus an element in man also runs its course; that element which he sends down into the depths of his being and which there carries out its organic processes; but from the depths of his being also raise his moral and spiritual feelings, and with them the disposition of his heart and soul. These conquer, in ever-progressing evolution, what belongs merely to the organic, to the physically instinctive constitution of man.
This process, which we find in the human being divided into two elements, we find also in the world of living animals. If in our own case we let our disposition of heart and soul sink down into the life of the body, allowing ourselves to be influenced to the extent of health or sickness by our moods of heart and soul, we see, on the other hand, in all that is lived out in animal life, what constitutes a sinking down of such disposition for the whole earth. All that is feeling and passion in the whole earth organism is lived out in the animal kingdom just as our passions and impulses are lived out in our whole organization. As we look at the animal world we see in each separate form the result of the disposition of the soul of our earth. And if we consider the attraction which the earth exercises over the life of the animal world, allowing itself to be most closely linked with the external physical body, we see that this is no other than the victory of the spiritual—of what, with regard to animals we call the group soul. It is the super-sensible element which finds its representative only in externals, and conquers the external, as in man the spiritual feelings conquer what is merely instinctive. That the external processes of the earth organization always acquiesce in the power of death over the individual animal is in no way different from the victory always achieved in us by the spiritual over what is merely connected with the organic. Seeing the spiritual element in the animal from this point of view, we cannot apply the expressions birth and death to the beginning and end of an animal's existence in the same way as we apply them to man. It is certainly in animals a process of the whole earth, already more individualized than in the plant world. Nevertheless, if we bear in mind the different group souls assigned to the various animal species, we must see how, in each death which overtakes the individual animal, the external, bodily part perishes, but the group soul, which is the spiritual element in the animal, is always triumphant over the external form; just as in man the spiritual triumphs over the merely instinctive, represented not in the separate form but certainly in the organization.
Thus we see, as it were, a vast living being composed of the individual group souls of the animals, and we see the birth and death of the living animal appear in such a way that what forms the foundation of the spiritual in the individual animal has always to fight for its victory over the individuality. Hence we have death in animals presented as that which, as the group soul, moves above the wasting and decay of the individual animal form. We could only speak of a real death in connection with an animal if we failed to bear in mind what remains after the death of an animal; namely, the spiritual, as in man the spiritual, rising above itself, triumphs over the disposition of soul as well as over what is doomed to wither away.—If Darwinism ever advances beyond its present stage, it will see how, throughout the animal kingdom, from the earliest ages, a thread of evolution runs through the apparent births and deaths into the distant future; so that the whole evolution of the animal kingdom will lead at last to a victory of what the lower, the individual animal form being overcome—will issue from the entire spiritual world, leaving behind the lower part living in the individual animals, and will one day triumph over the instinctive element apparent in the whole of animal nature.
And when in man we come to what we call the human will nature—if we then do not speak only of the ideas he has had, which can be recalled again and again, and do not fix our attention only on the soul disposition which sinks in the way described into the deeper organization—if we, rather, look to the impulses of the will, we shall see that they represent above all the most enigmatic part of human nature. How the impulses of a man's will are determined depends upon the experiences life has brought him. If we look back from any point in our life, we find a continuous path, a movement, in which each soul event is linked with one before it. We find, however, that what we have experienced flows mainly into our will in such a way that if we look at ourselves thus, we may say that we have actually become richer in ideas, and riper with respect to the impulses of our will. Indeed, we develop a very special ripeness with respect to our will. This is experienced by everyone looking back upon his life. We do something in life; how we ought to have done it we actually learn only when we have done it. And everyone knows how little chance there is of finding himself in the same situation again later, so that he may apply, at a later opportunity, what he has gained as maturity in life—what he has, perhaps, won through experience of trial and error. One thing, however, he knows; namely, that all his experiences are fitted together in the whole composition of his will, in what we may call the wisdom of his willing; this makes for the maturity to which we gradually attain. It is our will life which becomes increasingly mature; the whole of our feelings, ideas, and so on, combine together to make our will, even with regard to external concerns, increasingly mature. For, when our thinking becomes riper through the experiences of life, this is indeed only a growing ripeness in the will expressed in the fitting together of thought with thought. So we see how our whole soul life as we survey it in retrospect leads us, as it were, to the center of our being, which forms the background to our will impulses and in which this constant ripening is expressed. If we bear this in mind, we have the third element of human evolution, of which we can say that in life we cultivate it in our physical body—we grow up in this element—in it we grow beyond and above what we were when we came into this existence through birth. As in this existence we are clothed in a physical body, and this physical body is the instrument we have to use for our soul—because the soul employs the reasoning power, employs the brain—the being of our soul acquires experience and maturity in life which crystallizes, as it were, in the whole structure of the mature will.
In this life, however, we are not as a rule in a position to work out, to carry through, what is now present in the impulses of our will. This is the question before mankind: What is it in these will impulses which we cultivate as the dearest possession of our souls, which we have made our own, perhaps just on account of our imperfection, that makes us never able to bring them to expression? What we send down into the depths of our being as the content of the experiences of our soul (we have observed this in the second part of our study) leads to the whole disposition of our body and soul. It leads to the way our character is determined, to what life has made of us with regard to health and sickness, whether we are more melancholic, or cheerful, and so on. But what we have made of ourselves with respect to the disposition of our will, this is our inmost being; this is what we have become. Through this, however, we have outgrown what we were. And in the second half of our life, when we are going downhill, we notice how our body refuses to carry out what we have become through the impulses of our will. In short, we see that through our life as perceiving, feeling and willing beings we become something completely at variance with what we already are, something which recoils from what we already are. As our life ripens we feel inwardly in our souls how we clash with what, through our elements, through our bodily aptitudes, through our soul life, we have become. We feel inwardly the conflict between the whole structure of our will and mature life, on the one hand, and on the other the whole structure of our organization; fundamentally we also feel this clash in every single impulse of the will leading to action. This is because our thoughts are to a certain extent transparent, and our feelings, too; but the way in which will power becomes action is inscrutable. The will clashes, so to speak, with external life, and becomes conscious of itself only when this clash takes place. And here we may follow, in the whole of life, even in the bodily organization, what already appears in the life of the soul; namely, that what a man has become, what has given him the aptitude for his talents, must be broken and destroyed by the will, which only appears in this life; otherwise this will power will never be able to make itself felt.
Just as man can become conscious of himself only through the clash with reality, so can he only experience himself as a progressive process by his whole physical life being destroyed through the will, in the same way as the brain is destroyed by the life of ideas. But whereas the brain can be restored through sleep, a new growth of the will cannot be promoted; in fact, through the impulses of the will a continuous process of destruction enters into every life. Thus we see that man must destroy his organism; we realize the necessity of real death for man. Just as we understand the necessity of sleep for the life of ideas, so we now understand the necessity of death for the life of the will. For it is only because man's physical organization is in opposition to his will that the will is aware of itself, that it is strengthened in itself, and thus goes through the gate of death into a life in the spiritual world where it appropriates to itself the forces to build up, in a future incarnation, all that man has not attained in this bodily life. This could be developed for him only by a consciousness ripe for the next move, for something which gives opportunity for a further advance that has not been fully carried out in this life; for this he could only have a consciousness ripe for the next stage which gave him the aptitude for something further that could not be lived out in this life. This will be lived out in a coming earth life, in which the man will work at his new destiny, his new earth life, in an appropriate way.
Whereas, then, with reference to death we could only speak in the plant world of a waking and falling asleep of the whole earth nature, and in the animal world could only compare death with the ebb and flow, and the conquest of our lower life of instinct, it is only with human death that we find what points us, through the destruction of this one life, to ever-recurring lives. It is only through the destruction of this one life that we can attain to what enters into the new earth life and alone leads to the true consummation of the whole human existence. Through this it is also established that the will of man, to become conscious of itself in its entirety, needs the dying away of the physical body; and that, fundamentally, the experience it requires for the correct will impulse is only present when we pass through the gate of death, when this will impulse shares the gradual decline and dying of the external organization. For the will grows by means of the opposition it perceives in the external organization; through this it grows ever stronger and prepares itself to become that which lives throughout eternity. Hence, apart from all that you find explained in Spiritual Science about an unnatural death, it is easy to see that a death brought about by an accident, or suicide, or anything of the kind, is quite different from a natural death, which gives the guarantee for resurrection to a new life. Unnatural death in any form can indeed also be something which signifies an advance in man's total destiny. But what the will, in its general nature, would have had to experience in its victory over the bodily nature, remains in a certain sense present as an inner force, and has to follow a different path when man goes through the gate of death in an unnatural way, from the one it would take if he lived to the natural end of his life.
Thus we see that we may really speak of death only when we are referring to what we may call the development of a new type of will for a new life, and that for this reason we cannot speak of a true death with reference to other beings. As regards man, however, we must speak in such a way that not only are Goethe's words true: “Nature has invented death in order to have more life”, but also in such a way that we say: If there were no death, we should have to wish that it existed, for it makes it possible that through the opposition and withering away of the external organization, the will grows increasingly—growing, indeed, for the new life. And this makes it possible for evolution to advance to greater heights through the different incarnations, so that the life also assumes a more exalted form—even though this does not occur immediately in the next lives, even though retrogression may take place. In the whole course of repeated earth lives the advance will, however, be recognized.
Thus death is the great strengthener of the will for the spiritual life. And we see—as has already been indicated—that recent natural science, although with faltering voice, agrees with Spiritual Science in pointing out that death represents a kind of poisoning process.—Yes, indeed, all spiritual evolution goes its own independent way in devastation, destruction, of the external bodily life. What the world of ideas lays waste in man is repaired by sleep. What is destroyed by the instincts of man is restored by the higher moral and aesthetic feelings and emotions; the destruction of the bodily organization brought about through the activity of the will is restored in the whole life of man through that ripeness of will which persists through death and is able to build up a new life. Thus death acquires a meaning: the meaning whereby man is able, not only to think of immortality, but actually to experience it. Whoever considers death in this way sees it approach as the power leading the external bodily life to its dissolution; but in opposition to this dissolution, he sees the dawn of a new human soul life, the life which man maintains from incarnation to incarnation throughout eternity. Not until we understand the meaning of death for man's eternity have we grasped the meaning of death for the whole of nature. Then, however, we must also give up the widespread, foolish conception which speaks of death in relation to animals and plants; then we must know that actually there can only be a question of real death when those destinies are taken into consideration which the spirit experiences in passing through bodily existence, and when we look at the realities which the spirit must develop in the bodily sphere in order to perfect its own consummation. The spirit must abandon the body to death, so that the spirit may raise itself to an ever higher level of perfection. Keeping this point of view in mind and looking upon death in the human kingdom, our soul may tell us that through death man's spirit and soul can rise to a higher perfection. Even when looking at death in the kingdoms of animal and plant we see the spirit shining through to the ground of all phenomena—and the soul may show itself at one with these words which arouse us, not only bringing us comfort but every hope of life:
Out of the spirit all being has sprung,
Deep in the spirit are the roots of all life,
The aim of all striving is spirit.
Der Tod Beimensch, Tier und Pflanze
Tolstoi sprach sich einmal in seinen Schriften mit Verwunderung, man könnte auch sagen mit Mißbilligung, darüber aus, daß er beim Durchstöbern der gegenwärtigen Wissenschaft wohl alle möglichen Untersuchungen über die Entwickelung der Insektenwelt, über ihm unbedeutend erscheinende Dinge im Organismus oder sonst in der Welt gefunden habe, daß er aber gerade innerhalb der Wissenschaft nichts gefunden habe über die wichtigen, die wesentlichen, die jedes Herz bewegenden Fragen. Vor allen Dingen, sagt Tolstoi, habe er nicht irgend etwas über das Wesen des Todes gefunden. Man wird von einem gewissen Gesichtspunkte aus einem solchen, von bedeutsamer Seite her kommenden Einwand gegen den modernen wissenschaftlichen Geist nicht ganz unrecht geben können. Dennoch darf man von einer gewissen anderen Seite her betonen, daß, wenn ein solcher Ausspruch einen Vorwurf bedeuten soll, er gewissermaßen doch ungerecht ist gegenüber der modernen Wissenschaft aus dem sehr einfachen Grunde, weil die moderne Wissenschaft seit langer Zeit ihre Größe und Bedeutung gerade auf demjenigen Gebiete gehabt hat, wo man nach Antworten auf Fragen, die etwa nach dem Wesen des Todes gehen, im Grunde genommen ganz vergeblich suchte. Man braucht wahrhaftig nicht, wenn man auf dem Boden derjenigen Weltanschauung steht, die hier vertreten werden soll, sich in Ausfällen über Ausfällen ergehen über die moderne Wissenschaft. Man kann die großartigen Errungenschaften, die ganz bedeutsamen Leistungen dieser Wissenschaft sowohl auf ihrem eigenen Gebiete, wie auch mit Rücksicht auf ihre Anwendung im praktischen Leben und im menschlichen Zusammensein gar wohl auf das allerhöchste bewundern, und es ist wiederholt hier zum Ausdruck gebracht worden, daß die Geisteswissenschaft wahrhaftig keiner Art von Bewunderung, die nach dieser Richtung geht, etwa nachzustehen braucht. Nun liegen aber gerade die bedeutsamsten Errungenschaften der modernen Wissenschaftlichkeit auf einem Boden, auf dem man an jene Berührungspunkte, an die man kommen muß, wenn die Fragen nach Tod, nach Unsterblichkeit und dergleichen untersucht werden sollen, gerade nicht kommen kann. Die moderne Wissenschaft kann dies von ihren Ausgangspunkten aus deshalb nicht, weil sie sich zunächst die Aufgabe gesetzt hat, das materielle Leben als solches zu untersuchen. Überall aber, wo der Tod ins Dasein eingreift, finden wir den herangezogenen Berührungspunkt, wenn wir genauer zusehen, zwischen Geistigem und Materiellem. Wahrhaftig, man braucht, wenn man über diese Fragen spricht, nicht mit manchen billigen Ausfällen gegen die Bemühungen der modernen Wissenschaft übereinzustimmen. Ja, man darf sogar sagen, und auch das ist schon öfter betont worden, daß man sich, wenn die großen Gewissensfragen des Daseins untersucht werden sollen, in bezug auf das wissenschaftliche Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl und das wissenschaftliche Gewissen mehr hingezogen fühlen kann, auch als Geisteswissenschafter, zu der Art und Weise, wie die äußere Naturwissenschaft heute vorgeht, wenn sie auch an die wichtigsten Fragen und an das Leben nicht herankommen kann, als zu manchen leichtgeschürzten Auseinandersetzungen, die da von dilettantischen theosophischen oder sonstwie geisteswissenschaftlichen Seiten kommen, und die es sich oft recht leicht machen, besonders in methodischer Beziehung, mit den Antworten auf Fragen, wie sie uns heute beschäftigen.
In der neueren Zeit hat man allerdings angefangen, vom Standpunkte der Wissenschaft aus, der Frage von dem Tode der Wesen nahezutreten. Es ist dies in einer eigenartigen Weise geschehen. Und abgesehen von mancherlei einzelnen Versuchen, die gemacht worden sind, deren Auseinandersetzung aber heute zu weit führen würde, darf wenigstens auf einen Forscher hingewiesen werden, der die Frage nach dem Wesen des Todes in einem bedeutsamen Buche berührt hat, und der sich in einer eigenartigen Weise zu dieser Frage gestellt hat, in einer so eigenartigen Weise, daß wir wieder sagen müssen, wie es in ähnlicher Art bei den Auseinandersetzungen über den «Ursprung des Menschen» gesagt werden mußte: Man fühlt sich als Geisteswissenschafter so sonderbar gegenüber dieser Naturwissenschaft der Gegenwart, denn überall da, wo einem Tatsachen entgegengebracht werden, findet man, daß man gerade vom Standpunkte der Geisteswissenschaft aus diesen Tatsachen voll Rechnung tragen kann und in ihnen strenge Beweise für das sehen kann, was die Geisteswissenschaft darzustellen hat. - Wo einem dann freilich die Theorien und Hypothesen entgegentreten, die in der Gegenwart von Weltanschauungsleuten in einer mehr oder weniger materialistischen Weise oder, wie man glaubt vornehmer sagen zu müssen, in einer monistischen Weise aufgestellt werden, da wird die Sache anders. Da fühlt man, so sehr man übereinstimmen kann mit den Tatsachen, welche die neuere Zeit hervorgebracht hat, so wenig kann man sich oft mit den Theorien und Hypothesen einverstanden erklären, welche jene, die auf dem echten Boden der Naturwissenschaft zu stehen glauben, meinen aufbauen zu müssen auf dem, was sich als naturwissenschaftliche Tatsachen ergibt.
Der Forscher, der über das Wesen des Todes geschrieben hat, hat von seinem naturwissenschaftlichen Standpunkte aus auf einen Punkt hingewiesen, der gerade in geisteswissenschaftlicher Beziehung sehr interessant ist. Es ist der Mann, der lange Zeit Direktor am Pasteurschen Institut in Paris war: Metschnikoff. Er sucht nach den gegebenen Tatsachen Klarheit zu gewinnen, soweit es heute möglich ist, über die Tatsachen, welche den Tod der Wesen herbeiführen. Zunächst muß man bei einer solchen Frage absehen von dem sogenannten gewaltsamen Tode der Wesen. Wir werden vielleicht Gelegenheit haben, auf diesen gewaltsamen Tod, der durch äußere Unglücksfälle oder anderes herbeigeführt wird, auch ein wenig hinzuweisen. Wenn man aber über die Frage nach dem Wesen des Todes spricht — darauf macht auch Metschnikoff aufmerksam -, so muß man ihn hineingestellt sehen in das natürliche Dasein, muß ihn sozusagen zugehörig betrachten zu den Lebenserscheinungen, muß sich die Lebenserscheinungen so vor Augen führen können, daß der Tod zu ihnen hinzugehört. Da kann man dann das Rätsel des Todes nur an dem sogenannten natürlichen Tode lösen, der als das Ende des Lebens herbeigeführt wird, wie andere natürliche Prozesse im Laufe des Lebens herbeigeführt werden. Es ist unmöglich, da dies nur eine Einleitung bilden soll, was in Anlehnung an die Naturwissenschaft gesagt werden soll, auf die interessanten Einzelheiten der Ausführungen des genannten Forschers und Denkers einzugehen. Aber darauf soll hingewiesen werden, daß er aufmerksam macht, wie dem Naturforscher, wenn er die Tatsachen des Lebens betrachtet, in den Vorgängen des Lebens selber, in dem, wodurch gewissermaßen das Leben sich entwickelt und fortbildet, eigentlich nichts Rechtes entgegentrete, was einen Grund dafür abgeben könnte, daß die Vernichtung des Wesens, daß der Tod in das Leben eingreift. An zahlreichen Beispielen sucht gerade Metschnikoff nachzuweisen, wie der, welcher das Leben verfolgt, überall sieht, daß der Tod auftritt, ohne daß man zum Beispiel von dem sprechen könnte, wovon im Verlaufe des Lebens, wenn es zum Tode hingeht, leicht gesprochen werden könnte, ohne daß dasjenige hervortritt, was man Erschöpfung des Lebens in sich selber nennen könnte. Auf zahlreiche Tatsachen macht dieser Forscher aufmerksam, welche beweisen, daß die Vorgänge des Lebens fortgehen in einer gewissen ungeschwächten Art, daß von einer Erschöpfung des Lebens in sich selber nicht die Rede sein könnte, und daß doch der Tod in einem bestimmten Zeitpunkte eintritt, so daß dieser Forscher in die - man muß es sich nur gestehen — jedenfalls außerordentlich merkwürdige Lage kommt, im Grunde genommen jeden Tod, jedes Beenden des Lebens im Pflanzen-, Tier- und Menschenreich äußeren Einflüssen zuzuschreiben, dem Auftreten gewisser Feinde des Lebens, die im Laufe des Lebens die Oberhand gewinnen und die zuletzt als Kämpfer gegen das Leben wie ein Gift gegen das Leben wirken und es so zuletzt zerstören. Während also der Organismus selber für diesen Forscher durchaus überall Anzeichen zeigt, daß er nicht eigentlich aus Erschöpfung sich selber endet, glaubt diese Persönlichkeit da, wo der Tod naht, solche Feinde des Lebens in irgendeiner Form auftreten zu sehen, welche wie Vergiftungserscheinungen da sind und dem Leben ein Ende machen. So haben wir also hier eine naturwissenschaftliche Hypothese vor uns — mehr ist sie ja als solche nicht -, welche im Grunde genommen jeden natürlichen Tod auf äußere Einflüsse zurückführt, auf das Auftreten von Vergiftungserscheinungen durch äußere Lebewesen aus dem Pflanzen- oder Tierreich, die als Feinde des Lebens auftreten und in gewissen Momenten den Organismus zerstören.
Eine derartige Auseinandersetzung ist eine solche, welche alle Mittel anwendet, um innerhalb der materiellen Erscheinungen selber zu einer Art von Begreifen des Wesens des Todes zu kommen. Man sucht, wenn man einen solchen Weg einschlägt, möglichst davon abzusehen, daß in das organische Leben das geistige Element selber als ein Tätiges, als ein Wirksames eingreifen könnte, und daß vielleicht dieses geistige Element als solches etwas mit dem Tode zu tun haben könnte, wie er uns in der äußeren Welt entgegentritt. Es wäre ja sogar das nicht ganz undenkbar, wenn es auch zunächst dem, der auf mehr oder weniger materialistischem oder monistischem Boden steht, absurd erscheinen müßte, daß gerade jene Feinde, welche wie vergiftende Kräfte im Verhältnis zum Organismus auftreten, sich gerade, man möchte sagen wie notwendige Begleiterscheinungen der geistigen Kräfte einstellen könnten, welche die organischen Wesen, die dem Tode entgegengehen, durchsetzen und durchströmen, durchwirken und durchkraften. Nicht undenkbar wäre es, daß der wirksame Geist, indem er auf der einen Seite darauf angewiesen ist, den Organismus als sein Werkzeug in der physischen Welt zu gebrauchen, auf der anderen Seite gleichsam durch seine Prozesse die Möglichkeit hervorruft, daß solche feindlichen Kräfte in den Organismus eingreifen, um diesen zu zerstören. Nun muß man allerdings, wenn man eine solche Auseinandersetzung wie die eben angeführte auf sich wirken läßt, eines nicht außer acht lassen, daß die Naturwissenschaft der Gegenwart durch ihre Hinordnung zu den bloß materiellen Erscheinungen sich eigentlich den Tod der Organismen zu untersuchen leicht macht, aber es eigentlich sich nicht leicht machen müßte. Und dies führt ja dazu, zu betonen, daß es der Geisteswissenschaft, die von unserer Gegenwart aus den Versuch machen muß, sich in die geistige Entwickelung der Menschheit hineinzustellen, allerdings nicht so leicht wird, über gewisse Fragen Untersuchungen in einer so einfachen Weise anzustellen, wie es manchmal jene Weltanschauungen tun, die da glauben, bloß aus äußeren materiellen Tatsachen irgend etwas über die großen Rätsel des Daseins ausmachen zu können.
Da soll gleich von vornherein darauf aufmerksam gemacht werden, daß bei der ganzen Art und Weise, wie die Naturwissenschaft heute die Erscheinungen betrachtet, von allen denjenigen, welche glauben auf dem festen Boden der naturwissenschaftlichen Tatsachen zu stehen, kein so rechter Unterschied gemacht wird über den Tod in bezug auf die pflanzliche Welt, in bezug auf die tierische Welt und die menschliche Welt. Denn, was man den Tod in der Pflanzenwelt, den Tod in der Tierwelt, den Tod in der menschlichen Welt nennt, was haben sie miteinander anderes gemein, als daß eine äußere Erscheinung vernichtet wird? Das haben sie aber auch im Grunde genommen übereinstimmend mit der Vernichtung einer äußeren Maschine: das Aufhören des Zusammenhanges der Teile. Wenn man nur auf die äußeren Erscheinungen sieht, so hat man es insofern leicht über den Tod zu sprechen, als man über diesen Tod in einer einförmig gleichen Weise bei Pflanze, Tier und Mensch sprechen kann. Wozu das führt, sehen wir an einem Falle, den ich vor einer Anzahl von hier sitzenden Zuhörern öfter angeführt habe, der aber immer wieder interessant ist, wenn man das Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu einer solchen Frage ins Auge faßt. Ich möchte bei einer solchen Gelegenheit nicht auf die gewöhnlichen populären Schriften hindeuten, die sich bemühen in weitere Kreise zu tragen, was die Naturwissenschaft ergeben haben soll, sondern ich möchte, wenn die Beziehung zur Naturwissenschaft hergestellt werden soll, immer auf die sogenannten besten Auseinandersetzungen dieser Art verweisen. Da haben wir immer Gelegenheit, auf ein sowohl leicht faßliches wie auch ausgezeichnetes Buch über Physiologie hinzuweisen, das von keinem Geringeren als von dem großen englischen naturwissenschaftlichen Forscher Huxley herrührt, und das auch von dem Erlanger Professor I. Rosenthal ins Deutsche übertragen ist. Eine Physiologie, auf deren ersten Seiten auch mit wenigen Worten in einer sehr merkwürdigen Art über den Tod gehandelt wird, an der wir sogleich sehen, wie unzulänglich gegenüber einer solchen Frage im Grunde genommen nicht das Forschen, wohl aber das Denken, das Urteilen der gegenwärtigen Wissenschaft ist. Darin sagt Huxley etwa gleich auf den ersten Seiten seiner «Grundzüge der Physiologie» : Von drei Dingen hängt das Leben des Menschen ab, und wenn deren Zerstörung eintritt, so muß der Tod herbeigeführt werden. Wenn erstens das Gehirn zerstört wird, wenn zweitens die Lungenatmung unterdrückt wird, und wenn drittens die Herztätigkeit unterbunden wird, so müsse der Tod des Menschen eintreten. - Doch merkwürdigerweise, man weiß aber gar nicht, ob in weiteren Kreisen dieses «merkwürdigerweise» heute gefühlt wird, weil sich die Denkgewohnheiten von materlalistischer Weisheit haben beeinflussen lassen, sagt Huxley, sei es nicht unbedingt zu sagen, daß der Tod des menschlichen Lebewesens eintreten müsse, wenn die drei genannten Funktionen des menschlichen Organismus unterbunden seien. Man könne sich vielmehr denken, daß das Gehirn nicht mehr funktioniert; wenn aber dann noch Lungen- und Herztätigkeit künstlich unterhalten werden könnten, so könne das Leben noch eine Weile fortdauern, auch ohne daß das Gehirn tätig sei. — Ob dieses «merkwürdigerweise» gefühlt wird, ist nur eine Frage der Denkgewohnbheiten. Denn eigentlich sollte man sich sagen: Ein Leben des Menschen, ohne daß er sich in der physischen Welt des Gehirnes als Werkzeug bedienen könnte, kann doch wirklich nicht als eine Fortdauer des Lebens bezeichnet werden. — Von einem solchen Menschen muß man zugeben, daß das Leben beendet sei, wenn das für sein physisches Dasein nicht mehr auftreten kann, wozu er des Instrumentes des Gehirnes bedarf. Und wenn dann noch in irgendeiner Weise Lungentätigkeit und Herztätigkeit unterhalten werden können, so wäre das ungefähr ein Fortleben vielleicht im Sinne eines Pflanzenwesens, und man könnte, wenn man ganz vorurteilslos vorgehen will, von jenem Tode, der dann noch eintreten müßte, wenn Lungen- und Herztätigkeit aufhören, wie von einem Pflanzentode sprechen, der zu dem ersten Tode hinzukommt.
Vom menschlichen Tode vorurteilslos zu sprechen ist nur möglich, wenn man den Tod eintreten sieht, weil sich der Mensch des bedeutsamsten Werkzeuges nicht mehr bedienen kann, durch welches er sein Leben in der physischen Welt, in seinen Bewußtseinstatsachen lebt. Und das Aufhören der Bewußtseinstatsachen innerhalb der physischen Welt, insofern sie an die Notwendigkeit des Gehirnes gebunden sind, müßte man für den Menschen allein als den Tod bezeichnen. Aber wie äußerlich solche Dinge betrachtet werden, das zeigt sich hinlänglich darin, daß Huxley selber auf jenen Seiten, wo er über den Tod spricht, darauf aufmerksam macht, daß es der Naturwissenschaft noch nicht gelungen sei, ähnlich vorzugehen, wie nach seiner Anschauung eine alte Lehre, wie er meint, vorgegangen sei, nur durch die Seelenwanderung die geistigen, wesentlichen Seelentatsachen im weiteren Verlaufe des Daseins zu verfolgen, wenn der Mensch durch die Pforte des Todes gegangen ist. Noch nicht, meint Huxley, könne so die moderne Naturwissenschaft verfolgen das, was sie zu verfolgen habe: den Sauerstoff, den Wasserstoff, den Stickstoff und so weiter, welche den Organismus des Menschen zusammensetzen und welche auseinandergehen, wenn der Mensch durch die Pforte des Todes gegangen ist. Dadurch, glaubte dieser Forscher, könnte die Naturwissenschaft etwas beitragen zu der Frage nach dem Sinn des Todes, wenn man den Wegen nachlaufen könnte, welche die Stoffe, die den menschlichen Organismus während des Lebens zusammengesetzt haben, nach dem Tode des Menschen nehmen. Und bedeutsam und interessant ist es, daß wir am Schlusse dieser ersten Abhandlung der Physiologie eines solchen Forschers auf Worte hingewiesen werden, die wir dann begreifen können, wenn sie der düster melancholische Dänenprinz Hamlet spricht, welche wir aber nicht angeführt finden dürften, wenn die ernsthafte Frage nach dem Wesen des Todes in der Welt aufgeworfen wird. Wenn wir beim Menschen nach dem Wesen des Todes fragen, so interessiert uns unbedingt das Schicksal desjenigen, das im Menschen der Wesenskern ist, und wir können niemals zufrieden sein zu wissen, wie sich die einzelnen Stoffe, die einzelnen Materien verhalten, die das äußerlich Leibliche zusammengesetzt haben, solange sich des Menschen geistig-seelischer Wesenskern der äußeren Werkzeuge bediente. Hamlet mag aus seiner düsteren Melancholie heraus sagen:
Der große Cäsar, tot, und Lehm geworden,
Verstopft ein Loch wohl vor dem rauhen Norden.
O daß die Erde, der die Welt gebebt,
Vor Wind und Wetter eine Wand verklebt.
Das mag der Melancholiker sagen, und wir begreifen es im dramatischen Zusammenhange. Wenn aber der Naturforscher darauf aufmerksam macht, daß die Moleküle und Atome, die einst im Leibe des Cäsar waren, in irgendeinem anderen Wesen weiterleben könnten, etwa, wie Huxley meint, in einem Neger oder in einem Hunde oder in einem Mauerloch, so fühlt der, welcher die Dinge völlig ernst nimmt, aus den Tiefen des Denkens heraus, wie unmöglich ein solches Denken an die großen Fragen nach den Weltenrätseln herankommen kann. Auch das ist kein Einwand gegen die Naturwissenschaft, die eben ihre Großtaten auf materiellem Gebiete zu verrichten hat. Es soll nur charakterisieren, wie auf der einen Seite die Naturwissenschaft ihre Grenzen anschauen und wahren soll und die Fragen nach den materiellen Vorgängen und dem Schicksal der Stoffe beantworten soll, und wie auf der anderen Seite jene Weltanschauungsleute, die auf das, was man durch gewissenhaftes Erforschen über das Schicksal des Stofflichen erfahren kann, eine Weltanschauung aufbauen wollen über etwas, wie der Tod es ist, wie diese Weltanschauungsleute im wesentlichen die Grenzen weit überschreiten, deren sie sich bewußt sein sollten, wenn sie auf dem Boden der äußeren materiellen Tatsachen stehenbleiben wollen. Die Geisteswissenschaft, wurde gesagt, habe es nicht so leicht. Denn sie muß von ihren Gesichtspunkten aus getrennt untersuchen die Erscheinungen dessen, was man den Tod nennen muß bei der Pflanze, was man den Tod beim Tiere nennt, und auch getrennt davon das, was der Tod nun im besonderen im Menschenreiche ist.
Zu einer Anschauung über das Wesen des Todes in der Pflanzenwelt kommt man nicht, wenn man die Pflanzen so betrachtet, wie sie sehr häufig betrachtet werden, daß man jede einzelne Pflanze als ein Wesen für sich betrachtet. Es würde natürlich heute viel zu weit führen, wenn im einzelnen noch einmal ausgeführt werden sollte, worauf in den vorhergehenden Vorträgen auch schon hingedeutet worden ist, daß die Geisteswissenschaft die Erde selber als ein großes Lebewesen ansehen muß, dessen Lebensprozeß sich allerdings im Laufe der Entwickelung geändert hat. Wenn wir für alte Zeiten den Lebensprozeß der Erde untersuchen würden, so würden wir finden, daß die Erde in urferner Vergangenheit ein ganz anderes Wesen war, daß sie gewissermaßen einen Prozeß durchgemacht hat, welcher dazu geführt hat, das Gesamtleben der Erde mehr zu unterdrücken und an die einzelnen Lebensreiche abzugeben, an das Pflanzen-, Tier- und Menschenreich. Aber auch für unsere Gegenwart kann die Geisteswissenschaft die Erde nicht als dieses bloß physikalische Zusammensein der äußeren Stoffe denken, wie man die Sache auf dem Boden der heutigen Physik, der Geologie und Mineralogie betrachtet. Sondern die Geisteswissenschaft muß in dem, was als der mineralische Boden unseres Daseins gegeben ist, auf dem wir herumwandeln, etwas sehen, was als ein Festes aus dem gesamten Erdenorganismus ebenso oder ähnlich herausgesetzt worden ist, wie aus den Weichteilen des menschlichen Organismus das feste Knochengerüst herausgesetzt ist. Wie im Menschen das feste Knochengerüst hinneigt zu einer Art von bloß physikalischem System, zu einem bloß physikalischen Organzusammenhang, so haben wir im großen Erdenorganismus dasjenige, was uns als physisch und chemisch in seiner Wirksamkeit entgegentritt, wie eine Art Knochengerüst der Erde anzusehen. Das ist nur aus dem Gesamtleben ausgeschieden, und alles, was auf der Erde geschieht, was sich im Erdenprozesse vollzieht, muß im Sinne der Geisteswissenschaft als eine Einheit betrachtet werden. Wenn wir also die einzelne Pflanze betrachten, haben wir ebenso unrecht, wenn wir sie für sich ansehen mit der Möglichkeit eines individuellen Daseins, wie wir unrecht hätten, wenn wir ein einzelnes menschliches Haar oder einen Nagel für sich ansehen und als eine Individualität studieren wollten. Das Haar oder der Nagel haben nur Sinn und Bedeutung, und man erkennt nur ihre innere Gesetzmäßigkeit, wenn man ste nicht für sich individuell, sondern im Zusammenhange mit dem Organismus betrachtet, auf dem sich das Haar oder der Nagel befindet. In diesem Sinne gehört die einzelne Pflanze, gehört alles, was pflanzlich auf der Erde überhaupt ist, zum Erdenorganismus.
Bemerken muß ich dazu: Was die Geisteswissenschaft als ihre Behauptungen vorzubringen hat, das wird auf den Wegen erkannt, die in diesen Vorträgen schon angegeben worden sind, so daß es sich nicht um Schlüsse handelt von dem Menschen selber aus über das, was sich in der Umwelt ausbreitet.-Denn wenn gesagt wird, die Geisteswissenschaft stelle als analog die Prozesse dar, die im Menschen vor sich gehen, so kann es zwar für die Darstellung notwendig werden, daß man sich zu solchen Analogien gezwungen fühlt, indem man dasjenige, was die geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung in der Welt wahrnimmt, veranschaulicht und versinnbildlicht am menschlichen Organismus, weil derselbe zunächst den Zusammenhang darstellt des Leiblichen mit dem Geistigen, und man am besten verständlich wird, wenn man am Menschlich-Geistigen veranschaulicht. Daß aber dasjenige, was Pflanze ist, in den großen Organismus Erde eingebettet ist und zu demselben gehört, wie Haare und Nägel zum menschlichen Organismus, das ist für dieGeisteswissenschaft nicht etwas durch Analogie Erschlossenes, ist für sie überhaupt nicht etwas durch einen Schluß Zustandegekommenes, sondern das ergibt sich dadurch, daß der Geistesforscher jene Wege durchmacht, die hier beschrieben oder angedeutet worden sind, und die man ausführlich verfolgen kann in dem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?». Das Wesentliche eines solchen Forscherweges ist, daß der Mensch dadurch sein Bewußtsein selber erweitert, daß er aufhört nur in sich zu leben, daß er nicht mehr bloß wahrnimmt, was sich der äußeren physischen Anschauung darbietet, daß er nicht mehr nur das auf sich wirken läßt, was die Sinne wahrnehmen können, und was der Verstand begreifen kann, der an das Instrument des Gehirnes gebunden ist. Sondern es ist das Ergebnis eines solchen Forscherweges, daß der Mensch von seinem leiblichen Werkzeug loskommt, daß er Teilnehmer wird an einer geistigen Welt und dann in seinem Umkreise in seinem Horizont nicht nur das hat, was sich für die äußeren Sinne und für den Verstand darstellt, sondern die geistigen Wesenheiten und geistigen Kräfte. So ist für den geisteswissenschaftlichen Forscherweg dasjenige, was man nennen könnte dasSeelische der Erde, als ein die ganze Erde belebendes Seelisches ebenso vorhanden, wie das Seelische des Menschen vorhanden ist als das den menschlichen Organismus Belebende. Der geistige Forscher erweitert sein Bewußtsein zu einem Horizont, auf dem das die ganze Erde belebende Seelische unmittelbar zu seiner Anschauung kommt. Und dann ist für ihn die Pflanzenwelt nicht mehr bloß die Summe der einzelnen individuellen Pflanzen, sondern dann weiß er, daß das, was man Erden-Seele nennen könnte, mit alledem zu tun hat, was als Pflanze auf der Erde webt und lebt.
Es handelt sich aber dann noch immer darum: Wie haben wir uns nun vorzustellen, daß die Pflanzen entstehen und vergehen? Wie haben wir uns gewissermaßen das Geborenwerden oder den Tod der Pflanzen vorzustellen? — Wir werden gleich sehen, daß diese Worte, auf das Pflanzenreich angewendet, im Grunde genommen ebensowenig eine reale Bedeutung haben, wie es eine reale Bedeutung hat, wenn man sagen würde, falls jemand die Haare verliere, die Haare würden sozusagen sterben. Sobald man nur einmal zu dem Gedanken sich aufschwingt, daß man es bei der Erde als mit einem beseelten Organismus zu tun habe, muß man eine ganz neue Anschauung über Entstehen und Vergehen in der Pflanzenwelt gewinnen. Schon dem, der nicht bloß rein äußerlich vom Keime bis wieder zum Keime das einzelne pflanzliche Individuum verfolgt, sondern die Gesamtheit des Pflanzenlebens auf der Erde ins Auge faßt, wird es anschaulich, daß da noch etwas anderes im Spiele ist als das, was man Entstehen und Vergehen im Tierreich oder im Menschenreich nennen kann. Wir sehen, daß, mit Ausnahme derjenigen Gewächse, welche wir zu den Dauergewächsen zählen, das Spiel der Elemente im Verlaufe eines Jahres innig mit dem Entstehen und Vergehen der Pflanzen zusammenhängt, ganz anders zusammenhängt, als dies zum Beispiel beim Tiere der Fall ist. Wenig finden wir noch beim Tiere den Tod so an das Miterleben der äußeren Erscheinungen gebunden, wie wir das Hinwelken der Pflanzen an gewisse Erscheinungen der ganzen Erdennatur gebunden sehen, wenn es zum Beispiel gegen den Herbst zu geht. In der Tat betrachtet man das Leben der Pflanzen abstrakt, abgesondert von seiner Eingebettetheit in das ganze Erdendasein, wenn man nur die einzelne Pflanze betrachtet und nicht auf das rhythmisch durchwogende, auf-und abgehende Jahresleben hinschaut, das zu einer bestimmten Zeit die sprießenden und sprossenden Pflanzen aus sich heraustreibt, diese Pflanzen zu einer gewissen Reife und zu einer bestimmten Zeit wiederum zum Welken bringt. Wenn wir diesen ganzen Prozeß anschauen, so kann auch schon eine äußerlich sinnvolle, noch gar nicht in das Wesen der Geisteswissenschaft eindringende Betrachtung sich sagen: Da hat man es nicht bloß mit einem Entstehen und Vergehen der einzelnen Pflanze zu tun, sondern mit dem gesamten Erdprozeß, mit etwas, was lebt und webt in dem Gesamtdasein der Erde. Aber wo finden wir etwas, von dem wir sagen können, es mache uns durch das, was es in seinen eigenen Erscheinungen zeigt, verständlich, wie das unsichtbare Geistige, das wir als die Erde durchseelend zu denken haben, zusammengreift mit dem Hervorsprießen der Pflanze und wieder mit dem Welken der Pflanze? Wo finden wir irgend etwas, was uns so vor das geistige Auge tritt, daß es uns diesen Prozeß draußen verständlich machen kann?
Da zeigt sich dem Geistesforscher, daß er für dieses Weben und Leben in der Pflanzenwelt etwas in sich selber hat, etwas, was sich - man braucht es nur im richtigen Lichte zu betrachten - in der eigenen menschlichen Natur zeigt, und das uns erst sagen kann, wie es sich mit Entstehen und Vergehen in der Pflanzenwelt verhält. Wir finden innerhalb der menschlichen Natur das, was wir unsere gewöhnlichen Bewußtseinserscheinungen nennen. Aber wir wissen sehr gut, daß dieselben für den Menschen nur erlebbar sind während des wachen Tageslebens vom Aufwachen bis zum Einschlafen. Der Prozeß des Einschlafens, der Prozeß des Aufwachens sind merkwürdige Vorgänge im menschlichen Leben. Denn was nehmen wir wahr? Wir nehmen wahr beim Einschlafen ein Hinuntertauchen unserer gesamten seelischen Innenprozesse in ein unbestimmtes Dunkel; wir nehmen wahr ein Hinschwinden unserer Gedanken und Vorstellungen, unserer Gefühle, Willensimpulse in die Finsternis des Schlafzustandes. Und ein Herauftauchen dieses ganzen Seeleninhaltes nehmen wir wieder beim Aufwachen wahr. Dessen ist sich der Mensch bewußt. Nun wäre es ohne Zweifel absurd zu denken, daß der Schlaf nichts mit demjenigen zu tun habe, was entsprechend in der menschlichen Gesamtorganisation vorhanden ist. Wir wissen, wie für unser physisches Leben, insofern sich in demselben auch Geist und Seele ausleben müssen, ein geordneter, richtiger Schlafzustand eine Bedeutung hat. Wir wissen, was wir dem geordneten Schlafe verdanken. Es braucht nur immer wieder auf das aufmerksam gemacht zu werden, was derjenige hinlänglich wahrnimmt, der zum Beispiel ein gut ausgebildetes Gedächtnis braucht, der zu memorieren hat. Man sagt: wenn man sein Gedächtnis nicht zu stark abnutzen will, so daß es unbrauchbar würde, wenn man überhaupt mit seinem Gedächtnis zurecht kommen will, müsse man sich immer wieder und wieder die Sachen überschlafen. Wenn man Längeres auswendig zu lernen hat, so merkt man ganz deutlich, was man in der ganzen Wirksamkeit des Gedächtnisses dem geordneten Schlafzustande verdankt. Aber außerdem erscheint es ganz selbstverständlich, daß dasjenige, was wir als den Erfolg unseres Wachlebens verspüren als Ermüdung oder Erschöpfung, bewirkt werde von unserem bewußten Leben. Indem wir unsere seelischen Prozesse — unser Vorstellungs-, unser Gefühls-, unser Willensleben - sich abspielen lassen, greifen wir in die feinere Organisation, mit unseren Willensprozessen sogar in die gröberen Partien unseres Organismus ein. Eine ganz oberflächliche Betrachtung kann lehren, daß nur durch das Eingreifen unserer bewußten Vorstellungen, Gefühle und Willensäußerungen in unsern Organismus die Ermüdung der Nerven, der Muskeln und der sonstigen Organe bewirkt wird. Man weiß ganz gut, wenn man sich den gewöhnlichen Träumereien des Tages hingibt, wo ein Gedanke den anderen ablöst, wird man weniger ermüdet, als wenn man unter dem Zwange einer Methode oder einer Lehrmeinung seine Gedanken arbeiten lassen muß. Wir wissen auch, daß der Herzmuskel und die Lungenmuskeln das ganze Leben hindurch arbeiten, ohne daß sie Schlaf oder Ausruhen brauchen, weil in diesem Falle die Ermüdungen nicht eintreten, da der Organismus nur diejenigen Tätigkeiten im Unbewußten oder Unterbewußten hervorruft, welche ihm angemessen sind. Nur wenn wir vom Bewußtsein aus eingreifen, rufen wir Ermüdung hervor. Daher können wir sagen: Wir sehen unsere Seelenprozesse eingreifen in das leibliche Leben, wir sehen, wie das, was in der Seele wirkt, sich auswirkt in unserem leiblichen Leben. Was wird durch dasjenige hervorgerufen, was wir die selbstverständlichen Prozesse des Leibes nennen können: Herztätigkeit, Lungentätigkeit und die kontinuierlichen Prozesse des Lebens? Es tritt nicht Erschöpfung, nicht Ermüdung ein. Wenn die bewußten Prozesse eingreifen, tritt Ermüdung ein. Ein Abnutzen, ein Zerstören des Organismus nehmen wir wahr durch das Eingreifen des Bewußtseins In unseren Organismus.
Da sind wir auf dem Punkte, wo wir einsehen können, welche Bedeutung und welche Funktion der Schlaf hat. Was während des Tages im Organismus abgenutzt wird, was durch die bewußten Tätigkeiten zerstört wird, das muß — unter Ausschaltung der bewußten Tätigkeiten - im Schlafzustande wieder hergestellt werden. Da muß der Organismus sich selbst überlassen bleiben und den Prozessen folgen können, die ihm ureigen, eingeboren sind. Hier stehen wir an dem Punkte, wo wir sagen können: Merkwürdig trifft wieder die Geisteswissenschaft mit dem zusammen, was uns die naturwissenschaftlichen Tatsachen erzählen, auch in der Gestalt, wie sie der eingangs charakterisierte russische Forscher und langjährige Direktor des Pasteur-Institutes in Paris anführt. —- Können wir jetzt nicht sagen: das Bewußtsein selber, das geistige Leben des Menschen rufe selbst, damit es bestehen kann, damit es überhaupt da sein kann, die Erschöpfung und die Ermüdung des Organismus hervor? Und so könnte man, um ein wenig die Hypothese dieses Forschers zu beleuchten, auf die Frage: warum kommen denn die von ihm charakterisierten Feinde des Lebens in unseren Organismus hinein? dadurch antworten, daß wir sagen: weil im Grunde genommen dem bloß organisch Lebendigen im Menschen immer wie eine Art Vergiftungsprozeß der Bewußtseinsprozeß gegenübersteht. Wir könnten gar nicht zu unserem höheren Geistesleben kommen, wenn wir nicht den Organismus zerstörten. In den Prozessen, welche dem Organischen feindlich sind, liegt überhaupt erst die Möglichkeit unseres Bewußtseins. Wenn man von einer Vergiftungswirkung in bezug auf die organische Tätigkeit spricht, so muß man sagen: Was wir als den Segen, als das große Heil unseres Lebens ansehen müssen, daß wir ein bewußtes Wesen in einem physischen Leibe sein können, daß wir eine bewußte Tätigkeit entwickeln können, verdanken wir dem Umstande, daß wir mit unserem bewußten Leben zerstörend, vergiftend in unseren Organismus eingreifen. Nur ist für das gewöhnliche Bewußtseinsleben dieser Vergiftungs- und Zerstörungsprozeß sozusagen kein unheilbarer, sondern es wird in den Organismus in der Weise eingegriffen, daß dann, wenn der Zerstörungsprozeß einen gewissen Punkt erreicht hat, das bewußte Geistesleben sich zurückzieht und den Organismus seiner eigenen Wirksamkeit überläßt. So daß dann also der Schlaf eintritt, in dem der Organismus seiner eigenen Wirksamkeit überlassen ist, und in dem dasjenige wieder hergestellt wird, was gerade durch die bewußten Erscheinungen des Seelenlebens zerstört wird. Wohl ist es dem Geisteswissenschafter bekannt, was alles für geistreiche, mehr oder weniger bedeutsame Hypothesen über den Schlaf und die Ermüdung aufgestellt sind, und man müßte lange sprechen, wenn man alle diese Hypothesen auseinandersetzen wollte. Es kommt aber hier nicht darauf an, diese rein materialistischen Hypothesen auseinanderzusetzen, sondern die Tatsache hinzustellen, daß das Bewußtsein mit seinem Inhalte selber in den Organismus zerstörend eingreifen muß, der das äußere Werkzeug für das Bewußtsein birgt, und daß der Schlafzustand eine Ausgleichung der entsprechenden Zerstörungsprozesse ist, die also durch ihn wirklich geheilt werden. Daher kann man sagen: Der Schlaf ist der Heiler derjenigen Zustände, welche das Bewußtsein wieKrankheitsprozesse im Organismus hervorrufen muß.
Wenn nun der Geistesforscher so weit gekommen ist, nicht nur dasjenige zu sehen, was das normale äußere Bewußtsein sieht, daß mit dem Einschlafen die bewußten Vorstellungen und so weiter in ein unbestimmtes Dunkel hinuntersinken, sondern wenn er dazu kommt, auch dann noch, wenn dieses normale gewöhnliche Bewußtsein schwindet, wirklich zu beobachten, was an ihm vorgeht, dann kommt er auch dazu, den Prozeß dieses Einschlafens und Aufwachens verfolgen zu können. Selbsterkenntnis im weitesten Umfange ist es, was man sich durch Geistesforschung aneignet. Dann kommt man zu einer wirklichen Anschauung jener Prozesse, die mit dem Einschlafen vor sich gehen, und welche Prozesse des Aufbauens, desHervorsprießens von Lebendigem sind.Man erlebt eigentlich durch die Geistesforschung und durch alles Sinnen und Denken, das im Sinne einer geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung ist, mit jedem Einschlafen etwas von aufsprießendem Leben im bloßen Organismus, das aber, weil es im bloß Organischen abläuft, doch nur den Wert des Pflanzenlebens hat. Was man so jeden Abend im Einschlafen erleben kann, das kann man in folgender Weise charakterisieren: Du siehst deinen eigenen Organismus mit deinem ganzen seelischen Leben, du siehst hinuntersinken, was beim Tagesleben dein Bewußtsein ausgefüllt hat. Dafür aber siehst du heraufsprießen in deinem eigenen Organismus, was aufbauende, nicht zerstörende Prozesse sind, was aber innerhalb deiner nur so ist, wie das Hervorsprießen eines Pflanzlichen. — So hat man während des Schlafzustandes im eigenen Organismus etwas wie das Erleben einer Eigenvegetation. Das Erleben des Einschlafens mit dem Hinschwinden der bewußten Vorstellungen ist etwas wie ein Frühlingserleben, wobei wir in unserem Organismus das, was nur pflanzenhaft ist, aus dem Unbewußten heraus auftauchen sehen. Der Moment des Einschlafens ist in diesem Sinne vollständig parallel zu schauen mit dem Hervorgehen der sprießenden, sprossenden Pflanzenwelt des Frühlings.
Wenn man das pflanzliche Leben so ansieht, dann kommt man davon ab, dieses Hervorsprießen der Pflanzen im Frühling etwa mit einer menschlichen Geburt zu vergleichen oder überhaupt mit dem, was man beim Menschen und bei tierischen Lebewesen Geburt nennen kann, sondern man kommt dazu einzusehen, daß die große Erdenmutter ein Gesamtorganismus ist und in sich im Frühling an dem Teil der Erde, der dann Frühling hat, das erlebt, was der Mensch seinerseits beim Einschlafen erlebt. Der Fehler, der bei solchen Vergleichen meistens gemacht wird, liegt gewöhnlich darin, daß die Dinge nicht in ihrer Realität angesehen werden, sondern nach äußeren Umständen betrachtet werden. Es wird manchem für seine Phantasie einleuchten, daß man das Aufsprießen der Pflanzen im Frühling mit etwas am Menschen vergleichen kann, was sich periodisch wiederholt, was also nicht eigentlich einen Tod und eine Geburt darstellt, aber wenn man seiner bloßen Phantasie folgen wird, so wird man die im Frühling hervorsprossende Pflanzenwelt etwa vergleichen wollen mit dem Momente des Aufwachens beim Menschen. Das ist falsch! Nicht mit dem Aufwachen, dem Wiederheraufkommen des Seeleninhaltes, ist der Frühling zu vergleichen, sondern mit dem Einschlafen, mit dem Verschwinden des inneren geistigen Lebens, der seelischen Tatsachen und dem Heraufsprießen des bloß Organischen, des bloß Pflanzlichen im Menschen.
Und wenn der Mensch durch das hellsichtige Bewußtsein den Moment des Aufwachens bewußt verfolgen kann, wie seine Vorstellungen und alles, woran er sich erinnert, aus unbestimmtem Dunkel heraufkommen, dann ist wiederum das da, was die Notwendigkeit herbeiführt, die ganze aufgesprossene Innenvegetation zu zerstören. Es ist tatsächlich so, wie wenn mit dem Heraufziehen unserer Vorstellungen beim morgendlichen Aufwachen das Element des Herbstes über alles das hingeblasen würde, was die Nacht aufsprießen ließ, ein innerer Vorgang, der vergleichbar ist für die ganze Erde mit dem Hinwelken der Pflanzen gegen den Herbst zu. Nur stellt es sich uns bei der Erde nicht so dar wie beim Menschen mit seinen zwei Bewußtseinszuständen wie Wachen und Schlafen, sondern, während immer die eine Hälfte der Erde schläft, ist die andere immer wach, so daß also der Schlaf mit dem Sonnengange immer von einer Hälfte der Erde zur anderen hinzieht. So haben wir es also bei der Erde mit einem großen Organismus zu tun, der sein Schlafesleben vom Frühling bis zum Herbst lebt, was sich uns in den äußeren Organen, in dem, was sprießt und sproßt im Pflanzenreich, zeigt, und der sich dann mit dem Herbst auf sein Geistiges zurückzieht, auf das, was Seele der Erde ist, denn Leben der Erde ist, wenn es vom Herbst bis zum Frühling geht. Daher können wir bei den Pflanzen gar nicht von einem wirklichen Tode oder von einer wirklichen Geburt sprechen, sondern nur von einem Schlafen und Wachen des gesamten Erdenorganismus. Wie sich beim Menschen im Laufe von vierundzwanzig Stunden Schlafen und Wachen rhythmisch wiederholen, und wie wir dabei nicht von Tod und Geburt unserer Gedankenwelt sprechen, ebensowenig sollten wir, wenn wir recht real sprechen wollen, von Leben und Sterben der Pflanzen sprechen, sondern den ganzen Erdenorganismus ins Auge fassen und, zugehörig dem ganzen Erdenorganismus, den Pflanzenprozeß betrachten als das Aufwachen und Einschlafen der Erde. Wenn wir uns am meisten an dem erfreuen, was uns aus der Erde hervorsprießt, wenn wir uns erinnern daran, wie sozusagen die Menschen der früheren Zeiten daran gingen aus der Freude am sprossenden Leben das Johannes-Fest zu feiern, dann hat man gerade für die Erde die Zeit, die beim Menschen mit Bezug auf seinen Organismus, seine äußere Leiblichkeit, um Mitternacht vorhanden ist. Wenn aber die Menschen sich anschicken das Weihnachtsfest zu feiern, wenn das äußere Leben erstorben ist, dann hat man es bei der Erde mit ihren geistigen Prozessen zu tun, in welcher Zeit dann auch der Mensch am besten den Zusammenhang mit dem ganzen geistigen Leben der Erde findet, was er darin aus einem richtigen Instinkt heraus angedeutet hat, daß die geistigen Feste der Menschheit in die Winterzeit verlegt sind. Ich weiß, was äußere Naturwissenschaft hiergegen einwenden kann, aber die äußere Naturwissenschaft beobachtet nicht die richtigen Instinkte der Menschen.
Nun versuchen wir das, was wir den Tod im Tierreich nennen können, nicht etwa durch analoge Urteile zu erforschen, sondern wir wollen das, was die Geisteswissenschaft zu geben hat, wieder durch einen Prozeß im Menschenwesen ausdrücken. Da müssen wir beachten, daß unser seelisches Leben, wenn wir es genau betrachten, allerdings noch einen anderen Verlauf aufweist als den, der in der Förderung und Fruchtbarmachung unseres Seelenlebens durch den Wechsel von Wachen und Schlafen besteht. Es soll gleich darauf hingewiesen werden, daß der Mensch von jenem Momente seiner Kindheit ab, bis zu dem er sich dann später bewußt zurückerinnert, durch sein ganzes Leben eine Art Reifungsprozeß durchmacht. Immer reifer und reifer wird der Mensch durch das, was er an Lebenserfahrung aufnehmen kann. Dieser Reifungsprozeß vollzieht sich in einer eigentümlichen Weise. Wir erinnern uns — und dadurch besteht überhaupt nur die Möglichkeit, von einem Ich in uns zu sprechen - bis zu einem gewissen Punkte der Jugend, was wir alles erlebt haben, aber wir erinnern uns nur an das Vorstellungsmäßige, an das Gedankenartige. Das ist etwas sehr Merkwürdiges, aber jeder kann es an sich erforschen. Wenn Sie sich an ein schmerz- oder lustvolles Ereignis erinnern, das Sie vor vielleicht dreißig Jahren hatten, so werden Sie sich sagen: Ich kann alle Einzelheiten ganz gut verfolgen, was ich an Vorstellungen erlebt habe, so daß ich sie in der Vorstellung nachkonstruieren kann, aber nicht wird so lebendig, wie es sonst bei Gedankenartigem der Fall ist, der Schmerz oder die Lust vor der Seele stehen können, welche damals mit dem betreffenden Ereignis verbunden waren. Die sind verblaßt, haben sich von dem Vorstellen getrennt und sind in ein unbestimmtes Dunkel hinuntergegangen. — Man möchte sagen: Die Vorstellungen können wir immer wieder aus den tiefen Schächten unseres Seelenwesens heraufholen, aber unten lassen müssen wir-auf die Ausnahmen hierbei kommt es nicht an — unsere Erinnerungen mit Bezug auf das, was wir an Gefühlen, an Affekten, an Leidenschaften erlebt haben. Was wir gefühlsmäßig erlebt haben, bleibt unten, löst sich los von den bloßen Vorstellungen. — Geht es verloren? Geht es in ein Nichts über? Das ist nicht der Fall. Es kann so für den scheinen, der das Menschenleben nicht wirklich gewissenhaft und eingehend betrachtet. Aber ein gewissenhafter und allseitiger Beobachter findet das folgende: Wenn wir ein Menschendasein in einer bestimmten Lebensstunde prüfen, zum Beispiel im vierzigsten Jahre, so finden wir es in einer gewissen Verfassung, Seelenverfassung, aber auch leiblicher Gesundheits- oder Krankheitsverfassung. Der Mensch stellt sich uns dar entweder trübsinnig-melancholisch, leicht niedergedrückt, oder heiter oder irgendwie von phlegmatischem oder sonstigem Temperament, leicht zugreifend gegenüber den Tatsachen der Welt, leicht aufnehmend, was Lust und Freude ihm geben kann und so weiter. Man sollte nicht das, was Seelenverfassung ist, immer von dem Leiblichen abtrennen, denn wie die Funktionen des Leiblichen wirken, davon hängt auch die Seelenstimmung ab, mit der sich ein Mensch darstellt. Wenn man so die Seelenstimmung und die Gesamtverfassung eines Menschen in irgendeinem Lebensalter prüft, so wird man bald darauf kommen, wohin dieGefühlserlebnisse gegangen sind, die von den Vorstellungen sich abgetrennt haben und die wir später nur noch vorstellungsmäßig erinnern. Man wird finden, was als Gemütsstimmungen sich losgetrennt hat, das hat sich mit unserer tieferen Organisation verbunden, es kann nicht in unserem Innenleben erinnert werden, aber es drückt sich im Innenleben aus bis in Gesundheit und Krankheit hinein. Wo sind die Gemütsstimmungen geblieben, da wir uns ihrer nicht erinnern? Unten sind sie im leiblich-seelischen Leben und konstituieren eine bestimmte Verfassung im Gesamtleben des Menschen. So zeigt sich uns, wie wir zum Gesamtverlauf unseres bewußten Lebens das Gedächtnis brauchen, und wie das Gedächtnis immer im Schlafe in ein unbestimmtes Dunkel taucht, so tauchen unsere Gemütserlebnisse hinunter in dasDunkel unseresEigenwesens und arbeiten an unserer Gesamtverfassung.
So haben wir ein zweites Element in dem Menschen wirksam. Und wenn wir jetzt von den Menschen aus unseren Blick auf den gesamten Erdorganismus lenken, den wir als ein beseeltes Wesen betrachten, so betrachten wir ihn allerdings nicht in der Weise, als wenn die seelisch-geistigen Kräfte, die im Erdorganismus wirken, so organisiert wären, wie die Seele des Menschen organisiert ist. Denn die Geisteswissenschaft zeigt uns, daß viele solcher Wesen, wie der Mensch eines ist, in der Seelensphäre der Erde leben, so daß das seelische Wesen der Erde eine Vielheit darstellt, während das des Menschen eine Einheit ist. Man kann aber durchaus das Seelische der Erde in dieser Beziehung, wie es jetzt charakterisiert ist, mit den Seelenerlebnissen im Menschen selber vergleichen. Wenn wir sehen, wie unsere Gemütsstimmungen in unsere eigene Organisation hinuntertauchen, an unserem Leibe arbeiten und in unserer Gesamtverfassung zum Ausdruck kommen, so haben wir einen Parallelprozeß dazu in dem, was der Gesamtprozeß auf der Erde bildet, und zwar in alledem, was sich zum Ausdruck bringt in dem Entstehen des tierischen Lebewesens. In uns selber wird nur ein leiblich-seelischer Prozeß durch das ausgelöst, was durch unsere Gemütserlebnisse in das Dunkel unserer Leibesverfassung hinuntergedrängt wird. Für die Erde sind die entsprechenden seelisch-geistigen Erlebnisse gleichsam kristallisiert in dem Entstehen und Vergehen von tierischen Wesen. Ich weiß sehr wohl, daß bei einer solchen Auseinandersetzung, wie sie jetzt gepflogen wird, demjenigen, der da glaubt aus Hypothesen eine Weltanschauung zimmern zu können, die scheinbar fest auf dem Boden der Naturwissenschaft steht, sich der Magen umdrehen kann, und ich kann mich in die Seele eines solchen Menschen hineinversetzen. Aber man wird sehen, daß die Richtung des menschlichen Denkens und Urteilens, die zur Aufklärung über die Vorgänge von Tod und Entstehen auf der Erde führen soll, in der nächsten geistigen Entwickelung den Gang nehmen wird, der hier angedeutet ist, denn alles, was wir an Tatsachen in der Naturwissenschaft selber sehen, führt uns darauf hin, daß es so ist. Wie der Mensch in seine Leibesorganisation untergehen sieht seine Gemütsstimmungen, die seine organische Verfassung hervorrufen, so sieht er in entsprechender Weise äußerlich in der Erdenorganisation jenen Prozeß der Entstehung der tierischen Welt.
Sodann aber haben wir beim Menschen noch einen anderen Vorgang. Wir sehen, wie aus der Gesamtorganisation in der Seele wiederum auftauchen die sogenannten höheren Gefühle und Empfindungen. Was haben diese für eine Eigentümlichkeit? Wer vorurteilslos, aber auch ohne falsche asketische Stimmung, ohne falsche Scheinheiligkeit und Frömmigkeit dabei vorgeht, wird sich sagen: Was wir als die höheren moralischen Gefühle und als jene Gemütsstimmungen im Menschen bezeichnen können, die im Enthusiasmus für alles Gute, Schöne und Wahre erwachsen, für alles, was die Welt im Fortschritte weiterbringt, das lebt in uns nur dadurch, daß wir uns in unserer Gemütsverfassung über alles erheben können, was in uns ursprünglich instinktiv angelegt ist, so daß wir uns in den geistigen Gefühlen, in unserem geistigen Enthusiasmus hinausheben über das, was nur die leibliche Organisation in uns aufsteigen lassen kann. — Das kann so weit gehen, daß der, welcher seinen Enthusiasmus im geistigen Leben hat, ganz an dem hängt, was Gegenstand seines Enthusiasmus ist, so daß es ihm sogar ein Leichtes wird, sein physisches Leben hinzugeben, damit das leben soll, wofür er in seinen höheren moralischen und ästhetischen Gefühlen entflammt ist. Da sehen wir dasjenige, was in dem Enthusiasmus als Geistiges lebt, mit Unterdrückung unserer bloß organischen Natur in einer Gemütsstimmung aufsteigen, die zunächst nichts zu tun hat mit dem Verlaufe des organischen Lebens. So verläuft auch ein Element im Menschen, jenes Element, das er hinunterschickt in die Tiefen seines Wesens, und das da unten seine organischen Vorgänge konstruiert. Aber aus der Tiefe seines Wesens steigen auch seine moralischen und geistigen Gefühle auf, steigt auf seine Gemütsverfassung; die siegen in immer weitergehender Entwickelung über das, was bloß zur organischen, zur physisch instinktiven Konstitution des Menschen gehört.
Diesen Prozeß, den wir im Menschen in zwei Elemente geteilt finden, finden wir auch in der tierischen Lebewelt. Wenn wir unsere Gemütsverfassung hinuntersenken in das Leibesleben und uns beeinflussen lassen von unseren Gemütsstimmungen bis zur Gesundheit oder Krankheit, so sehen wir dagegen dasjenige, was das Einsenken der Gefühlsverfassung der gesamten Erde ist, in demjenigen, was sich im tierischen Leben auslebt. Was als Gefühl und Leidenschaft im ganzen Erdorganismus ist, das lebt sich im Tierreich aus, wie sich in unserer Gesamtorganisation unsere Leidenschaften und Affekte ausleben. Wenn wir die tierische Welt anschauen, so haben wir in jeder einzelnen Gestalt das Ergebnis der Gemütsverfassung unserer Erde. Und wenn wir darauf hinsehen, wie die Erde gleichsam über das Leben der Tierwelt hinzieht und es am engsten an den äußeren physischen Leib gebunden sein läßt, so sehen wir darin nichts anderes, als den Sieg des Geistigen, dessen, was wir beim Tiere die Gruppenseele nennen, das Übersinnliche, das im Äußeren nur den Repräsentanten findet, und das über das Außere siegt, wie beim Menschen die geistigen Gefühle über das bloß Instinktive siegen. Daß die äußeren Prozesse der Erdenorganisation immer wieder den Tod über das einzelne Tier hingehen lassen, ist nichts anderes, als wenn in uns immerdar das Geistige als solches den Sieg über das erlangt, was bloß mit dem Organischen zusammenhängt. Wenn wir so auf das Geistige im 'Tier sehen, dann können wir auch nicht Entstehen und Vergehen des Tieres so betrachten, als ob wir darauf die Ausdrücke Geburt und Tod wie beim Menschen anwenden könnten. Es ist das allerdings in den Tieren ein Gesamtprozeß der Erde, der sich schon individualisierter darstellt als bei der Pflanzenwelt. Aber dennoch haben wir, wenn wir die einzelnen Gattungsseelen, die einzelnen Gruppenseelen ins Auge fassen, die den Tierarten oder -gattungen zugeteilt sind, darauf zu sehen, wie bei jedem Tode, der dem einzelnen Tiere gegenüber eintritt, das äußereLeibliche vergeht, wie aber das, was die Gattungsseele, das Geistige im Tiere ist, immerdar über die äußere Gestalt triumphiert, wie im Menschen das Geistige über das bloß Instinktive triumphiert, das nicht in der abgetrennten Gestalt, wohl aber in der Organisation seinen Repräsentanten hat.
So sehen wir gleichsam ein großes Lebendiges aus einzelnen Gattungsseelen der Tiere bestehen, und wir sehen Geburt und Tod der tierischen Lebewesen sich so darstellen, daß das, was dem einzelnen Tiere im Geistigen zugrunde liegt, immerdar seinen Sieg über die Einzelheit zu erfechten hat. Damit haben wir den Tod bei den Tieren als das dargestellt, was sich als die Gruppenseele über das Verwelken und Verfallen der einzelnen Tiergestalt hindurchbewegt. Nur dann könnten wir von einem wirklichen Tode beim Tiere sprechen, wenn wir nicht ins Auge fassen würden, was nach dem Tode des Tieres bleibt und in einer ähnlichen Weise das Geistige ist, wie beim Menschen das, was über die Gemütsverfassung wie auch über das triumphiert, was zum Hinwelken verurteilt ist, indem es sich selbst über sich erhebt.
Wenn der Darwinismus einmal über sich hinausgekommen sein wird, dann wird er sehen, wie durch das Tierreich in den scheinbaren Geburten und Toden sich ein Entwickelungsfaden hindurchschlingt von den ältesten Zeiten bis in spätere Zukunftzeiten hin, so daß die Gesamtentwickelung des Tierreiches zuletzt zu einem Siege dessen führt, was sich, indem das Niedere, die einzelne Tiergestalt, überwunden wird, herausschält aus der gesamten geistigen Welt und das Niedere, was in den einzelnen Tieren lebt, zurückläßt und über das Instinktive, das in der gesamten Tierheit zutagetritt, einstmals triumphieren wird.
Wenn wir nun im Menschen kommen zu dem, was wir des Menschen Willensnatur nennen, wenn wir also nicht nur davon sprechen, daß er seine Vorstellungen erlebt, die immer wieder erinnert werden können, und nicht nur die Gemütsverfassung ins Auge fassen, die sich in der charakterisierten Weise in die tiefere Organisation herunterbegibt, sondern wenn wir auf die Willensimpulse schauen, so werden wir sagen: Sie stellen sich zunächst als das Allerrätselhafteste in der menschlichen Natur dar. - Wie der Mensch in bezug auf die Willensimpulsivität bestimmt ist, das hängt von dem ab, was ihm sein Leben als Erfahrungen gebracht hat. Wenn wir im Leben von irgendeinem Punkte aus einen Rückblick tun, so finden wir darin einen fortlaufenden Gang, wie sich Seelenereignis an Seelenereignis schließt. Aber wir finden, wie das, was wir erfahren haben, im wesentlichen so in unseren Willen einfließt, daß wir sagen können: Wir sind eigentlich, wenn wir uns so anschauen, reicher geworden an Vorstellungen, reifer aber in bezug auf unsere Willensimpulsivität. — Allerdings machen wir eine besondere Reife in bezug auf unseren Willen durch. Das erfährt jeder, der einen solchen Rückblick in sein Leben in irgendeiner Weise macht. Wir tun irgend etwas im Leben. Wie wir etwas hätten tun müssen, das erfahren wir eigentlich erst, wenn wir es getan haben. Und jeder weiß, wie wenig er Gelegenheit hat, später wieder in dieselbe Situation zu kommen, das, was er als Lebensreife sich angeeignet hat, was er gewonnen hat vielleicht durch Irrtum und Schädigungen, die er erfahren hat, in einem späteren Falle anwenden zu können. Aber eines weiß er, daß alles, was er erlebt, sich in der Gesamtheit seiner Willensverfassung in dem zusammenfügt, was wir die Weisheit seines Wollens nennen können, und daß dies die Reife bildet, die wir allmählich erlangen. Unser Willensleben ist es, was immer reifer und reifer wird. Unsere ganzen Gefühle, Vorstellungen und so weiter schließen sich darin zusammen, unseren Willen immer reifer und reifer zu machen, auch in bezug auf äußere Verrichtungen. Denn daß wir durch die Lebenserfahrungen reifer im Denken werden, ist nur ein Reiferwerden in dem Willen, der sich in dem Aneinanderfügen von Gedanken an Gedanken ausspricht. So sehen wir, wie gleichsam unser gesamtes Seelenleben, indem wir es rückblickend überschauen, uns auf den Mittelpunkt unseres Wesens hinführt, der hinter den Willensimpulsen steht und in welchem sich dieses Immer-reiferWerden ausdrückt. Wenn wir dies ins Auge fassen, so haben wir das dritte Element der menschlichen Entwickelung, dasjenige, wovon wir uns sagen können: Wir erziehen es uns heran in unserem Leben im physischen Leibe. Wir wachsen gerade in diesem Elemente heran und wachsen in diesem Elemente über das hinaus, was wir waren, als wir durch die Geburt in dieses Dasein hereingetreten sind. — Indem uns in diesem Dasein ein physischer Leib umkleidet, und der physische Leib das Werkzeug ist, dessen wir uns für unsere Seele bedienen müssen, indem sie den Verstand braucht, das Gehirn braucht, eignet sich unser Seelenwesen Lebensreife, Lebenserfahrung an, welche sich in der Gesamtverfassung des Willens, in der Willensreife gleichsam kristallisiert.
Aber wir sind in der Regel in diesem Leben nicht imstande, das auch auszuwirken, auszuführen, was jetzt in unseren Willensimpulsen lebt. Das ist es, was dem Menschen die Frage vorlegt: Was ist es mit diesen Willensimpulsen, die wir als unser intimstes Seelengut ausbilden, die wir uns vielleicht gerade durch unsere Unvollkommenheit angeeignet haben, und die wir doch niemals zum Ausdruck bringen "können? - Was wir an Inhalt unserer Gemütserlebnisse hinunterschicken in die Tiefen unseres Wesens, so haben wir an zweiter Stelle unserer Betrachtung gesehen, das führt zu unserer gesamten Leibes- und Seelenverfassung, zu dem, wie wir gestimmt sind, was das Leben an uns gemacht hat in bezug auf Gesundheit und Krankheit, ob wir mehr melancholisch sind oder Heiterkeit ausdrücken und dergleichen. Was wir aber in bezug auf unsere Willensverfassung aus uns gemacht haben, das ist unser innerstes Wesen. Das sind wir geworden. Durch das sind wir aber auch über das hinausgewachsen, was wir gewesen sind. Und wir merken es, wenn es in der zweiten Hälfte unseres Lebens bergabgeht, wie unser Leib versagt, um das auszuleben, was wir durch unsere Willensimpulsivität geworden sind. Kurz, wir sehen, wie wir dadurch, daß wir erkennend, fühlend und wollend im Leben drinnenstehen, durchaus etwas werden, was mit dem, was wir schon sind, im Widerspruche steht, was sich stößt an dem, was wir schon sind. Wir fühlen innerlich seelisch, durch unsere Lebensreife, wie wir zusammenstoßen mit dem, was wir durch unsere Elemente, durch unsere körperlichen Anlagen, durch unser Seelisches geworden sind. Wir fühlen innerlich den Zusammenstoß zwischen der Gesamtheit der Willensverfassung und Lebensreife mit der Gesamtverfassung unserer Organisation, fühlen aber im Grunde genommen diesen Zusammenstoß auch bei jedem einzelnen Willensimpuls, der zur Handlung führt. Das ist es ja, daß wir unsere Gedanken bis zu einem gewissen Grade durchsichtig haben, unsere Gefühle auch noch; wie aber der Wille zur Tat und Handlung wird, das ist für das Äußere undurchdringlich. Der Wille stößt sozusagen mit dem äußeren Leben zusammen und wird sich nur bewußt, indem er mit diesem äußeren Leben zusammenstößt. Und hier können wir, was sich schon im Seelenleben zeigt, in dem Gesamtleben verfolgen, auch in der körperlichen Organisation: Was der Mensch geworden ist, was ihm die Anlagen für seine Fähigkeiten gegeben hat, das muß der Wille, der da erst wird in diesem Leben, zerbrechen, zerstören können, denn dieser Wille würde sich sonst nie zur Geltung bringen können.
Wie der Mensch überhaupt nur durch den Zusammenstoß mit der Realität sich bewußt werden kann, so kann er sich als fortschreitenden Prozeß nur erleben, indem durch den Willen das gesamte physische Leben in ihm ebenso zerstört wird, wie durch das Vorstellungsleben das Gehirn zerstört wird. Aber während das Letztere durch den Schlaf wieder ausgeglichen werden kann, kann ein Neuwerden des Willens nicht wieder ausgebessert werden, sondern es muß in der Tat durch die Impulsivität des Willens ein fortlaufender Zerstörungsprozeß in jedem Leben eintreten. Da sehen wir, daß der Mensch seinen Organismus zerstören muß und sehen so für den Menschen erst die Notwendigkeit des wirklichen Todes. Wie wir für das Vorstellungsleben die Notwendigkeit des Schlafes einsehen, so sehen wir jetzt für das Willensleben die Notwendigkeit eines Todes ein. Denn nur dadurch, daß der Mensch seine physische Organisation seinem Willen entgegenstehend hat, erkennt sich der Wille in sich selber, verstärkt sich in sich selber und geht dann durch die Pforte des Todes in ein Leben in der geistigen Welt, wo er sich die Kräfte aneignet, um in einer zukünftigen Verkörperung dasjenige aufzubauen, was er in dieser Leiblichkeit nicht mehr erreicht hat. Wofür ihm nur das Bewußtsein aufgehen konnte, das reif war für das Nächste, was die Anlagen geliefert hat für etwas Weiteres, was sich aber nicht in diesem Leben auslebte, das wird sich in einem kommenden Erdenleben ausleben, wo der Mensch sich auch sein neues Schicksal, sein neues Erdenleben in entsprechender Weise zimmern wird.
Während wir also bei der Pflanzenwelt mit Bezug auf den Tod nur von einem Aufwachen und Einschlafen der ganzen Erdennatur sprechen konnten, während wir in der Tierwelt den Tod nur vergleichen konnten mit dem Aufund Abfluten und Besiegen unseres niederen Instinktlebens, haben wir erst mit dem menschlichen Tode dasjenige, was uns durch das Zerstören dieses einen Lebens auf die immer wiederkehrenden Leben hinweist. Dadurch, daß wir nur durch die Zerstörung dieses einen Lebens das gewinnen können, was im neuen Erdenleben auftritt und dadurch erst zur wirklichen Vervollkommnung des gesamten Menschenlebens führt, ist auch das gegeben, daß der Wille des Menschen, um sich in der Gesamtverfassung seiner selbst bewußt zu werden, das Hinsterben des physischen Leibes braucht, und daß im Grunde genommen für den richtigen Willensimpuls das Erlebnis nur dann da ist, das er braucht, wenn wir durch die Pforte des Todes gehen, wenn er dasallmählicheSiechwerden und Hinsterben der äußeren Organisation miterlebt. Denn an dem Widerstande, den er an der äußeren Organisation verspürt, wächst der Wille, wird immer stärker und stärker und bereitet sich vor, das zu werden, was für die Ewigkeit lebt. Daher ist es - abgesehen von alledem, was Sie in der Geisteswissenschaft ausgeführt finden über einen nicht-natürlichen Tod - erklärlich, daß ein Tod, der durch einen äußeren Unglücksfall.oder durch Selbstmord oder dergleichen herbeigeführt worden ist, unter allen Umständen etwas anderes ist als ein natürlicher Tod, der da die Gewähr bietet für das Aufgehen eines neuen Lebens. Der unnatürliche Tod in irgendeiner Form kann zwar im Gesamtschicksal des Menschen durchaus auch etwas sein, was einen Fortschritt bedeutet. Aber was der Wille in seiner Gesamtverfassung erst hätte erleben müssen in dem Siege über die Leiblichkeit, das bleibt in einer gewissen Weise als innere Kraft bestehen und muß einen anderen Weg gehen, wenn der Mensch auf eine unnatürliche Art durch die Pforte des Todes geht, als wenn er sein Leben auf natürliche Weise auslebt.
So sehen wir, daß wir von Tod erst wirklich dann reden können, wenn wir von dem reden, was wir das Ausbilden eines neuen Willensartigen für ein neues Leben nennen können, und daß wir daher bei den anderen Wesenheiten nicht von einem wahren Tode reden können. Beim Menschen aber müssen wir so sprechen, daß nicht nur das Goethe-Wort wahr ist: «Die Natur hat den Tod erfunden, um viel Leben zu haben», sondern wir müssen so sprechen, daß wir sagen: Wenn es den Tod nicht gäbe, so müßte man wünschen, daß er da wäre, denn er gibt dieMöglichkeit, daß an dem Widerstande und an dem Hinwelken der äußeren Organisation der Wille immer mehr wächst und wächst für das neue Leben. — Und das gibt die Möglichkeit für ein Aufsteigen der Entwickelung durch die verschiedenen Verkörperungen ‚hindurch, so daß sich das Leben immer höher und höher gestaltet, wenn es auch die nächsten Leben nicht unmittelbar tun, wenn auch Rückschritte stattfinden. Im Gesamtverlauf aber wird man doch ein Aufsteigen durch die wiederholten Erdenleben erkennen.
So ist der Tod der große Stärker des Willenslebens für das geistige Leben. Und wir sehen, wie es schon angedeutet ist, daß sich die neuere Naturwissenschaft - wenn auch stammelnd — mit der Geisteswissenschaft begegnet, indem sie darauf hindeutet, wie das, was der Tod ist, eine Art Vergiftungsprozeß darstellt. Jawohl, es ist alle geistige Entwickelung, die ihren eigenen, selbständigen Gang geht, eine Verwüstung, eine Zerstörung des äußeren leiblichen Lebens. Was die Vorstellungswelt im Menschen verwüstet, das wird durch den Schlaf wieder ausgebessert. Was durch die Instinkt-Natur des Menschen zerstört wird, das wird wieder ausgebessert durch die höheren moralischen und ästhetischen Gefühle und Empfindungen. Was wir sehen an Zerstörung der leiblichen Organisation durch die Tätigkeit des Willenselementes, das wird wieder ausgebessert in dem Gesamtleben des Menschen durch jene Reife des Willenslebens, die durch den Tod hindurchgeht und ein neues Leben aufbauen kann. So erhält der Tod seinen Sinn. Jenen Sinn, durch den der Mensch die Unsterblichkeit nicht nur zu denken, sondern in sich wirklich zu erleben vermag. Wer den Tod so betrachtet, sieht ihn herannahen als diejenige Macht, welche das äußere leibliche Leben dem Niedergange zuführt, aber er sieht auch dann gerade im Widerstande gegen diesen Niedergang aufleuchten wie die Morgenröte eines neuen menschlichen Seelenlebens, was der Mensch von Inkarnation zu Inkarnation, von Verkörperung zu Verkörperung durch Ewigkeiten hin durchlebt. Erst wenn man den Sinn des Todes für die menschliche Ewigkeit versteht, hat man den Sinn des Todes für die Gesamtnatur begriffen. Dann muß, man aber auch von der weitverbreiteten törichten Betrachtung abkommen, die auch bei Tieren und Pflanzen von einem Tode spricht, dann muß man wissen, wie von einem wirklichen Tode eigentlich nur die Rede sein kann, wenn man diejenigen Schicksale in Betracht zieht, welche der Geist beim Durchgehen durch die Leiblichkeit erlebt, und wenn man auf die Tatsachen sieht, welche der Geist in der Leiblichkeit ausrichten muß, um seine eigene Vollkommenheit immer mehr und mehr zu erhöhen. Der Geist muß den Leib dem Tode überliefern, damit er, der Geist, selbst zu immer größeren und größeren Vollkommenbheitsstufen sich emporschwingen kann. Wenn wir diesen Gesichtspunkt ins Auge fassen, dann darf unsere Seele zu uns sprechen, hinblickend auf den Tod im Menschenreiche, wie durch ihn das GeistigSeelische des Menschen zu einer höheren Vollkommenheit kommen kann, aber auch hinblickend auf den Tod im Tieru- nd Pflanzenreich, wie auf dem Grunde aller Erscheinungen der Geist durchleuchtet. Sie darf uns das tröstende nicht nur, sondern zu allen Lebenshoffnungen anregende Geständnis machen:
Aus dem Geiste ist alles Sein entsprungen,
In dem Geiste wurzelt alles Leben,
Nach dem Geiste zielen alle Wesen.
Death in Humans, Animals, and Plants
Tolstoy once expressed surprise, one might even say with disapproval, that while browsing through contemporary science, he had found all kinds of studies on the development of the insect world, on things that seemed insignificant to him in the organism or elsewhere in the world, but that he had found nothing within science itself about the important, essential questions that move every heart. Above all, Tolstoy says, he had found nothing about the nature of death. From a certain point of view, one cannot entirely disagree with such an objection to the modern scientific spirit, which comes from a significant quarter. Nevertheless, from a certain other point of view, it must be emphasized that if such a statement is meant as a reproach, it is, in a sense, unfair to modern science for the very simple reason that modern science has long had its greatness and significance precisely in the area where answers to questions such as the nature of death have been sought in vain. If one stands on the ground of the worldview that is to be represented here, there is truly no need to indulge in attacks upon modern science. One can admire the magnificent achievements, the truly significant accomplishments of this science, both in its own field and with regard to its application in practical life and in human coexistence, and it has been repeatedly expressed here that spiritual science truly need not be inferior to any kind of admiration in this direction. However, the most significant achievements of modern science are based on a foundation that prevents us from reaching the points of contact that are necessary when investigating questions of death, immortality, and the like. Modern science cannot do this from its starting points because it has set itself the task of investigating material life as such. But wherever death intervenes in existence, we find, if we look more closely, the point of contact between the spiritual and the material. Truly, when discussing these questions, there is no need to agree with some cheap attacks on the efforts of modern science. Yes, one may even say, and this has also been emphasized many times, that when the great questions of conscience of existence are to be investigated, one may feel more drawn, in terms of scientific responsibility and scientific conscience, even as a humanities scholar, to the way in which the external natural sciences proceed today, even if they cannot approach the most important questions and life itself, than to many of the easily provoked debates that come from dilettantish theosophical or other humanities circles, which often take the easy way out, especially in terms of methodology, with answers to questions that concern us today.
In recent times, however, people have begun to approach the question of the death of beings from a scientific point of view. This has happened in a peculiar way. And apart from various individual attempts that have been made, the discussion of which would go too far today, we may at least refer to one researcher who has touched on the question of the nature of death in a significant book, and who has approached this question in a peculiar way, so peculiar that we must say again, as we had to say in a similar way in the discussions about the “origin of man”: As a scholar of the humanities, one feels so strange about this contemporary natural science, because wherever one is confronted with facts, one finds that it is precisely from the standpoint of the humanities that one can take full account of these facts and see in them strict proof of what the humanities have to represent. Where, of course, one is confronted with theories and hypotheses that are currently being put forward by people with a more or less materialistic worldview, or, as one might more elegantly put it, a monistic worldview, the situation is different. No matter how much one may agree with the facts that modern times have brought forth, one often finds it difficult to agree with the theories and hypotheses that those who believe they stand on the genuine ground of natural science feel compelled to build on what emerges as scientific facts.
The researcher who wrote about the nature of death pointed out, from his scientific point of view, a point that is very interesting in relation to spiritual science. He is the man who was director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris for a long time: Metchnikoff. He seeks to gain clarity, as far as is possible today, about the facts that cause the death of beings. First of all, when considering such a question, one must disregard the so-called violent death of beings. We may have occasion to refer a little to this violent death, which is brought about by external accidents or other causes. But when discussing the nature of death—as Metchnikoff also points out—we must see it as part of natural existence, consider it, so to speak, as belonging to the phenomena of life, and be able to view the phenomena of life in such a way that death belongs to them. Then the mystery of death can only be solved by looking at so-called natural death, which is brought about as the end of life, just as other natural processes are brought about in the course of life. Since this is only meant to be an introduction to what can be said in reference to natural science, it is impossible to go into the interesting details of the explanations of the aforementioned researcher and thinker. But it should be pointed out that he draws attention to the fact that, when the natural scientist considers the facts of life, in the processes of life itself, in that through which life develops and evolves, so to speak, there is actually nothing real that could provide a reason for the destruction of the being, for death intervening in life. Using numerous examples, Mechnikoff seeks to prove that those who observe life see death occurring everywhere, without it being possible to speak, for example, of what could easily be spoken of in the course of life as it approaches death, without what could be called the exhaustion of life itself coming to the fore. This researcher draws attention to numerous facts which prove that the processes of life continue in a certain unabated manner, that there can be no question of an exhaustion of life within itself, and that yet death occurs at a certain point in time, so that this researcher finds himself in the—one must admit—extremely strange situation of attributing, in essence, every death every ending of life in the plant, animal, and human kingdoms to external influences, to the appearance of certain enemies of life that gain the upper hand in the course of life and ultimately act as fighters against life, like a poison against life, and thus ultimately destroy it. So while the organism itself shows this researcher signs everywhere that it does not actually end itself out of exhaustion, this personality believes that when death approaches, such enemies of life appear in some form, which are present like symptoms of poisoning and bring life to an end. So here we have a scientific hypothesis—and that is all it is—which basically attributes every natural death to external influences, to the occurrence of symptoms of poisoning by external living beings from the plant or animal kingdom, which act as enemies of life and destroy the organism at certain moments.
Such an argument is one that uses all means to arrive at a kind of understanding of the nature of death within material phenomena themselves. When one takes this path, one tries as far as possible to disregard the possibility that the spiritual element itself could intervene in organic life as an active, effective force, and that this spiritual element as such could perhaps have something to do with death as we encounter it in the external world. It would not even be entirely inconceivable, even if it might at first seem absurd to those who stand on more or less materialistic or monistic ground, that precisely those enemies which appear as poisonous forces in relation to the organism could, one might say, as necessary accompaniments of the spiritual forces that permeate and flow through, permeate and energize the organic beings that are approaching death. It would not be unthinkable that the active spirit, while on the one hand dependent on using the organism as its tool in the physical world, on the other hand, through its processes, creates the possibility for such hostile forces to intervene in the organism in order to destroy it. Now, when considering a discussion such as the one just mentioned, one must not overlook the fact that contemporary natural science, through its orientation toward purely material phenomena, actually makes it easy for itself to investigate the death of organisms, but that it should not actually make it easy for itself. And this leads us to emphasize that spiritual science, which must attempt to place itself in the spiritual development of humanity from our present perspective, will certainly not find it so easy to investigate certain questions in such a simple manner as is sometimes done by those worldviews that believe they can deduce something about the great mysteries of existence from external material facts alone.
It should be pointed out from the outset that in the whole way in which natural science today views phenomena, none of those who believe they stand on the firm ground of scientific facts make any real distinction between death in relation to the plant world, the animal world, and the human world. For what is called death in the plant world, death in the animal world, death in the human world, what do they have in common other than the destruction of an external phenomenon? But in essence, they also have this in common with the destruction of an external machine: the cessation of the connection between the parts. If one looks only at the external appearances, it is easy to talk about death insofar as one can talk about this death in a uniform manner in relation to plants, animals, and humans. We can see where this leads in a case that I have often cited to a number of listeners sitting here, but which is always interesting when considering the relationship of science to such a question. On such an occasion, I do not wish to refer to the usual popular writings that endeavor to convey to a wider audience what natural science is supposed to have revealed, but rather, if the relationship to natural science is to be established, I would always refer to the so-called best discussions of this kind. Here we always have the opportunity to refer to an easily comprehensible and excellent book on physiology, written by none other than the great English scientist Huxley and translated into German by Professor I. Rosenthal of Erlangen. A physiology that, in its first few pages, also deals with death in a very remarkable way in just a few words, in which we immediately see how inadequate not research, but rather the thinking and judgment of contemporary science is when it comes to such a question. In it, Huxley says on the very first pages of his “Principles of Physiology”: Human life depends on three things, and if they are destroyed, death must ensue. If, first, the brain is destroyed, if, second, lung respiration is suppressed, and if, third, heart activity is stopped, then human death must occur. But strangely enough, and it is not known whether this “strangely enough” is felt in wider circles today, because habits of thought have been influenced by materialistic wisdom, Huxley says that it is not necessarily true that the death of a human being must occur when the three functions of the human organism mentioned above are suppressed. Rather, one could imagine that the brain no longer functions; but if lung and heart activity could then be artificially maintained, life could continue for a while, even without the brain being active. Whether this is perceived as “strange” is merely a question of habitual thinking. For one should actually say to oneself: a human life without the ability to use the brain as a tool in the physical world cannot really be described as a continuation of life. — One must admit that the life of such a person is over when the physical existence for which he needs the instrument of the brain can no longer occur. And if lung and heart activity can still be maintained in some way, then this would be a kind of survival, perhaps in the sense of a plant, and if one wants to proceed completely without prejudice, one could speak of the death that would then still have to occur when lung and heart activity cease as a plant death that is added to the first death.
It is only possible to speak about human death without prejudice if one sees death as occurring because the human being can no longer use the most important tool through which he lives his life in the physical world, in his consciousness. And the cessation of the facts of consciousness within the physical world, insofar as they are bound to the necessity of the brain, would have to be described as death for the human being alone. But how such things are viewed externally is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that Huxley himself, on the pages where he discusses death, points out that natural science has not yet succeeded in proceeding in a similar manner to what he considers to be an ancient teaching, namely only through the transmigration of souls to pursue the spiritual, essential facts of the soul in the further course of existence, once man has passed through the gate of death. Huxley believes that modern science is not yet able to pursue what it needs to pursue: the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and so on that make up the human organism and which separate when a person has passed through the gates of death. This researcher believed that science could contribute something to the question of the meaning of death if one could follow the paths taken by the substances that made up the human organism during life after the death of the human being. And it is significant and interesting that at the end of this first treatise on physiology by such a researcher, we are referred to words that we can understand when spoken by the gloomy, melancholic Danish prince Hamlet, but which we would not expect to find quoted when the serious question of the nature of death in the world is raised. When we ask about the nature of death in humans, we are necessarily interested in the fate of that which is the core of human nature, and we can never be satisfied with knowing how the individual substances, the individual materials that made up the external body, behave as long as the spiritual-soul core of human nature made use of the external tools. Hamlet may say from his gloomy melancholy:
The great Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Fills a hole against the harsh north wind.
O that the earth, which the world trembles before,
Makes a wall against wind and weather.
The melancholic may say this, and we understand it in the dramatic context. But when the natural scientist points out that the molecules and atoms that were once in Caesar's body could live on in some other being, for example, as Huxley suggests, in a Negro or a dog or a hole in a wall, those who take things completely seriously feel, from the depths of their thinking, how impossible it is for such thinking to approach the great questions about the mysteries of the world. This, too, is not an objection to natural science, which has its great achievements to perform in the material realm. It is only meant to characterize how, on the one hand, natural science should recognize and respect its limits and answer questions about material processes and the fate of matter, and how, on the other hand, those worldviewers who want to build a worldview about something like death on what can be learned through conscientious research into the fate of matter essentially go far beyond the limits of which they should be aware if they want to remain on the ground of external material facts. Spiritual science, it has been said, does not have it so easy. For it must examine separately, from its own point of view, the phenomena of what must be called death in plants, what is called death in animals, and also, separately from these, what death is in particular in the human realm.
One cannot arrive at an understanding of the nature of death in the plant world by looking at plants as they are very often looked at, that is, by considering each individual plant as a being in itself. It would, of course, go too far today to explain in detail what has already been indicated in the previous lectures, namely that spiritual science must regard the earth itself as a great living being whose life process has, however, changed in the course of its development. If we were to examine the life process of the earth in ancient times, we would find that in the distant past the earth was a completely different being, that it underwent a process, so to speak, which led to the suppression of the overall life of the earth and its transfer to the individual kingdoms of life, the plant, animal, and human kingdoms. But even for our present time, spiritual science cannot conceive of the earth as merely a physical collection of external substances, as is the case when viewed from the perspective of today's physics, geology, and mineralogy. Instead, spiritual science must see in what is given as the mineral basis of our existence, on which we walk, something that has been set apart as a solid part of the entire Earth organism, just as the solid skeleton is set apart from the soft parts of the human organism. Just as in humans the solid skeleton tends toward a kind of purely physical system, a purely physical organ connection, so in the great Earth organism we must regard that which confronts us physically and chemically in its activity as a kind of skeleton of the Earth. This is only separated from the whole of life, and everything that happens on Earth, everything that takes place in the Earth's processes, must be regarded as a unity in the sense of spiritual science. So when we look at an individual plant, we are just as wrong to regard it as having the possibility of an individual existence as we would be to regard a single human hair or nail as an individual entity and study it as such. The hair or the nail only have meaning and significance, and one can only recognize their inner laws, if one does not view them individually, but in connection with the organism on which the hair or the nail is located. In this sense, the individual plant, everything that is plant-like on earth, belongs to the earth organism.
I must note here that what spiritual science has to offer as its assertions is recognized in the ways already indicated in these lectures, so that these are not conclusions drawn by human beings themselves about what is happening in the environment. For when it is said that spiritual science presents the processes that take place in human beings as analogous, it may indeed be necessary for the presentation that one feels compelled to use such analogies, illustrating and symbolizing what spiritual science research perceives in the world using the human organism, because the latter initially represents the connection between the physical and the spiritual, and one can best be understood by illustrating it using the human-spiritual. However, the fact that plants are embedded in the great organism of the earth and belong to it, just as hair and nails belong to the human organism, is not something that spiritual science has deduced by analogy, nor is it something that has been arrived at by inference, but rather it results from the spiritual researcher following the paths that have been described or indicated here and which can be followed in detail in the book “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds.” The essence of such a path of research is that the human being thereby expands his own consciousness, that he ceases to live only within himself, that he no longer merely perceives what is presented to his external physical view, that he no longer allows himself to be influenced only by what the senses can perceive and what the mind, which is bound to the instrument of the brain, can comprehend. Rather, the result of such a path of research is that human beings detach themselves from their physical instruments, become participants in a spiritual world, and then have in their sphere, in their horizon, not only what presents itself to the outer senses and to the intellect, but also spiritual beings and spiritual forces. Thus, for the spiritual scientific path of research, what might be called the soul of the earth, as a soul animating the whole earth, is just as present as the soul of the human being is present as that which animates the human organism. The spiritual researcher expands his consciousness to a horizon on which the soul animating the whole earth comes directly into his view. And then, for him, the plant world is no longer merely the sum of individual plants, but he knows that what could be called the soul of the earth has something to do with everything that weaves and lives on earth as plants.
But the question remains: How are we to imagine that plants come into being and pass away? How should we imagine the birth or death of plants? We will soon see that these words, when applied to the plant kingdom, have just as little real meaning as it would have to say that when someone loses their hair, their hair dies, so to speak. As soon as one rises to the idea that the earth is an animated organism, one must gain a completely new view of the emergence and passing away in the plant world. Even to those who do not merely observe the individual plant from seed to seed, but consider the entirety of plant life on earth, it becomes clear that there is something else at work here than what we might call growth and decay in the animal or human kingdoms. We see that, with the exception of those plants that we classify as perennial, the interplay of the elements over the course of a year is intimately connected with the growth and decay of plants, in a way that is quite different from what we see in animals, for example. We find little in animals where death is so closely linked to the experience of external phenomena as we see the withering of plants linked to certain phenomena of the whole of nature, for example, as autumn approaches. In fact, we view the life of plants abstractly, separated from its embeddedness in the whole of earthly existence, if we only look at the individual plant and do not look at the rhythmically undulating, rising and falling life of the year, which at a certain time drives the sprouting and budding plants out of themselves, brings these plants to a certain maturity and then, at a certain time, causes them to wither. When we look at this whole process, even an observation that is meaningful from an external point of view, but does not yet penetrate into the essence of spiritual science, can tell us that we are not merely dealing with the emergence and passing away of individual plants, but with the entire process of the earth, with something that lives and weaves in the total existence of the earth. But where can we find something that we can say makes us understand, through what it shows in its own manifestations, how the invisible spiritual, which we must think of as animating the earth, interacts with the sprouting of the plant and again with the withering of the plant? Where can we find anything that appears before our spiritual eye in such a way that it can make this process understandable to us?
Here it becomes clear to the spiritual researcher that he has something within himself for this weaving and living in the plant world, something that—if we only look at it in the right light—is revealed in our own human nature, and that alone can tell us how things stand with arising and passing away in the plant world. Within human nature we find what we call our ordinary phenomena of consciousness. But we know very well that these can only be experienced by human beings during their waking hours, from waking up to falling asleep. The process of falling asleep and the process of waking up are remarkable events in human life. For what do we perceive? As we fall asleep, we perceive our entire inner soul processes sinking into an indeterminate darkness; we perceive our thoughts and ideas, our feelings and impulses of will disappearing into the darkness of the state of sleep. And as we wake up, we perceive the reemergence of this entire soul content. Human beings are aware of this. Now, it would undoubtedly be absurd to think that sleep has nothing to do with what is present in the human organism as a whole. We know how important an orderly, proper state of sleep is for our physical life, insofar as the spirit and soul must also live out their lives in it. We know what we owe to orderly sleep. It is only necessary to draw attention again and again to what is sufficiently apparent to those who, for example, need a well-trained memory, who have to memorize things. It is said that if one does not want to wear out one's memory so much that it becomes useless, if one wants to be able to cope with one's memory at all, one must sleep on things again and again. When you have to memorize something long, you notice very clearly what you owe to the orderly state of sleep in the overall effectiveness of your memory. But it also seems quite natural that what we experience as the result of our waking life, namely fatigue or exhaustion, is caused by our conscious life. By allowing our mental processes—our imagination, our feelings, our will—to unfold, we intervene in the finer organization, and with our volitional processes even in the coarser parts of our organism. A very superficial observation can teach us that it is only through the intervention of our conscious ideas, feelings, and expressions of will in our organism that fatigue of the nerves, muscles, and other organs is caused. It is well known that when we indulge in the ordinary daydreams of the day, where one thought follows another, we become less tired than when we have to let our thoughts work under the compulsion of a method or a doctrine. We also know that the heart muscle and the lung muscles work throughout our entire lives without needing sleep or rest, because in this case fatigue does not occur, as the organism only evokes those activities in the unconscious or subconscious that are appropriate for it. Only when we intervene from our conscious mind do we cause fatigue. Therefore, we can say: we see our soul processes intervening in physical life; we see how what is at work in the soul has an effect on our physical life. What is caused by what we can call the natural processes of the body: heart activity, lung activity, and the continuous processes of life? Exhaustion and fatigue do not occur. When conscious processes intervene, fatigue sets in. We perceive a wearing down, a destruction of the organism through the intervention of consciousness in our organism.
Here we are at the point where we can understand the meaning and function of sleep. What is worn down in the organism during the day, what is destroyed by conscious activities, must be restored in the state of sleep, with conscious activities switched off. The organism must be left to its own devices and allowed to follow the processes that are inherent and innate to it. Here we are at the point where we can say: strangely enough, spiritual science coincides once again with what the facts of natural science tell us, also in the form presented by the Russian researcher and long-time director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who was mentioned at the beginning. —- Can we not now say that consciousness itself, the spiritual life of the human being, causes the exhaustion and fatigue of the organism in order to exist, in order to be there at all? And so, to shed a little light on this researcher's hypothesis, we could answer the question: why do the enemies of life he characterizes enter our organism? We could answer by saying: because, basically, the purely organic life in human beings is always opposed by a kind of poisoning process, the process of consciousness. We could not attain our higher spiritual life if we did not destroy the organism. It is in the processes that are hostile to the organic that the possibility of our consciousness lies in the first place. When we speak of a poisoning effect in relation to organic activity, we must say that what we must regard as the blessing, as the great salvation of our life, that we can be conscious beings in a physical body, that we can develop conscious activity, we owe to the fact that we intervene destructively, poisonously in our organism with our conscious life. However, for ordinary conscious life, this process of poisoning and destruction is not incurable, so to speak, but rather the organism is affected in such a way that when the destructive process has reached a certain point, conscious mental life withdraws and leaves the organism to its own devices. So then sleep sets in, during which the organism is left to its own devices, and during which that which is destroyed by the conscious phenomena of the soul life is restored. The spiritual scientist is well aware of all the ingenious, more or less significant hypotheses that have been put forward about sleep and fatigue, and it would take a long time to discuss all these hypotheses. However, it is not important here to analyze these purely materialistic hypotheses, but rather to present the fact that consciousness, with its contents, must itself intervene destructively in the organism that contains the external tool for consciousness, and that the state of sleep is a compensation for the corresponding destructive processes, which are thus truly healed by it. Therefore, one can say: Sleep is the healer of those states which consciousness must cause in the organism like disease processes.
When the spiritual researcher has progressed to the point of not only seeing what normal outer consciousness sees, namely that with falling asleep the conscious ideas and so forth sink down into an indeterminate darkness, but when he comes to actually observing what is happening to him even when this normal ordinary consciousness disappears, then he also comes to be able to follow the process of falling asleep and waking up. Self-knowledge in the broadest sense is what one acquires through spiritual research. Then one comes to a real understanding of those processes that take place when falling asleep, and which are processes of building up, of the sprouting forth of living things. Through spiritual research and through all thinking and feeling that is in the spirit of spiritual scientific research, one actually experiences with every falling asleep something of sprouting life in the mere organism, which, however, because it takes place in the merely organic, has only the value of plant life. What one can experience every evening when falling asleep can be characterized in the following way: You see your own organism with your entire soul life; you see what filled your consciousness during the day sinking down. But in return, you see sprouting up in your own organism what are constructive, not destructive, processes, but which are only like the sprouting of a plant within you. — Thus, during the state of sleep, one experiences something like one's own vegetation within one's own organism. The experience of falling asleep with the fading of conscious ideas is something like a spring experience, in which we see what is only plant-like emerging from the unconscious in our organism. In this sense, the moment of falling asleep is completely parallel to the emergence of the sprouting, budding plant world of spring.
When you look at plant life in this way, one ceases to compare the sprouting of plants in spring with human birth, or indeed with what can be called birth in humans and animals, but comes to realize that the great Earth Mother is a total organism and experiences in spring, in that part of the earth which is then in spring, what humans experience when they fall asleep. The mistake that is usually made in such comparisons is that things are not viewed in their reality, but are considered according to external circumstances. It may seem obvious to some people's imagination that the sprouting of plants in spring can be compared to something in humans that repeats itself periodically, which is not actually death and birth, but if one follows one's imagination, one might want to compare the plant world sprouting in spring to the moment of awakening in humans. This is wrong! Spring cannot be compared to waking up, to the reawakening of the soul's content, but rather to falling asleep, to the disappearance of inner spiritual life, of soul realities, and to the sprouting of the merely organic, the merely vegetative in human beings.
And when human beings, through clairvoyant consciousness, can consciously follow the moment of awakening, how their ideas and everything they remember emerge from an indeterminate darkness, then there is again the necessity to destroy all the sprouting inner vegetation. It is indeed as if, with the emergence of our ideas upon waking in the morning, the element of autumn were blown over everything that the night had caused to sprout, an inner process that is comparable for the whole earth to the withering of plants toward autumn. Only, in the case of the earth, it does not present itself to us as it does in the case of human beings with their two states of consciousness, waking and sleeping, but rather, while one half of the earth is always asleep, the other is always awake, so that sleep always moves from one half of the earth to the other with the passage of the sun. So, in the case of the earth, we are dealing with a large organism that lives its sleeping life from spring to autumn, which is reflected in the outer organs, in what sprouts and grows in the plant kingdom, and which then, with the arrival of autumn, withdraws into its spiritual realm, into what is the soul of the earth, for the life of the earth is from autumn to spring. Therefore, we cannot speak of real death or real birth in plants, but only of the sleeping and waking of the entire Earth organism. Just as sleeping and waking rhythmically repeat themselves in humans over the course of twenty-four hours, and just as we do not speak of the death and birth of our world of thoughts, so too, if we want to speak realistically, we should not speak of the life and death of plants, but rather consider the entire earth organism and, as part of the entire earth organism, view the plant process as the awakening and falling asleep of the earth. When we enjoy most what sprouts from the earth, when we remember how, so to speak, the people of earlier times celebrated the Feast of St. John out of joy for the sprouting life, then we have for the earth the time that is present in humans at midnight in relation to their organism, their outer physicality. But when people prepare to celebrate Christmas, when outer life has died down, then we are dealing with the earth and its spiritual processes, at which time human beings are best able to connect with the whole spiritual life of the earth, which they have indicated out of a true instinct in placing the spiritual festivals of humanity in the winter season. I know what external science can object to this, but external science does not observe the right instincts of human beings.
Now let us try to explore what we might call death in the animal kingdom, not through analogical judgments, but by expressing what spiritual science has to offer through a process in the human being. We must note that, when we look closely, our soul life does indeed follow a different course than that which consists in the promotion and fertilization of our soul life through the alternation of waking and sleeping. It should be pointed out right away that from that moment in childhood, which we later consciously remember, human beings undergo a kind of maturing process throughout their entire lives. Human beings become more and more mature through the life experiences they can absorb. This maturing process takes place in a peculiar way. We remember — and this is what makes it possible to speak of an “I” within us — everything we have experienced up to a certain point in our youth, but we only remember what is imaginative, what is thought-like. This is something very strange, but everyone can explore it for themselves. If you remember a painful or pleasurable event that you had perhaps thirty years ago, you will say to yourself: I can follow all the details quite well, what I experienced in my imagination, so that I can reconstruct them in my imagination, but the pain or pleasure associated with the event at that time does not become as vivid as is usually the case with thoughts. They have faded, separated themselves from the imagination, and descended into an indefinite darkness. — One might say: We can always bring the images up again from the deep shafts of our soul, but we must leave below — with few exceptions — our memories of what we experienced in terms of feelings, emotions, and passions. What we experienced emotionally remains below, detached from the mere images. — Is it lost? Does it pass into nothingness? That is not the case. It may seem so to those who do not really consider human life conscientiously and thoroughly. But a conscientious and comprehensive observer finds the following: when we examine a human existence at a certain point in life, for example at the age of forty, we find it in a certain condition, a state of mind, but also a state of physical health or illness. The person presents themselves to us either as gloomy and melancholic, slightly depressed, or cheerful, or somehow phlegmatic or of some other temperament, easily grasping the facts of the world, easily accepting what can give them pleasure and joy, and so on. One should not always separate the state of mind from the physical, because the mood with which a person presents themselves also depends on how the functions of the physical body work. If one examines the mood of the soul and the overall constitution of a person at any age, one will soon discover where the emotional experiences have gone that have separated themselves from the ideas and which we later remember only in our imagination. One will find that what has separated itself as moods has connected itself with our deeper organization; it cannot be remembered in our inner life, but it expresses itself in our inner life, even in health and sickness. Where have the moods gone, since we do not remember them? They are down in our physical and soul life and constitute a certain state in the overall life of the human being. Thus we see how we need memory for the entire course of our conscious life, and how memory always plunges into an indeterminate darkness during sleep, just as our emotional experiences plunge down into the darkness of our own being and work on our overall constitution.
Thus we have a second element at work in the human being. And when we now turn our gaze from human beings to the entire Earth organism, which we regard as an animated being, we do not, of course, view it in such a way as if the soul-spiritual forces at work in the Earth organism were organized in the same way as the human soul is organized. For spiritual science shows us that many beings such as human beings live in the soul sphere of the earth, so that the soul being of the earth represents a multiplicity, while that of the human being is a unity. However, in this respect, the soul of the earth, as it is now characterized, can certainly be compared with the soul experiences in the human being himself. When we see how our moods sink down into our own organization, work on our bodies, and find expression in our overall constitution, we have a parallel process to this in what constitutes the overall process on earth, namely in everything that finds expression in the emergence of animal life. Within ourselves, only a physical-soul process is triggered by what is pushed down into the darkness of our physical constitution through our emotional experiences. For the earth, the corresponding soul-spiritual experiences are, as it were, crystallized in the emergence and passing away of animal beings. I am well aware that in a debate such as the one now being conducted, those who believe they can construct a worldview from hypotheses that appear to be firmly grounded in natural science may feel queasy, and I can empathize with such people. But it will be seen that the direction of human thought and judgment, which is to lead to enlightenment about the processes of death and emergence on earth, will take the course indicated here in the next stage of spiritual development, for everything we see in the facts of natural science itself leads us to this conclusion. Just as human beings see their moods, which are caused by their organic constitution, reflected in their physical organization, so they see, in a corresponding way, the process of the emergence of the animal world reflected externally in the earthly organization.
But then we have another process in human beings. We see how the so-called higher feelings and sensations emerge again from the overall organization of the soul. What is the peculiarity of these? Anyone who approaches this without prejudice, but also without false asceticism, without false hypocrisy and piety, will say to themselves: What we can describe as the higher moral feelings and those moods in human beings that arise in enthusiasm for all that is good, beautiful, and true, for everything that advances the world, live in us only because we can rise above everything that is originally instinctive in us in our state of mind, so that in our spiritual feelings, in our spiritual enthusiasm, we rise above what only the physical organization in us can bring forth. This can go so far that those who have their enthusiasm in spiritual life become completely attached to the object of their enthusiasm, so that it even becomes easy for them to give up their physical life so that what they are inflamed with in their higher moral and aesthetic feelings may live on. Here we see what lives in enthusiasm as something spiritual, with the suppression of our purely organic nature, rising in a mood that initially has nothing to do with the course of organic life. In the same way, an element in the human being, the element that he sends down into the depths of his being, where it constructs his organic processes, also runs its course. But from the depths of his being, his moral and spiritual feelings also rise, his state of mind rises; in ever-advancing development, they triumph over what belongs merely to the organic, physically instinctive constitution of the human being.
This process, which we find divided into two elements in the human being, we also find in the animal world. When we lower our state of mind into our physical life and allow ourselves to be influenced by our moods to the point of health or illness, we see, on the other hand, what is the sinking of the emotional state of the entire earth in what is lived out in animal life. What is feeling and passion in the whole earth organism is lived out in the animal kingdom, just as our passions and emotions are lived out in our whole organization. When we look at the animal world, we see in each individual form the result of the emotional state of our earth. And when we look at how the earth, as it were, draws over the life of the animal world and keeps it most closely bound to the outer physical body, we see in this nothing other than the victory of the spiritual, of what we call the group soul in animals, the supersensible, which finds its representative only in the external and triumphs over the external, just as in humans the spiritual feelings triumph over the merely instinctive. The fact that the external processes of the Earth's organization repeatedly bring death to individual animals is nothing other than the spiritual as such continually triumphing in us over that which is merely connected with the organic. If we view the spiritual in animals in this way, then we cannot regard the coming into being and passing away of animals as if we could apply the terms birth and death to them as we do to human beings. It is, however, a total process of the earth in animals, which is already more individualized than in the plant world. Nevertheless, when we consider the individual species souls, the individual group souls assigned to the animal species or genera, we see how, with every death that occurs to an individual animal, the outer physical body passes away, but how that which is the species soul, the spiritual in the animal, always triumphs over the outer form, just as in humans the spiritual triumphs over the merely instinctive, which has its representative not in the separate form but in the organization.
Thus we see, as it were, a great living being consisting of the individual generic souls of animals, and we see the birth and death of animal beings represented in such a way that what underlies the individual animal in the spiritual realm must always fight for its victory over the particular. We have thus described death in animals as that which moves through the withering and decay of the individual animal form as the group soul. We could only speak of real death in animals if we did not consider what remains after the death of the animal and is spiritual in a similar way to what in humans triumphs over the state of mind and over what is doomed to wither away by rising above itself.
Once Darwinism has transcended itself, it will see how a thread of development winds its way through the animal kingdom in the apparent births and deaths from the earliest times to later future times, so that the overall development of the animal kingdom ultimately leads to the victory of that which, by overcoming the lower, the individual animal form, emerges from the entire spiritual world, leaving behind the lower, which lives in the individual animals, and will one day triumph over the instinctive, which manifests itself in the entire animal kingdom.
When we come to what we call the nature of the human will, when we speak not only of the fact that humans experience their ideas, which can be remembered again and again, and not only consider the state of mind that descends into the deeper organization in the manner described, but when we look at the impulses of the will, we will say: At first glance, they appear to be the most mysterious aspect of human nature. How a person is determined in terms of impulsiveness of will depends on what their life has brought them in terms of experiences. When we look back on our lives from any point, we find a continuous sequence of soul events following one another. But we find that what we have experienced essentially flows into our will in such a way that we can say: when we look at ourselves in this way, we have actually become richer in ideas, but more mature in terms of our impulsiveness of will. — Indeed, we experience a special maturity in relation to our will. Everyone who looks back on their life in this way experiences this. We do something in life. We only really learn how we should have done something once we have done it. And everyone knows how little opportunity they have to find themselves in the same situation again later on, to be able to apply what they have acquired as maturity in life, what they have gained perhaps through mistakes and damage they have experienced, in a later case. But one thing they know: that everything they experience comes together in the totality of their volition in what we might call the wisdom of their will, and that this forms the maturity we gradually attain. It is our will that becomes more and more mature. All our feelings, ideas, and so on come together to make our will more and more mature, also in relation to external activities. For the fact that we become more mature in our thinking through life experiences is only a maturing of the will, which expresses itself in the joining together of thoughts. Thus we see how, as it were, our entire soul life, when we look back on it, leads us to the center of our being, which stands behind the impulses of the will and in which this ever-increasing maturity is expressed. When we consider this, we have the third element of human development, that of which we can say: we educate it in our life in the physical body. We grow up in this very element and grow in this element beyond what we were when we entered this existence through birth. — Because we are clothed in a physical body in this existence, and the physical body is the tool we must use for our soul, which needs the mind and the brain, our soul being acquires maturity and experience of life, which crystallizes, as it were, in the overall constitution of the will, in the maturity of the will.
But as a rule, we are not able in this life to bring about, to carry out, what now lives in our impulses of will. This is what presents the question to human beings: What is it about these impulses of the will that we develop as our most intimate soul assets, which we may have acquired precisely through our imperfection, and which we nevertheless never “can” express? What we send down into the depths of our being in terms of the content of our emotional experiences, as we saw in the second part of our consideration, leads to our entire physical and spiritual constitution, to our mood, to what life has done to us in terms of health and illness, whether we are more melancholic or express cheerfulness, and so on. But what we have made of ourselves in terms of our state of mind is our innermost being. That is what we have become. Through this, however, we have also grown beyond what we used to be. And we notice it when, in the second half of our lives, things go downhill, how our body fails to live out what we have become through our impulsive will. In short, we see how, by standing in life with our cognitive, emotional, and volitional faculties, we become something that contradicts what we already are, something that clashes with what we already are. We feel inwardly, through our maturity of life, how we clash with what we have become through our elements, through our physical dispositions, through our soul. We feel inwardly the clash between the totality of our will and maturity of life and the totality of our physical constitution, but we also feel this clash in every single impulse of the will that leads to action. It is true that our thoughts are transparent to a certain degree, as are our feelings; but how the will becomes action is impenetrable to the outside world. The will collides, so to speak, with external life and only becomes conscious by colliding with this external life. And here we can follow what is already evident in the life of the soul in the whole of life, including in the physical organization: what the human being has become, what has given him the predispositions for his abilities, must be broken and destroyed by the will that is only just coming into being in this life, for otherwise this will would never be able to assert itself.
Just as the human being can only become conscious through collision with reality, so he can only experience himself as a progressive process by means of the will destroying the entire physical life within him, just as the brain is destroyed by the life of imagination. But while the latter can be compensated for by sleep, a renewal of the will cannot be repaired; rather, a continuous process of destruction must indeed occur in every life through the impulsiveness of the will. Here we see that human beings must destroy their organism, and thus we see the necessity of real death for human beings. Just as we recognize the necessity of sleep for the life of imagination, so we now recognize the necessity of death for the life of the will. For it is only because human beings have their physical organization opposing their will that the will recognizes itself within itself, strengthens itself within itself, and then passes through the gate of death into a life in the spiritual world, where it acquires the powers to build up in a future incarnation what it has not achieved in this physical life. For it is only because human beings have their physical organization opposing their will that the will recognizes itself within itself, strengthens itself within itself, and then passes through the gate of death into a life in the spiritual world, where it acquires the powers to build up in a future incarnation what it has not achieved in this physical life. That for which only the consciousness that was ripe for the next step could open up, that which the predispositions provided for something further, but which was not lived out in this life, will be lived out in a coming earthly life, where the human being will also shape his new destiny, his new earthly life, in a corresponding way.
So while in the plant world we could only speak of the whole of nature on earth waking up and falling asleep in relation to death, and while in the animal world we could only compare death to the ebb and flow and defeat of our lower instinctive life, it is only with human death that we have something that points us to the ever-recurring lives through the destruction of this one life. Because we can only gain what appears in the new earthly life through the destruction of this one life, and only then does it lead to the real perfection of the whole of human life, it is also the case that the will of the human being needs the dying away of the physical body in order to become conscious of its overall constitution, and that, basically, the experience necessary for the right impulse of will is only there when we pass through the gate of death, when we witness the gradual wasting away and dying of the outer organization. For it is through the resistance it feels in the outer organization that the will grows, becomes stronger and stronger, and prepares itself to become that which lives for eternity. Therefore, apart from everything you find explained in spiritual science about unnatural death, it is understandable that a death caused by an external accident, suicide, or the like is, under all circumstances, something different from a natural death, which offers the guarantee of the emergence of a new life. Unnatural death in any form can certainly be something that signifies progress in the overall destiny of human beings. But what the will in its overall constitution would first have had to experience in the victory over physicality remains in a certain way as an inner force and must take a different path when a person passes through the gate of death in an unnatural way than when they live out their life in a natural way.
Thus we see that we can only really speak of death when we speak of what we can call the formation of a new will-like for a new life, and that we therefore cannot speak of true death in the case of other beings. In the case of human beings, however, we must speak in such a way that not only Goethe's words are true: “Nature invented death in order to have much life,” but we must speak in such a way that we say: If death did not exist, one would have to wish that it did, for it gives the possibility that, through the resistance and withering of the outer organization, the will grows more and more for the new life. — And this provides the opportunity for development to ascend through the various incarnations, so that life forms itself higher and higher, even if the next lives do not do so immediately, even if there are setbacks. In the overall course, however, one will still recognize an ascent through the repeated earthly lives.
Thus, death is the great strengthener of the life of the will for spiritual life. And we see, as already indicated, that modern science — albeit haltingly — encounters spiritual science by pointing out how death represents a kind of poisoning process. Yes, all spiritual development that follows its own independent course is a devastation, a destruction of outer physical life. What devastates the world of ideas in human beings is repaired again through sleep. What is destroyed by the instinctive nature of human beings is repaired again through higher moral and aesthetic feelings and sensations. What we see as destruction of the physical organization through the activity of the will element is repaired in the total life of the human being through that maturity of the will life which passes through death and can build a new life. Thus death acquires its meaning. That meaning through which the human being is able not only to think about immortality, but to actually experience it within himself. Those who view death in this way see it approaching as the power that leads the outer physical life to decline, but they also see, precisely in resistance to this decline, the dawn of a new human soul life, which human beings experience from incarnation to incarnation, from embodiment to embodiment, through eternities. Only when one understands the meaning of death for human eternity does one comprehend the meaning of death for nature as a whole. Then, however, one must also abandon the widespread foolish view that speaks of death even in animals and plants; then one must know that one can only really speak of death when one considers the destinies that the spirit experiences as it passes through physicality, and when one looks at the facts that the spirit must accomplish in physicality in order to increase its own perfection more and more. The spirit must surrender the body to death so that it, the spirit, can soar to ever greater and greater levels of perfection. If we consider this point of view, then our soul may speak to us, looking at death in the human realm, how through it the spiritual-soul of man can attain a higher perfection, but also looking at death in the animal and plant realms, how the spirit shines through at the basis of all phenomena. It may make to us the comforting confession that not only inspires all hopes of life:
All being springs from the spirit,
All life is rooted in the spirit,
All beings strive toward the spirit.