Awareness - Life - Form
GA 89
26 May 1904 Berlin
Theosophical Cosmology I
The course of lectures on the basic elements of theosophy which I announced some time ago will have to come later, at a time when numbers will perhaps be greater.15The following announcement appeared in the German journal Vahan No. 9, March 1904: ‘In April and May Dr Steiner will be giving lectures on the basic concepts of theosophy at Motzstr. 17 every Thursday at 8 p.m.’ The lectures were put off until the autumn, however; they have been published (in German) in Ursprung und Ziel des Menschen. Grundbegriffe der Esoterik (GA 53). I have put off the date for those lectures and decided to use the next few Thursdays to develop some aspects of cosmology, or world evolution, that is, the teaching in theosophical terms on the origins of the world and the creation of man within this world.
I am, of course, well aware that I am proposing to deal with one of the most difficult chapters in theosophical teaching, and it is probably right to tell you that in some lodges the decision has been made not to treat the subject for the time being, as it is too difficult. I have nevertheless decided to do it, for I believe that with the indications I am able to give, this will be useful to some of you. We may not be able to go into the whole of such a difficult subject immediately, but it should be possible to give encouragement, so that at a later time we may enter more deeply into the matter.
Those of you who have been in the theosophical movement for some time will know that questions as to how the world did actually come into existence, and how it has gradually evolved up to the present time when entities such as ourselves are able to inhabit it, have been the very first to be considered in the theosophical movement. Not only did one of the first books which drew the western world’s attention to ancient views of the world, H. P. Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled,16Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (1831–91). Isis Unveiled, New York 1877; The Secret Doctrine, London 1888. deal with such questions of the origin and evolution of the world, but the book to which we are probably indebted for the greatest number of our adherents, Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism,17Sinnett, Alfred Percy (1840–1921). Esoteric Buddhism, 1883. See also Rudolf Steiner’s references to this work in a lecture given in Berlin on 12 December 1912 (in German, in GA 62), in the lecture course The Occult Movement in the 19th Century, tr. D. S. Osmond, London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1973 (in GA 254) and in Rudolf Steiner’s biography, chapter 7. has done the same. How does a solar system evolve, and the planets and constellations? How did the Earth evolve, what stages has it gone through and what would still lie before it? These questions are considered in full in Esoteric Buddhism. Then Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine appeared in the late ’80s, and in the first volume she, too, considered the question as to how the human race developed in Earth evolution.
Now I need just refer to a single point to show the whole problem. If you open volume 1 of Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine you will find that some of the statements made in Sinnett’s Buddhism are said to be erroneous and are in part corrected by her.18See introduction to the 1st volume of The Secret Doctrine. The theosophical writers had partly misunderstood these things and partly presented them in a way that led to misunderstanding. Mrs Blavatsky therefore had to put them right. She said that a kind of Babylonian confusion of tongues had arisen with regard to theosophical cosmology,19In The Secret Doctrine, Mrs Blavatsky wrote that it had been difficult to find the right terminology. ‘In these early letters [of the mahatmas], in which terms had to be invented and words coined, the “Rings” very often became “Rounds” and the “Rounds”, “Life-Cycles”, and vice versa. To a correspondent who called a “Round” a “World-Ring”, the Teacher wrote: “I believe this will lead to a further confusion. A Round we are agree to call the passage of a Monad from Globe A to Globe G or Z. ... The ‘World-Ring’ is correct ... Advise Mr... strongly, to agree upon a nomenclature before going any further.’” [page 191] See also Note 4. and that leading figures [in the Theosophical Society] certainly were not immediately well informed on these matters.
You all know that the contents of the Secret Doctrine were given by great, sublime masters who were far ahead of our average level of development. Before it was published, a book had appeared in which Sinnett, author of Esoteric Buddhism, published a number of letters by a mahatma.20In The Occult World, London 1881. We can thus see the problems which arise with understanding this secret doctrine, and we can understand that people who, like Sinnett and Blavatsky, were endeavouring to receive those doctrines were literally sighing, as it was so difficult to understand the doctrines that were given to them. ‘Oh,’ one teacher said, ‘being used to grasp things with a different set of mind, you cannot understand what we have to say, however much you endeavour to gain understanding of it.’ If we consider these words, the problems will be evident. Views that could be misunderstood arose wherever people spoke of cosmology.21In the series of essays ‘Aus der Akasha-Chronik’ (later Cosmic Memory. Atlantis and Lemuria, GA 11), we read: ‘... that the inspirations of the great teacher mentioned in Esoteric Buddhism [by Sinnett] do not contradict what I am presenting here, but that the misunderstanding only arose because the author of that work translated the wisdom of those inspirations, which is difficult to put in words, into the human language of today, doing so in his own way.’ This is therefore well established, and I hope I may ask your forbearance as I try to say something on this doctrine.
Let me say something to begin with that will clarify the relationship of theosophical cosmology to modem science and its methods. Someone might come and say: ‘Consider the advances made by astronomers; we owe this to the telescopes, to the mathematical and photographic methods which have given us knowledge of distant stars.’ Modern science with its careful methods appears—in the opinion of scientists—to have the one and only right to establish anything about the evolution of the cosmic system. It appears that in modern science it is acceptable to disapprove of anything others say about the evolution and origin of the cosmic system. Many an astronomer will object: ‘What you theosophists are telling us about cosmology are ancient doctrines taught by the Chaldeans or Vedic priests and part of the oldest wisdom known to humanity; but what significance can anything said millennia ago have, since the teaching of astronomy has only gained reasonable certainty since Copernicus?’ It merely seems, therefore, that the contents of the first volume of Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine confounds the things astronomers armed with telescopes and so on explain to us. But a theosophist need not be in conflict with anything an astronomer says. There is no need for this, though there are theosophists who believe they must fight against modem astronomy in order to make room for their own doctrines. I know only too well that leading figures in the theosophical movement think themselves able to teach the astronomers. A simple example may serve to demonstrate the standpoint some theosophists take against astronomers.
Take a poet whose works give pleasure and edification. Perhaps someone else will be his biographer and will try to make the soul and spirit which lives in the poet understandable and explain it. There is also another way of looking at a person, and that is the physiological or scientific way. Let us assume a scientist studies the poet. He will of course only consider the physiological and physiognomic aspects which are of interest to him. He will tell us about anything he is able to see in the poet and combine with his scientific thinking. As theosophists we would say the scientist is describing and explaining the poet from the standpoint of the physical plane. The scientist won’t say a single word, however, about the poet’s biography, as we call it, or about his soul and spirit. We thus have two approaches that run side by side, though they need not collide. Why shouldn’t there be a scientific study and parallel to it one which considers soul and spirit, with each valid in its own way? Neither is interfering with the other.
The same applies to scientific cosmology, with the information astronomers give us on the cosmic edifice and the evolution of the cosmic system. They will tell us what can be accessible to the ordinary senses. At the same time, however, it is possible to consider the matter in terms of spirit and soul, and if we take the cosmic edifice in this way, we’ll never collide with astronomy; both ways of looking at things will sometimes substantiate one another, for they run side by side and are independent of one another.
For instance, when the scientific physiology of the brain was still far from where it is today, people were already providing biographies of great minds. An astronomer cannot object, therefore, that the occult approach is out of date and impossible since Copernicus put astronomy on a different basis. The occult sources are completely different from this; they existed long before the eye was trained to study the heavens through telescopes, and before photography had reached the point where it was possible to photograph stars. Copernican science offers something very different from occult research; and the one power in the human soul is not at all dependent on the other. The power which gives us insight into the element of spirit and soul goes back such a long way that no historian is able to tell us where this way of looking at the cosmic edifice did have its beginnings. It is not possible to establish how the great minds came to develop these occult insights.
Occult schools existed in Europe before the Theosophical Society was established in 1875. However, the knowledge we now present in popular form was then only shared within closed groups. The law not to let it go beyond these schools was strictly observed. People wanting to join such a school had to do serious work on themselves before the first truths were given to them. The view was that people had to make themselves ready before they could receive such truths. They had many degrees in those schools through which people would progress, degrees of trial; and when anyone was found to be unready they would have to continue to prepare themselves. If I were to describe the degrees to you, it would make you dizzy to think of the strictness that was applied. Matters concerning world evolution were considered to be among the most important and only taught at the highest levels. In the 17th century, which has had a great influence on civilization, this knowledge was in the hands of the Rosicrucian movement.22See lecture given in Berlin on 4 November 1904 on the Rosicrucian Mystery in The Temple Legend, GA 93, tr. J. M. Wood; London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1997. Originally this had come from knowledge held in the East, and European followers were given it at many different levels.
By the end of the 18th and above all the beginning of the 19th century, those occult schools vanished from Europe’s culture. The last of the Rosicrucians withdrew to the Orient. This was the age when humanity had to organize conditions of life according to external knowledge; the invention of the steam engine came then, and the scientific study of cells and so on. Occult wisdom had nothing to say to this, and the individuals who had reached the highest peak of that wisdom, people of the highest degree, withdrew to the Orient. Occult schools existed also after this, but they are of little interest to us; I must mention them, however, for Mrs Blavatsky and Mr Sinnett went to the source springs when they received their cosmological knowledge from Buddhist Tibetan occult schools.
A long period of cultural development in Europe had brought the European brain, the European ability to think, so far that difficulties arose in grasping occult truths. These could only be grasped with difficulty. When this early knowledge of theosophical cosmology came to public awareness, partly through Esoteric Buddhism and partly through The Secret Doctrine, the followers of occult schools pricked up their ears,23See lecture given in Domach on 10 October 1915 in The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century, GA 254, tr. D. S. Osmond; London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1973. and it seemed wrong to them that the strict rule of not letting anything go outside their schools had been broken. The followers of the theosophical school knew, however, that it was necessary to make some of it known.
Western science could not do anything with such knowledge, however, for no one was able to check the truth of what Mrs Blavatsky and Mr Sinnett had written. Above all people did not know what to do with the glorious cosmological song which consists of the Stanzas of Dzyan and was published at the beginning of Mrs Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine.24David Reigle, Tibetologist, has since identified the stanzas as coming from the books of the Kiu-Te, probably also as the fifth, esoteric part of the Kalachakra Tantra entitled Jnana. See Life and Work of Helena Blavatsky by Sylvia Cranston. See also what Rudolf Steiner said about Tibet in his talk with the workmen at the Goetheanum on 20 May 1924 in From Beetroot to Buddhism, GA 353, tr. A. R. Meuss; London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1999. The verses tell the history of the universe. Their authenticity was put in doubt; no scientist could do anything with them; initially they appeared to go against anything European scholars knew. There was one man, Max Müller, the orientalist, whom I respect most highly; he spoke energetically in favour of Oriental wisdom.25Max Müller (1823–1900), well-known expert on the Orient, language and religion in the 19lh century. Member and protagonist of the Theosophical Society for as long as it based itself on purely Indian philosophy. Everything he could get hold of in this sphere was made accessible to Europeans by Max Mueller. But neither he nor other European academics knew what to do with the things Mrs Blavatsky made known. At the time people merely said anything said in Secret Doctrine was mere fantasy. The reason was that the academics had never found any of it in the Indian books.
Mrs Blavatsky said that great riches of ancient literature were still to be found in the place from which her secrets had come, but that the most important thing about that wisdom had been kept from the eyes of European scholars. European thinking was such that even the little which it had been possible to tell could not be understood; commentaries were lacking that held the key to understanding. The books which showed how individual statements should be taken were in the safekeeping of native Tibetans who had received the teaching; at least that is what Mrs Blavatsky said.
However, others who have reached advanced levels also said that this literature provides historical evidence that there was an original wisdom which in things of the spirit went far beyond anything people in the world know today. The Oriental sages say that this original wisdom exists in books which are in their safekeeping, and that it did not come to us from human beings like ourselves, but from divine sources. The Orientals speak of an original divine wisdom.
Max Mueller said in a lecture to his students that following certain investigations it was impossible to maintain that there had been such original wisdom. Having heard Max Mueller’s opinion through Mrs Blavatsky, a great Brahmin Sanskrit scholar said: ‘Oh, if Max Mueller were a Brahmin and I were able to take him to a particular temple, he would be able to see for himself that there is such ancient divine wisdom.’26See Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine, vol. 1. The things Mrs Blavatsky presents in the Stanzas of Dzyan partly come from such hidden sources which she opened up. If she had invented those verses herself we would be looking at an even greater miracle.
We do not, however, have to depend on getting the occult knowledge of world evolution from the old writings. Powers exist in the human being which enable him to perceive and explore the truths himself, if he develops these powers in the right way. Anything we are able to learn in this way agrees with the knowledge Mrs Blavatsky brought with her from the Far East. It emerges that in Europe, too, occultists preserved knowledge that was passed from teacher to pupils and was never entrusted to books. The occultists were therefore able to test the knowledge Mrs Blavatsky presented in her Secret Doctrine against their own knowledge, and above all against things they had gained out of their own powers. Someone trained in the European way can also check the information given in Mrs Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine. And it has been checked and confirmed,27Clearly referring to C. G. Harrison’s The Transcendental Universe, lectures on occult science, theosophy and the catholic faith, London 1893/94. but it is nevertheless difficult for European occultists to cope with it. Let me say just one thing. European occult knowledge has been influenced in a quite specific way by Christian and cabbalistic elements which have given it a certain bias. If we ignore this, however, and go back to the basis of this knowledge, it is possible to have complete agreement with the knowledge which Mrs Blavatsky uncovered for us.
Although it has been possible in a way to check the cosmology Mrs Blavatsky had brought for us, it is difficult to explain to scholars what we mean when we speak of the origin of the world, doing so from occult knowledge. It is, of course, remarkable what they achieve in deciphering ancient records, making great efforts to decipher Babylonian cuneiform writing and Egyptian hieroglyphs; but Max Mueller himself has said that nothing they have discovered from those records does as yet give them a picture of the history of the world’s origin. We see the scholars labouring on the shell, as it were, without penetrating to the kernel. This is not to say anything against the careful work and fine bits of detail the scholars have been labouring over. I would merely draw attention to the books published relating to the Bible and Babel dispute.28Friedrich Delitzsch (1850–1922) professor of Assyriology and Semitic languages, had established a connection between certain Old Testament passages and Babylonian writings about the creation (Bibel und Babel, Leipzig 1902). Lectures he gave on the subject in 1902 and 1903 triggered serious disputes, and there were a number of published refutations. Rudolf Steiner wrote about this in an essay on the supersensible world which was published in Lucifer-Gnosis, GA 34, in May 1904. All this is piecemeal; the scholars do not get beyond the shell. You feel they have no idea of the ways that take one to the key to these secrets. It is just like when someone begins to translate a book from another language into his own. Initially it is imperfect. That is how it is with the translation of ancient creation myths by today’s' scholars. They are shards of ancient wisdom taught from generation to generation in the mystery schools. Only people who had reached a certain degree of initiation could know something about it. I’ll come back to this again at the end of these lectures.
It is the initiates, therefore, who are able to come to these things in their own experience. You will ask: ‘What is an initiate, actually? People often speak of ‘initiates’ in theosophy and occult societies.’ An initiate is someone who has developed powers that lie dormant in every human being and are capable of development,29Soon after this lecture Rudolf Steiner published the series of essays on how to gain knowledge of higher worlds in Lucifer- Gnosis. having done so to a high degree. The initiate has developed them to such a degree that he is able to understand the nature of those powers in the cosmos, in the cosmic edifice, which come into consideration for what I want to discuss with you. Well, you’ll say: ‘People always say that such powers lie dormant in the human being, but there’s no certainty of this.’ This is simply due to a misunderstanding. The mystic or occultist is not saying anything which any scholar may not also say in his field. Imagine someone tells you a mathematical truth. If you have never learned mathematics yourself, you will not have the knowledge to test this truth. No one would deny that one needs to have the necessary abilities before one can judge a mathematical truth. No authority can decide the issue, only the individual who has experienced it can judge it. In the same way only someone who has himself experienced, lived through an occult truth, can judge it. People of our time are, however, demanding that occultists should prove anything they have to say immediately and for any average level of understanding. They will quote the words: ‘Anything which is true must be capable of proof, and anyone should be able to understand it.’ Yet occultists say nothing else but what any other scholar would also say in his field, and they do not ask for more than any mathematician would also demand.
We may ask why occult truths are being presented today. Until now, occult schools have followed the principle that the knowledge should not go beyond a small number of people. Those on the ‘right’ still follow the principle today.30See also lectures of 10-15 October 1915 in The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century (see Note 22), and on 1 and 7 November 1915 [in German] in Die okkulte Bewegung im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, GA 254. Yet anyone who has the experience and is able to read the signs of the times will know that this is no longer appropriate today. And this very fact, that it is no longer appropriate, has given rise to the theosophical world movement. Today, the rational mind is most highly developed. Associative thinking in conjunction with the senses has led to advances in industry and technology. This rational, intellectual thinking had its greatest triumphs in the 19th century. External intellectual thinking has never been as highly developed as it is today. 1 spoke of Oriental sages having original wisdom, and this was very different in form from our thinking today. Even the greatest masters among them did not have this acuity of logical thinking, this pure logicality; nor did they need it. Because of this it was also difficult to understand them. They had intuition, inner vision. True intuition does not come with logical or associative thinking; what happens is that a truth presents itself directly to the mind of the individual concerned. He will know it and there will be no need for proof.
The teachers in the theosophical movement now have the right to present part of the occult wisdom. We have the right to express the wisdom which has been given to us in form of intuition, putting it in the thought forms of modern life. A thought is a power like electricity, a power like steam power, like heat energy; and the thoughts presented within the theosophical movement are power for anyone who takes them in, giving himself up to them and not meeting them with immediate distrust. Hearing them, one will not notice it immediately, for the seed will only germinate later. No theosophical teacher asks anything but that people should listen to him. He is not asking for blind faith, only that people should listen. Neither acceptance as a matter of belief nor unbelieving rejection are the right attitude. Listeners should merely think the thoughts through for themselves, leaving aside belief or doubt, yes or no. They need to be ‘neutral’ and let the teaching come alive in their minds just to ‘try it out’. If you let theosophical thoughts be alive in you in this way, you will not just have thoughts in you, but a spiritual energy will pour in, to be active in you and bear fruit.
Western European civilization has developed thinking to such a high degree that people find it easiest to come to anything through thinking. Even the most faithful church-going Christians cannot now imagine the kind of faith people had in the past. That source spring of conviction has dried up. We have to make our thoughts fruitful in a very different way today. In the past, thinking was not widespread and spiritual knowledge could therefore only be presented in occult schools. Today we must turn to the power of thought with the things of the spirit; we then fire the thoughts so that they come alive in us. A spiritual speaker speaks to his listeners in a way that is very different from that of other speakers. He speaks in a way that makes a kind of spiritual atmosphere, spiritual powers, flow from him. Listeners should receive a thought without accepting or rejecting it, as something wholly objective, live with that thought, meditate on it and let it come alive in them. The thought will then generate energy or power in us.
Today we must make the occult truths concerning the origin and evolution of the world known in form of European thoughts and the modern scientific approach. The lectures will thus concern the conditions that preceded the beginnings of our own world. We will go back to long-ago times when the entity evolved from the greyest twilit darkness which was later to become human. We will go back to the stage where this human being was received by earthly powers, surrounded with earthly matter, up to the point where we are today. We’ll get to know the pre-earthly and earthly evolution of our world edifice and see how theosophy opens up a prospect on the future. We will see the direction in which our world evolution is going to continue. All this will be shown without going against the ideas of modem astronomy. Awakening the powers that lie dormant in us we will ourselves perceive the great goal towards which we are moving—to gain cosmological wisdom. Let us consider this cosmological wisdom in the sessions that follow.
Erster Vortrag
Der Zyklus über die Grundelemente der Theosophie, den ich vor einiger Zeit angekündigt habe, wird erst später gehalten werden können, wenn vielleicht mehr Zuspruch sein wird. Ich habe diese Vorträge verschoben und mich entschlossen, die Donnerstage der nächsten Zeit damit auszufüllen, daß ich einiges entwickele über die Kosmologie, die Weltentwicklung, das heißt über die Lehre von der Entstehung der Welt und von der Bildung des Menschen innerhalb dieser Welt im theosophischen Sinne.
Nun bin ich mir wohl bewußt, daß ich damit eines der allerschwierigsten Kapitel der theosophischen Lehre zu behandeln gedenke, und ich kann Ihnen ja wohl mitteilen, daß man in manchen unserer Logen beschlossen hat, dieses Kapitel vorläufig überhaupt nicht zu behandeln, weil es zu schwierig ist. Dennoch habe ich mich dazu entschlossen, weil ich glaube, daß mit den Andeutungen, die zu geben ich in der Lage bin, manchem doch gedient sein könnte. Wenn wir nun eine so schwierige Sache auch nicht gleich ganz durchdringen können, so werden wir doch immerhin Anregungen erhalten können, die uns zu späterer Zeit dazu dienen können, in diese Materie tiefer einzudringen.
Diejenigen, die schon längere Zeit in der theosophischen Bewegung stehen, werden wissen, daß die Fragen: Wie ist die Welt eigentlich entstanden? Wie hat sie sich allmählich bis zu dem Zeitpunkt heraufentwickelt, in welchem Wesen solcher Art, wie wir es sind, diese Welt bewohnen können? -, daß diese Fragen zu den allerersten gehören, die in der theosophischen Bewegung behandelt worden sind. Nicht nur eines der ersten Bücher, welche im Abendlande aufmerksam gemacht haben auf die uralten Weltanschauungen, die «Entschleierte Isis» von H. P. Blavatsky, hat solche Weltentstehungs- und -entwicklungsfragen behandelt, sondern auch das Buch, dem wir vielleicht den größten Teil unserer ältesten Anhänger verdanken, der «Esoterische Buddhismus» von Sinnett. Wie bildet sich ein Sonnensystem, wie die Planeten und die Sternengruppen? Wie hat unsere Erde sich entwickelt, welche Stufen hat sie durchgemacht und welche können ihr noch bevorstehen? Das sind Fragen, die in aller Breite in diesem «Esoterischen Buddhismus» behandelt werden. Dann erschien Ende der achtziger Jahre die «Geheimlehre» von Blavatsky, und sie behandelt im ersten Bande wieder die Frage: Wie hat sich das Weltsystem entwickelt? - und im zweiten Bande die Frage: Wie hat sich das Menschengeschlecht innerhalb unserer Erde entwickelt?
Nun brauche ich nur auf einen einzigen Punkt hinzuweisen, um die ganze Schwierigkeit zu zeigen. Wenn Sie den ersten Band der «Geheimlehre» von Blavatsky aufschlagen, so werden Sie finden, daß dort ein gewisser Teil der Behauptungen, die in dem Sinnettschen «Buddhismus» stehen, als irrig bezeichnet und teilweise richtiggestellt werden. Von den theosophischen Schriftstellern waren diese Dinge zum Teil mißverstanden, zum Teil mißverständlich dargestellt worden. Frau Blavatsky hatte diese Anschauungen daher richtigzustellen. Sie sagte, daß in bezug auf die theosophische Kosmologie eine Art babylonischer Sprachverwirrung bestanden habe und daß sich die führenden Persönlichkeiten [der Theosophischen Gesellschaft] in diesen Fragen durchaus nicht gleich ausgekannt hätten.
Sie alle wissen, daß die Lehren der «Secret Doctrine», der «Geheimlehre», von großen erhabenen Meistern mitgeteilt worden sind, die unserer Durchschnittsentwicklung weit vorausgeschritten sind. Es war ja schon vor der «Secret Doctrine» ein Buch erschienen, in dem Sinnett, der Verfasser des «Esoterischen Buddhismus», eine Reihe von Briefen eines Mahatmas veröffentlicht hat. Wir sehen daraus die Schwierigkeiten, welche dem Verständnis dieser Geheimlehre entgegenstehen, und wir verstehen, wie diejenigen, die, wie Sinnett und Blavatsky, beflissen waren, diese Lehren entgegenzunehmen, geradezu seufzten unter der Schwierigkeit, die Lehren, die ihnen entgegengebracht wurden, zu verstehen. Oh, so sagte ein Lehrer, ihr, die ihr gewohnt seid, zu begreifen mit einem anderen Verstand, ihr könnt das, was wir zu sagen haben, nicht verstehen, obgleich ihr euch die größte Mühe macht, um es euch zum Verständnis zu bringen. - Wenn wir uns diese Aussage vorhalten, dann müssen uns die Schwierigkeiten vor Augen treten. Überall, wo über Kosmologie vorgetragen wurde, sind mißverständliche Ansichten entstanden. Nun, das ist wohl begründet, so daß ich um einige Nachsicht bitten darf, wenn ich nun versuche, einiges zu dieser Lehre beizutragen.
Nun möchte ich etwas vorausschicken, was die Stellung der theosophischen Kosmologie zu der heutigen Wissenschaft und ihren Methoden klarlegt. Es könnte jajemand kommen und sagen: Seht die Fortschritte an, die unsere Astronomen gemacht haben; das verdanken wir den Fernrohren, den mathematischen und den photographischen Methoden, die uns zur Kenntnis von fernen Sternen geführt haben. -— Die heutige Wissenschaft mit ihren sorgfältigen Methoden scheint - nach ihrer Meinung - einzig und allein Anspruch zu haben, etwas über die Entwicklung des Weltsystems auszumachen. Sie scheint ein Recht darauf zu haben, zu verpönen, was von andrer Seite über die Entwicklung und Entstehung des Weltsystems gesagt wird. Mancher Astronom wird uns einwenden: Was ihr Theosophen uns da sagt von Kosmologie, das sind ja uralte Lehren, die die Chaldäer oder die Vedenpriester gelehrt haben und die zum ältesten Weisheitsbestand des Menschengeschlechts gehören; aber was kann das für eine Bedeutung haben, was vor Jahrtausenden gesagt worden ist, da doch erst seit Kopernikus die Lehre der Astronomie eine einigermaßen sichere Gestalt erhalten hat. - Also, was im ersten Band der «Geheimlehre» von Blavatsky steht, scheint nur dasjenige zu stören, was uns die mit Fernrohren und so weiter bewaffneten Astronomen klarmachen. Aber der Theosoph muß gar nicht in irgendeinen Widerspruch kommen zu dem, was der Astronom behauptet. Das ist nicht nötig, obgleich es Theosophen gibt, die glauben, die heutige Astronomie bekämpfen zu müssen, um für die eigenen Lehren Platz zu bekommen. Ich weiß sehr gut, daß die führenden Geister der theosophischen Bewegung glauben, die Astronomen belehren zu können. Durch ein einfaches Beispiel wollen wir den Standpunkt der Theosophen gegenüber dem der Astronomen beleuchten.
Nehmen Sie einen Dichter, an dessen Werk wir uns erfreuen und erbauen. Dieser Dichter wird vielleicht in einer anderen Persönlichkeit einen Biographen finden, und dieser Biograph wird versuchen, uns das Seelisch-Geistige, das der Dichter in seinem Innern hat, begreiflich zu machen und zu erklären. Es gibt aber noch eine andere Betrachtungsmöglichkeit, das ist die physiologische, die naturwissenschaftliche. Nehmen wir an, ein Naturforscher studiert den Dichter. Er studiert natürlich nur die für ihn interessanten physiologischen und physiognomischen Verhältnisse des Dichters; er studiert ihn vom naturwissenschaftlichen Standpunkte aus, und was er sehen und mit dem naturwissenschaftlichen Verstande kombinieren kann, das wird er uns von dem Dichter sagen. Wir als Theosophen würden sagen, der Naturforscher beschreibt und erklärt den Dichter vom Standpunkt des physischen Planes. — Dieser Naturforscher wird Ihnen aber kein Sterbenswörtchen sagen über das, was wir die Biographie des Dichters nennen, über sein Seelisch-Geistiges. So haben wir zwei nebeneinanderlaufende Betrachtungsweisen, die aber durchaus nicht miteinander kollidieren müssen. Warum sollte nicht .die naturwissenschaftliche Betrachtung stattfinden und daneben die geistig-seelische Betrachtung und jede in ihrer Art gelten? Das ist ja kein Eingriff des einen in das andere.
So ist es auch mit der naturwissenschaftlichen Kosmologie, mit dem, was uns unsere Astronomen von dem Weltgebäude und von der Entwicklung des Weltsystems sagen. Sie werden das sagen, was sich den äußeren Sinnen erschließen kann. Daneben ist aber auch eine geistig-seelische Betrachtungsweise möglich, und wenn man das Weltgebäude so erfaßt, dann wird man nie mit der Astronomie kollidieren; beide Betrachtungsweisen werden sich im Gegenteil manchmal stützen, denn sie gehen nebeneinander her, sie sind unabhängig voneinander. Als die naturwissenschaftliche Gehirnphysiologie zum Beispiel noch lange nicht so weit war wie heute, waren doch schon Leute da, die Biographien bedeutender Geister lieferten. Der Astronom kann daher nicht einwenden, daß die okkulte Betrachtungsweise überholt und unmöglich sei, weil Kopernikus die Astronomie auf eine andere Basis gestellt hat. Die okkulten Quellen sind ja ganz andere; sie waren schon lange vorher da, bevor das Auge geschult war, den Himmel durch Fernrohre zu betrachten, und bevor die Photographie soweit war, um Sterne zu photographieren. Die kopernikanische Forschung hat etwas ganz anderes zu sagen als die okkulte Forschung; und die eine Kraft in der menschlichen Seele ist von der anderen durchaus nicht abhängig. Die Kraft, die uns über das Geistig-Seelische Aufschluß gibt, geht so weit zurück, daß kein Geschichtsschreiber uns sagen kann, wo eigentlich diese Art der Betrachtung des Weltgebäudes anfängt. Es ist nicht möglich, ausfindig zu machen, wie die führenden Geister zu diesen okkulten Anschauungen gekommen sind.
Okkulte Schulen hat es auch in Europa schon vor der Begründung der Theosophischen Gesellschaft im Jahre 1875 gegeben. Allerdings wurde damals das Wissen, von dem wir heute in populärer Weise sprechen, nur in engen Zirkeln mitgeteilt. Es war ein strenges Gesetz, das Wissen nicht über den Bereich dieser Schulen hinaus wirken zu lassen. Wenn man eintreten wollte in eine Schule, so mußte man streng an sich arbeiten, bevor einem die ersten Wahrheiten übermittelt wurden. Man ging durchaus von der Ansicht aus, daß der Mensch sich erst reif machen muß zum Empfang dieser Wahrheiten. Es gab in den Schulen viele Grade, durch die man aufstieg, Prüfungsgrade; und wer als nicht reif genug erkannt wurde, mußte sich weiter vorbereiten. Wenn ich Ihnen diese Grade beschreiben wollte, so würde es Ihnen schwindeln vor der Strenge dieses Weges. Die Dinge über die Weltentwicklung wurden zu den allerwichtigsten gezählt, und erst auf den höchsten Stufen wurden sie den Menschen mitgeteilt. Im 17. Jahrhundert, das einen großen Einfluß auf die Kultur hatte, war dieses Wissen in den Händen der Rosenkreuzerbewegung. Diese ging ursprünglich von morgenländisch-orientalischem Wissen aus, und dieses Wissen wurde damals der europäischen Anhängerschaft in den verschiedensten Graden mitgeteilt. Am Ende des 18. und namentlich zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts verschwanden diese okkulten Schulen aus der Kultur Europas und die letzten Rosenkreuzer zogen sich zurück nach dem Orient. Es war das Zeitalter, in welchem die Menschen die Lebensverhältnisse nach dem äußeren Wissen zu ordnen hatten; die Erfindung der Dampfmaschine, die naturwissenschaftliche Erforschung der Zellen und so weiter kamen herauf. Dabei hatte die okkulte Weisheit nichts mitzusprechen, und diejenigen, welche an der höchsten Spitze dieser Weisheit angelangt waren, die Höchstgraduierten, zogen sich zurück nach dem Orient. Es gab zwar auch später noch okkulte Schulen, doch die können uns jetzt wenig interessieren; ich muß sie aber erwähnen, weil Frau Blavatsky und Herr Sinnett, als ste das kosmologische Wissen aus den buddhistischtibetanischen Geheimschulen empfingen, dazumal an die Grundquellen gingen.
Eine lange geistige Entwicklung in Europa hat das europäische Gehirn, das europäische Denkvermögen so weit gebracht, daß für das Erfassen okkulter Wahrheiten Schwierigkeiten bestanden. Nur noch schwer wurden diese Wahrheiten begriffen. Als nun dieses erste Wissen über die theosophische Kosmologie teils durch den «Esoterischen Buddhismus» und teils durch die «Geheimlehre» in die Öffentlichkeit drang, da horchten die Anhänger der okkulten Schulen auf, und es schien ihnen verkehrt zu sein, daß die strenge Regel, nichts hinausdringen zu lassen über die Grenzen ihrer Schulen, gebrochen worden war. Die Anhänger der theosophischen Bewegung aber wußten, daß es notwendig war, etwas davon mitzuteilen. Die Wissenschaft des Westens konnte aber mit dem Gesagten nichts anfangen, denn niemand war imstande zu prüfen, was Frau Blavatsky und Sinnett geschrieben hatten. Namentlich wußte man nichts anzufangen mit jenem herrlichen kosmologischen Lied, das aus den sogenannten Dzyan-Strophen besteht und den beiden Bänden von Frau Blavatskys «Geheimlehre» vorangestellt ist. Diese Strophen, welche uns die Geschichte des Weltalls erzählen, wurden in bezug auf ihre Echtheit angezweifelt; kein Naturforscher konnte damit etwas anfangen; es schien zunächst allem ins Gesicht zu schlagen, was die europäischen Gelehrten wußten. Es gab einen Forscher, einen Orientalisten, den ich aufs höchste verehre, Max Müller, der in energischer Weise sich für die orientalischen Weisheiten einsetzte. Alles, was an orientalischer Weisheit ihm erreichbar war, ist von Max Müller den Europäern zugänglich gemacht worden. Aber weder Max Müller noch andere europäische Forscher wußten mit dem etwas anzufangen, was Frau Blavatsky verkündete. Es war damals nur die Rede,. das sei reine Phantasie, was in der «Geheimlehre» stehe. Die Gelehrten hatten nämlich in den Büchern der Inder nirgends etwas davon gefunden.
Frau Blavatsky sagte, daß da, wo sie ihre Geheimnisse her habe, noch große Schätze von alter Literatur lägen, daß jedoch das Allerwichtigste über diese Weisheiten vor den Augen der europäischen Gelehrten verborgen gehalten worden sei. Es wurde ja selbst das Wenige, was davon mitgeteilt werden konnte, wegen der europäischen Denkweise nicht einmal verstanden; es fehlten die Kommentare, die den Schlüssel zum Verständnis enthielten. Die.Bücher, die zeigten, wie die einzelnen Sätze aufgefaßt werden sollten, würden in sorgfältigster Weise von den unterrichteten eingeborenen Tibetanern verwahrt, wenigstens sagte das Frau Blavatsky. Aber auch andere Vorgeschrittene behaupten, daß durch diese Literatur auch geschichtlich bezeugt ist, daß es eine Urweisheit gegeben hat, welche in spirituellen, in geistigen Dingen weit erhaben war über alles dasjenige, was heute die Welt weiß. Die orientalischen Weisen sagen, daß diese Urweisheit in denjenigen Büchern gegeben ist, die sie sorgfältig verwahrt haben, und daß diese Urweisheit uns nicht überliefert worden ist von Menschen unseresgleichen, sondern daß sie von Wesen höherer Art herrührt, daß sie herrührt aus göttlichen Quellen. Von einer göttlichen Urweisheit sprechen die Orientalen. Nun sagte aber Max Müller in einer Vorlesung vor seinen Studenten, die Forschung mache es nicht möglich zu behaupten, daß es eine solche Urweisheit gegeben hat. Darauf sagte ein großer brahmanischer Sanskritgelehrter, als ihm dieses Urteil Max Müllers durch Frau Blavatsky zu Ohren gekommen war: Oh, wäre Max Müller ein Brahmane und könnte ich ihn führen zu einer Tempelstätte, da könnte er sich überzeugen, daß es eine uralte göttliche Weisheit gibt.
Diejenigen Dinge, die Blavatsky durch die Dzyan-Strophen mitteilt, sind zum Teil aus solchen verborgenen und von ihr erschlossenen Quellen mit geschöpft worden. Wenn Frau Blavatsky diese Strophen selbst erfunden hätte, dann stünden wir nur vor einem noch viel höheren Wunder.
Wir sind aber nicht darauf angewiesen, die okkulten Mitteilungen über die Weltentstehung aus den alten Schriften zu nehmen. Es gibt im Menschen Kräfte, die ihn befähigen, die Wahrheiten selbst zu schauen und zu erforschen, wenn er diese Kräfte in der richtigen Weise ausbildet. Und was man auf diese Weise erfahren kann, das stimmt überein mit dem, was Frau Blavatsky aus dem Fernen Orient herüberbrachte. Es stellte sich heraus, daß auch in Europa die Okkultisten ein Wissen bewahrt haben, das von Generation zu Generation der Lehrer dem Schüler überlieferte und niemals Büchern anvertraut hat. Die Okkultisten konnten daher das, was Blavatsky in der «Geheimlehre» mitgeteilt hat, an ihrem eigenen Wissen prüfen, vor allen Dingen an demjenigen, das sie durch die eigenen Fähigkeiten erworben hatten. Auch derjenige, der auf europäische Weise geschult ist, kann sich dazu aufschwingen, das nachzuprüfen, was in Blavatskys «Geheimlehre» steht. Es ist auch nachgeprüft und bestätigt worden, aber es ist für die europäischen Okkultisten trotzdem schwer, sich damit zurechtzufinden. Nur eines sei erwähnt: Das europäische okkulte Wissen ist in ganz bestimmter Weise von christlichen und kabbalistischen Einflüssen bestimmt worden und hat daher einen einseitigen Charakter angenommen. Wenn man dies aber abrechnet und auf den Grund dieses Wissens zurückgeht, dann ist eine völlige Übereinstimmung mit dem möglich, was uns durch Frau Blavatsky erschlossen worden ist.
Obwohl also eine Art Prüfung dessen möglich war, was Frau Blavatsky als Kosmologie uns gebracht hat, ist es schwierig, den Gelehrten verständlich zu machen, was damit gemeint ist, wenn aus dem okkulten Wissen heraus über die Weltentstehung gesprochen wird. Es ist natürlich erstaunlich, was die Gelehrten an Entzifferungen der alten Urkunden leisten, wie sie sich abmühen, babylonische Keilschriften und ägyptische Hieroglyphen zu entziffern; aber Max Müller selbst sagt, daß das, was sie aus diesen Inschriften gefunden haben, noch kein Bild über die Weltentstehungsgeschichte gibt. Wir sehen, wie die Gelehrten gewissermaßen an der Schale herumarbeiten, aber nicht zum Kern vordringen. Es soll nichts gesagt werden gegen die große Sorgfalt und die feine Mosaikarbeit der Gelehrten. Ich will nur hinweisen auf die Bücher, die erschienen sind anläßlich des Bibel-Babel-Streites. Das alles sind Mosaikarbeiten; aber die Gelehrten bleiben an der Schale haften. Man fühlt, daß sie keine Ahnung haben von den Wegen, die zum Schlüssel zu diesen Geheimnissen führen. Es ist so, wie wenn einer damit anfängt, ein fremdsprachiges Buch in seine Sprache zu übersetzen. Zunächst ist es unvollkommen. So ist es mit den Übersetzungen alter Schöpfungsmythen durch unsere heutigen Gelehrten. Es sind Verstümmelungen der uralten Weisheitslehren, wie sie uns in den Geheimschulen von Generation zu. Generation mitgeteilt worden sind. Nur diejenigen, welche bis zu einem gewissen Grade der Einweihung gekommen waren, konnten etwas darüber wissen. Am Schluß dieser Vorträge werde ich darauf nochmals zurückkommen.
Eingeweihte sind es also, die durch eigene Erfahrung zu diesen Dingen kommen können. Sie werden fragen: Was ist eigentlich ein Eingeweihter; es wird in der Theosophie und in okkulten Gesellschaften so viel gesprochen von sogenannten Eingeweihten? — Ein Eingeweihter ist derjenige, der in hohem Grade Kräfte in sich entwickelt hat, die in jedem Menschen schlummern, die von ihm aber entwickelt werden können. Der Eingeweihte hat sie ausgebildet und sie bis zu einem solchen Grade sich angeeignet, daß er verstehen kann, welcher Art im Kosmos, im Weltgebäude die Kräfte sind, die für das in Betracht kommen, was ich auseinandersetzen will. Nun, Sie werden sagen: Es wird uns immer gesagt, daß es solche okkulten Kräfte gibt, die im Menschen schlummern, aber gewiß wird uns das nicht. - Das liegt nur an einem Mißverständnis. Nichts, gar nichts behauptet der Mystiker, der Okkultist, als was jeder Gelehrte auf seinem Felde auch behaupten kann. Denken Sie sich, jemand sagt Ihnen eine mathematische Wahrheit. Wenn Sie selbst niemals Mathematik gelernt haben, dann haben Sie nicht die Kenntnisse, um diese Wahrheit zu prüfen. Kein Mensch wird bestreiten, daß man zu der Beurteilung einer mathematischen Wahrheit die nötigen Fähigkeiten sich erst aneignen muß. Keine Autorität kann entscheiden über eine solche Wahrheit, nur der einzelne, der sie erfahren hat, kann allein darüber urteilen. So kann auch über eine okkulte Wahrheit nur derjenige entscheiden, der. eine solche Wahrheit selbst erfahren, selbst erlebt hat. Unsere heutigen Zeitgenossen verlangen aber von dem Okkultisten, er solle unmittelbar und für jeden Durchschnittsverstand das beweisen, was er zu sagen hat. Man beruft sich dabei auf den Satz: Was wahr ist, muß sich beweisen lassen, und jeder muß es einsehen können. — Der Okkultist behauptet aber nichts anderes, als was jeder andere Gelehrte auf seinem Gebiete auch behauptet, und er verlangt nichts, was nicht jeder Mathematiker auch verlangt.
Nun kann man fragen: Warum werden heute überhaupt okkulte Wahrheiten vorgetragen? Der Weg, den die bisherigen okkulten Schulen gegangen sind, war ja eben der, das Wissen in engen Kreisen zu bewahren. Diesen Weg gehen die Okkultisten der «Rechten» immer noch. Wer aber Erfahrung hat und die Zeichen unserer Zeit erkennt, der weiß, daß dies heute nicht mehr richtig ist. Und gerade diesem Umstand, daß dies heute nicht mehr richtig ist, verdankt die theosophische Weltbewegung ihre Entstehung. Was in der gegenwärtigen Zeit am meisten ausgebildet ist, das ist der Verstand. Unserem kombinierenden Denken, in Verbindung mit den Sinnen, verdanken wir die Erfolge in der Industrie und in der Technik. Dieser Verstand, diese Intellektualität hat im 19. Jahrhundert ihre größten Triumphe gefeiert. Das äußere, verstandesmäßige Denken ist noch niemals so beherrscht worden wie heute. Wenn ich sagte, daß die orientalischen Weisen eine Urweisheit besaßen, so haben sie diese in einer ganz anderen Form als in der Form des heutigen Denkens besessen. Auch die größten Meister des Orients hatten nicht diesen Scharfsinn des logischen Denkens, diese reine Logizität; sie hatten sie auch nicht nötig. Es war deshalb auch schwierig, sie zu verstehen. Sie hatten Intuition, inneres Schauen. Wahre Intuition wird nicht durch logisches Denken, nicht durch kombinierendes Denken erhalten, sondern eine Wahrheit steht unmittelbar vor dem Geiste des Betreffenden. Er weiß sie. Man braucht sie ihm nicht zu beweisen.
Jetzt haben die Lehrer der theosophischen Bewegung das Recht, einen gewissen Teil der okkulten Weisheit mitzuteilen. Wir haben das Recht, die Weisheit, die uns übermittelt wurde in der Form der Intuition, einzukleiden in die Gedankenformen des modernen Lebens. Der Gedanke ist eine Kraft wie die Elektrizität, eine Kraft wie die Dampfkraft, wie die Wärmekraft; und wer diese Gedanken aufnimmt, die innerhalb der theosophischen Bewegung vorgetragen werden, wer sich ihnen hingibt und ihnen nicht von vornherein mißtrauisch begegnet, in dem sind diese Gedanken eine Kraft. Die Zuhörer merken es zunächst nicht, der Same geht erst später auf. Kein theosophischer Lehrer verlangt etwas anderes, als daß ihm zugehört wird. Er verlangt nicht blinden Glauben, sondern nur Zuhören. Weder das gläubige Annehmen noch das ungläubige Abweisen ist der richtige Standpunkt. Der Zuhörer soll die Gedanken, die ihm mitgeteilt werden, nur nachdenken, frei von Glauben und Zweifel, frei von Ja und Nein. Er muß sich «neutral» einstellen und «probeweise» die Lehren im Geiste wirken lassen. Wer die theosophischen Gedanken so auf sich wirken läßt, der hat nicht nur Gedanken, sondern es ergießt sich in ihn eine spirituelle Kraft, die auf ihn wirkt und ihn befruchter.
Weil die westeuropäische Kultur das Denken so weit ausgebildet hat, deshalb finden die Menschen am leichtesten Zugang durch das Denken. Auch die gläubigsten Kirchenchristen können sich heute keine Vorstellung mehr davon machen, in welcher Weise man früher geglaubt hat. Diese Quelle der Überzeugung fließt heute nicht mehr. Wir müssen unsere Gedanken heute ganz anders befruchten. Weil früher das Denken nicht gepflegt worden ist, deshalb konnten die spirituellen Mitteilungen nur in geheimen Schulen gegeben werden. Heute müssen wir uns mit dem Spirituellen an die Kraft des Gedankens wenden, dann entzünden wir die Gedanken so, daß sie in uns leben. Der spirituelle Redner spricht in ganz anderer Weise zu seinen Zuhörern als der gewöhnliche Redner. Er spricht so, daß eine Art spirituelles Fluidum, spirituelle Kräfte von ihm ausströmen. Der Zuhörer soll ohne ausgesprochenes Ja oder Nein einen Gedanken wie etwas ganz Objektives hinnehmen, mit diesem Gedanken leben, über ihn meditieren und ihn auf sich wirken lassen. Dann wird durch den Gedanken Kraft in uns angefacht werden.
Wir müssen heute die okkulten Wahrheiten über die Weltentstehung und Weltbildung in der Form europäischer Gedanken und moderner Wissenschaftlichkeit verkündigen. In dieser Richtung werden diese Vorträge handeln: von den Zuständen, welche der Bildung unserer Erde vorangegangen sind. Wir werden zurückgeführt in uralte Zeiten, wo sich aus grauestem Dämmerdunkel heraus diejenige Wesenheit gebildet hat, die dann zum Menschen geworden ist. Wir werden auf diejenige Stufe geführt, wo dieser Mensch empfangen worden ist von irdischen Kräften, wo er umgeben worden ist mit irdischer Materie, bis zu dem Punkte, wo er heute steht. Wir werden die vorirdische und die irdische Entwicklung unseres Weltgebäudes kennenlernen und sehen, wie die Theosophie uns einen Ausblick gibt auf die Zukunft, wir werden sehen, wohin unsere Weltentwicklung weitergeht. Alles das wollen wir zeigen, ohne daß wir uns den Vorstellungen der heutigen Astronomen entgegenstellen. Wir werden, wenn wir die in uns schlummernden Kräfte entwickeln, selbst das große Ziel einsehen, dem wir zusteuern: der Erringung kosmologischer Weisheit. Diese kosmologische Weisheit lassen Sie uns in den nächsten Stunden betrachten.
First Lecture
The series of lectures on the basic elements of theosophy, which I announced some time ago, will have to be postponed until later, when there may be more interest. I have postponed these lectures and decided to fill the Thursdays of the coming period with some developments on cosmology, world development, that is, on the doctrine of the origin of the world and the formation of man within this world in the theosophical sense.
Now, I am well aware that I am about to deal with one of the most difficult chapters of theosophical teaching, and I can tell you that some of our lodges have decided not to deal with this chapter at all for the time being because it is too difficult. Nevertheless, I have decided to do so because I believe that the hints I am able to give may be of use to some. Even if we cannot immediately penetrate such a difficult subject completely, we will at least be able to gain inspiration that may serve us later on in delving deeper into this matter.
Those who have been involved in the theosophical movement for some time will know that the questions: How did the world actually come into being? How did it gradually develop to the point where beings such as ourselves can inhabit it? – that these questions are among the very first to have been addressed in the theosophical movement. Not only one of the first books to draw attention in the West to ancient worldviews, H. P. Blavatsky's “Isis Unveiled,” dealt with such questions of the origin and development of the world, but also the book to which we perhaps owe the majority of our oldest followers, Sinnett's “Esoteric Buddhism.” How is a solar system formed, how are the planets and star groups formed? How did our Earth develop, what stages has it gone through, and what stages may still lie ahead? These are questions that are dealt with in great detail in Esoteric Buddhism. Then, at the end of the 1880s, Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine appeared, and in the first volume it again deals with the question: How did the world system develop? - and in the second volume with the question: How did the human race develop within our Earth?
Now I need only point out one single point to show the whole difficulty. If you open the first volume of Blavatsky's “The Secret Doctrine,” you will find that a certain part of the assertions contained in Sinnett's “Buddhism” are described as erroneous and partially corrected. Some of these things had been misunderstood by theosophical writers, and some had been presented in a misleading way. Mrs. Blavatsky therefore had to correct these views. She said that there had been a kind of Babylonian confusion of languages with regard to theosophical cosmology and that the leading figures [of the Theosophical Society] were by no means equally knowledgeable about these questions.
You all know that the teachings of the “Secret Doctrine” were communicated by great exalted masters who are far ahead of our average development. Even before the “Secret Doctrine,” a book had been published in which Sinnett, the author of “Esoteric Buddhism,” published a series of letters from a Mahatma. From this we can see the difficulties that stand in the way of understanding this secret doctrine, and we understand how those who, like Sinnett and Blavatsky, were eager to receive these teachings, literally sighed under the difficulty of understanding the teachings that were presented to them. Oh, said one teacher, you who are accustomed to understanding with a different mind, you cannot understand what we have to say, even though you make the greatest effort to comprehend it. When we consider this statement, the difficulties become clear to us. Wherever cosmology has been taught, misunderstandings have arisen. Well, this is well-founded, so I ask for your indulgence as I now attempt to contribute something to this teaching.
Now I would like to preface this with something that clarifies the position of theosophical cosmology in relation to today's science and its methods. Someone might come along and say: Look at the progress our astronomers have made; we owe this to telescopes, mathematical and photographic methods, which have led us to knowledge of distant stars. — Modern science, with its careful methods, seems — in its opinion — to have the sole right to determine anything about the development of the world system. It seems to have the right to condemn what others say about the development and origin of the world system. Some astronomers will object: What you theosophists tell us about cosmology are ancient teachings that were taught by the Chaldeans or the Vedic priests and belong to the oldest wisdom of mankind; but what significance can something have that was said thousands of years ago, when it was only since Copernicus that the teaching of astronomy has taken on a reasonably reliable form? So, what is written in the first volume of Blavatsky's “The Secret Doctrine” seems to contradict only what astronomers armed with telescopes and so forth make clear to us. But the theosophist does not have to contradict what the astronomer claims. That is not necessary, although there are theosophists who believe they must fight today's astronomy in order to make room for their own teachings. I know very well that the leading minds of the theosophical movement believe they can teach astronomers. Let us illustrate the theosophists' point of view in relation to that of the astronomers with a simple example.
Take a poet whose work we enjoy and find uplifting. This poet may find a biographer in another personality, and this biographer will try to make us understand and explain the spiritual and mental qualities that the poet has within him. But there is another way of looking at it, namely the physiological, scientific way. Let us suppose that a natural scientist studies the poet. Naturally, he studies only those physiological and physiognomic aspects of the poet that are of interest to him; he studies him from a scientific point of view, and he will tell us what he can see and combine with his scientific understanding. We as theosophists would say that the natural scientist describes and explains the poet from the standpoint of the physical plane. But this natural scientist will not tell you a single word about what we call the poet's biography, about his soul and spirit. So we have two parallel approaches, but they do not necessarily conflict with each other. Why should not the scientific view coexist alongside the spiritual-soul view, each valid in its own way? After all, one does not interfere with the other.
The same is true of scientific cosmology, of what our astronomers tell us about the structure of the world and the development of the world system. They will say what can be perceived by the outer senses. But alongside this, a spiritual-soul approach is also possible, and if one understands the structure of the world in this way, one will never conflict with astronomy; on the contrary, both approaches will sometimes support each other, because they go hand in hand and are independent of each other. For example, when scientific brain physiology was still far from as advanced as it is today, there were already people who provided biographies of important minds. The astronomer cannot therefore object that the occult approach is outdated and impossible because Copernicus placed astronomy on a different basis. The occult sources are quite different; they existed long before the eye was trained to observe the heavens through telescopes and before photography was advanced enough to photograph stars. Copernican research has something quite different to say than occult research, and one force in the human soul is by no means dependent on the other. The power that gives us insight into the spiritual and soul aspects of life goes back so far that no historian can tell us where this way of looking at the structure of the world actually began. It is not possible to find out how the leading minds came to these occult views.
Occult schools already existed in Europe before the Theosophical Society was founded in 1875. However, at that time, the knowledge we talk about in popular terms today was only shared within small circles. There was a strict law that this knowledge should not be allowed to spread beyond the confines of these schools. If one wanted to enter a school, one had to work hard on oneself before the first truths were imparted. It was generally assumed that a person had to be mature enough to receive these truths. There were many degrees in the schools, through which one had to progress, examination degrees; and those who were not considered mature enough had to continue their preparation. If I were to describe these degrees to you, you would be dizzy at the severity of this path. Matters concerning world development were considered to be of the utmost importance, and only at the highest levels were they communicated to people. In the 17th century, which had a great influence on culture, this knowledge was in the hands of the Rosicrucian movement. This originally stemmed from Eastern knowledge, and this knowledge was communicated to European followers at various levels at that time. At the end of the 18th century and especially at the beginning of the 19th century, these occult schools disappeared from European culture and the last Rosicrucians withdrew to the Orient. It was an age in which people had to organize their living conditions according to external knowledge; the invention of the steam engine, scientific research into cells, and so on came to the fore. Occult wisdom had no say in this, and those who had reached the highest level of this wisdom, the highest graduates, withdrew to the Orient. There were still occult schools later on, but they are of little interest to us now; however, I must mention them because Mrs. Blavatsky and Mr. Sinnett, when they received cosmological knowledge from the Buddhist-Tibetan secret schools, went to the primary sources at that time.
A long spiritual development in Europe had brought the European brain, the European capacity for thought, to such a point that it was difficult to grasp occult truths. These truths were now only difficult to understand. When this first knowledge of theosophical cosmology became public, partly through Esoteric Buddhism and partly through The Secret Doctrine, the followers of the occult schools took notice, and it seemed wrong to them that the strict rule of not letting anything leak out beyond the boundaries of their schools had been broken. The followers of the theosophical movement, however, knew that it was necessary to communicate something of it. Western science, however, could not make sense of what had been said, because no one was able to verify what Mrs. Blavatsky and Sinnett had written. In particular, no one knew what to make of that magnificent cosmological song consisting of the so-called Dzyan stanzas, which precedes the two volumes of Mrs. Blavatsky's “Secret Doctrine.” The authenticity of these stanzas, which tell us the history of the universe, was questioned; no natural scientist could make sense of them; at first glance, they seemed to contradict everything European scholars knew. There was one researcher, an Orientalist whom I greatly admire, Max Müller, who energetically championed Oriental wisdom. Max Müller made all the Oriental wisdom available to him accessible to Europeans. But neither Max Müller nor other European researchers knew what to make of what Madame Blavatsky proclaimed. At that time, it was said that what was written in The Secret Doctrine was pure fantasy. The scholars had found nothing about it anywhere in the books of the Indians.Mrs. Blavatsky said that where she had obtained her secrets, there were still great treasures of ancient literature, but that the most important aspects of this wisdom had been kept hidden from the eyes of European scholars. Even the little that could be communicated was not understood because of the European way of thinking; the commentaries that contained the key to understanding were missing. The books that showed how the individual sentences should be understood were carefully guarded by the educated native Tibetans, at least according to Madame Blavatsky. But other advanced individuals also claim that this literature provides historical evidence that there was a primordial wisdom that was far superior to anything the world knows today in spiritual and intellectual matters. The Oriental sages say that this primordial wisdom is contained in the books they have carefully preserved, and that this primordial wisdom has not been handed down to us by people like ourselves, but that it originates from beings of a higher order, that it originates from divine sources. The Orientals speak of a divine primordial wisdom. But Max Müller said in a lecture to his students that research does not make it possible to claim that such primordial wisdom has existed. When a great Brahmin Sanskrit scholar heard of Max Müller's opinion from Madame Blavatsky, he said: “Oh, if only Max Müller were a Brahmin and I could take him to a temple site, he could convince himself that there is an ancient divine wisdom.”
The things that Blavatsky communicates through the Dzyan stanzas have been drawn in part from such hidden sources that she has tapped into. If Madame Blavatsky had invented these stanzas herself, then we would be faced with an even greater miracle.
However, we are not dependent on taking the occult messages about the creation of the world from the ancient writings. There are powers within man that enable him to see and explore the truths himself, if he trains these powers in the right way. And what can be experienced in this way corresponds to what Madame Blavatsky brought back from the Far East. It turned out that occultists in Europe had also preserved knowledge that had been passed down from generation to generation of teachers to students and never entrusted to books. The occultists were therefore able to test what Blavatsky had communicated in The Secret Doctrine against their own knowledge, especially that which they had acquired through their own abilities. Even those who have been trained in the European way can bring themselves to verify what is written in Blavatsky's “The Secret Doctrine.” It has been verified and confirmed, but it is still difficult for European occultists to come to terms with it. Just one thing should be mentioned: European occult knowledge has been influenced in a very specific way by Christian and Kabbalistic influences and has therefore taken on a one-sided character. However, if one disregards this and goes back to the roots of this knowledge, then it is possible to find complete agreement with what has been revealed to us by Madame Blavatsky.
Although it was possible to examine what Madame Blavatsky brought us in terms of cosmology, it is difficult to make scholars understand what is meant when occult knowledge is used to discuss the creation of the world. It is, of course, astonishing what scholars have achieved in deciphering ancient documents, how they have struggled to decipher Babylonian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics; but Max Müller himself says that what they have found in these inscriptions does not yet give a picture of the history of the creation of the world. We see how scholars are working on the shell, so to speak, but are not getting to the core. Nothing should be said against the great care and fine mosaic work of the scholars. I only want to point to the books that have been published on the occasion of the Bible-Babel controversy. These are all mosaic works, but the scholars remain stuck on the shell. One senses that they have no idea of the paths that lead to the key to these mysteries. It is like when someone begins to translate a book written in a foreign language into their own language. At first, it is imperfect. So it is with the translations of ancient creation myths by our modern scholars. They are mutilations of the ancient wisdom teachings as they have been passed down to us from generation to generation in the secret schools. Only those who had reached a certain degree of initiation could know anything about them. At the end of these lectures, I will come back to this again.
It is therefore initiates who can arrive at these things through their own experience. You will ask: What actually is an initiate? There is so much talk in theosophy and occult societies about so-called initiates. An initiate is someone who has developed to a high degree the powers that lie dormant in every human being but can be developed by them. The initiate has trained these powers and acquired them to such a degree that he can understand the nature of the forces in the cosmos, in the structure of the world, that are relevant to what I am about to discuss. Now, you will say: We are always told that there are such occult powers slumbering in human beings, but we certainly do not know this. That is only due to a misunderstanding. The mystic, the occultist, claims nothing, absolutely nothing, that every scholar in his field cannot also claim. Imagine someone tells you a mathematical truth. If you have never studied mathematics yourself, then you do not have the knowledge to verify this truth. No one will dispute that one must first acquire the necessary skills to judge a mathematical truth. No authority can decide on such a truth; only the individual who has experienced it can judge it. Similarly, only those who have experienced such a truth themselves can decide on an occult truth. However, our contemporaries demand that the occultist prove what he has to say immediately and for every average mind. They invoke the principle that what is true must be provable and understandable to everyone. But the occultist claims nothing more than what every other scholar in his field claims, and he demands nothing that every mathematician does not also demand.
Now one may ask: Why are occult truths being presented at all today? The path that the occult schools have taken up to now has been to preserve knowledge within narrow circles. The occultists of the “right” still follow this path. But those who have experience and recognize the signs of our times know that this is no longer correct today. And it is precisely because this is no longer right today that the theosophical world movement owes its existence. What is most developed in the present age is the intellect. We owe our successes in industry and technology to our combinatorial thinking in connection with the senses. This intellect, this intellectuality, celebrated its greatest triumphs in the 19th century. External, intellectual thinking has never been as dominant as it is today. When I said that the Eastern sages possessed a primordial wisdom, they possessed it in a form quite different from that of today's thinking. Even the greatest masters of the East did not have this sharpness of logical thinking, this pure logic; nor did they need it. That is why it was difficult to understand them. They had intuition, inner vision. True intuition is not obtained through logical thinking, not through combinatorial thinking, but rather a truth stands directly before the mind of the person concerned. He knows it. There is no need to prove it to him.
Now the teachers of the theosophical movement have the right to impart a certain part of occult wisdom. We have the right to clothe the wisdom that has been transmitted to us in the form of intuition in the thought forms of modern life. Thought is a force like electricity, a force like steam power, like heat power; and for those who take in these thoughts presented within the theosophical movement, who devote themselves to them and do not treat them with suspicion from the outset, these thoughts are a force. The listeners do not notice it at first; the seed only sprouts later. No theosophical teacher demands anything other than to be listened to. He does not demand blind faith, but only listening. Neither believing acceptance nor incredulous rejection is the correct standpoint. The listener should only reflect on the thoughts communicated to him, free from belief and doubt, free from yes and no. They must adopt a “neutral” attitude and allow the teachings to work in their mind “on a trial basis.” Those who allow theosophical thoughts to work on them in this way not only have thoughts, but a spiritual power pours into them, which works on them and fertilizes them.
Because Western European culture has developed thinking to such an extent, people find it easiest to access through thinking. Even the most devout church Christians today can no longer form a mental image of how people used to believe. This source of conviction no longer flows today. Today, we must fertilize our thoughts in a completely different way. Because thinking was not cultivated in the past, spiritual messages could only be imparted in secret schools. Today, we must turn to the power of thought with the spiritual, then we ignite the thoughts so that they live within us. The spiritual speaker addresses his listeners in a completely different way than the ordinary speaker. He speaks in such a way that a kind of spiritual fluid, spiritual forces, flow out from him. Without saying yes or no, the listener should accept a thought as something completely objective, live with this thought, meditate on it, and let it work on him. Then the thought will kindle power within us.
Today we must proclaim the occult truths about the origin and formation of the world in the form of European thought and modern science. These lectures will deal with this subject: the conditions that preceded the formation of our Earth. We will be taken back to ancient times, when, out of the gravest twilight darkness, the entity that later became human beings was formed. We will be led to the stage where this human being was conceived by earthly forces, where he was surrounded by earthly matter, to the point where he stands today. We will learn about the pre-earthly and earthly development of our world structure and see how theosophy gives us a glimpse of the future; we will see where our world development is heading. We want to show all this without contradicting the mental images of today's astronomers. If we develop the powers that lie dormant within us, we will ourselves see the great goal towards which we are heading: the attainment of cosmological wisdom. Let us consider this cosmological wisdom in the next few hours.