Theosophic/Esoteric Cosmology
GA 89
26 May 1904, Berlin
I. Spiritual Cosmology
The lecture cycle on the basic elements of Theosophy that I recently announced will have to be given later at a more appropriate time. I have postponed those lectures and decided for now to dedicate Thursdays to the subject of cosmology, the evolution of the world, that is, the teaching about the inception of the world and the shaping of the human being within this world in a theosophical sense.
I am aware that this involves the most difficult chapter of theosophical teaching, and I can inform you that several of our branches have decided not to even touch upon this chapter because it is too difficult. Nevertheless, I have decided to do so, because I believe that the indications I am able to give may be useful to many of you. Even though we cannot cover the subject completely at once, we can nevertheless receive indications that will serve to allow us to penetrate more deeply into the material later.
Those of you who have been involved in the theosophical movement for a long time will know that these questions—How did the world begin? How did it evolve to the point where human beings can inhabit it?—are the first ones taken up in the theosophical movement. Not only one of the first books that brought the attention of the west to the ancient world view, “Isis Unveiled” by H. P. Blavatsky, treated the questions about the beginning and evolution of the world, but also the book to which we owe the majority of our oldest followers, “Esoteric Buddhism”, by Sinnet. How does a solar system form? How did the planets and the star groups come into existence? How did our Earth develop? What stages did it go through and which ones still stand before it? These questions are dealt with in depth in “Esoteric Buddhism”. Then at the end of the 1880s Blavatsky's “The Secret Doctrine” appeared, and in the first volume it deals with the question: How did the world system evolve?—and in the second volume: How did the human race evolve on Earth?
I only need to point to one thing in order to show the difficulties involved. When you open the first volume of Blavatsky's “Secret Doctrine”, you find that certain assertions in Sinnet's “Buddhism” are described as erroneous and are partially corrected. The theosophical writers misunderstood some of these things and some of them were incorrectly described. Therefore Mrs. Blavatsky corrected them. She said that a kind of Babylonian speech confusion occurred and that the leading personalities [of the Theosophical Society] were not really knowledgeable concerning these questions. You all know that exalted masters who are far beyond our average development imparted the teachings in “The Secret Doctrine”. Already before the “Secret Doctrine” a book appeared in which Sinnet, the author of “Esoteric Buddhism”, published a series of letters from a Mahatma. We see from this the difficulties in understanding this secret doctrine, and we understand how Sinnet and Blavatsky, so diligent in receiving this teaching, were downright desperate at the difficulty in understanding it. “Oh”, one of the teachers said, “you are accustomed to grasp things with a different intellect and so cannot understand what we have to say even though you make a great effort to do so”. If we consider this statement, the difficulty becomes apparent. Misunderstandings arise everywhere that cosmology is taught. Having explained all that, I ask your indulgence if I now try to contribute something about this teaching.
I would like to begin by clarifying the position of theosophical cosmology in relation to modern science and its methods. Some could say: look at the advances our astronomers have made; we can attribute that to the telescopes, the mathematical and photographic methods that have given us knowledge of distant stars. Present day science with its thorough methods seems—in their opinion—to be the only reliable source of knowledge about the evolution of the world system. They feel they have the right to ridicule whatever is said from the other side concerning this subject. Many an astronomer will object: What you theosophists tell us about astronomy is ancient wisdom that the Chaldeans or Veden priests taught and that belongs to the oldest stores of wisdom that humanity possesses; but what meaning can what was said thousands of years ago have when it is only since Copernicus that astronomy has acquired a relatively firm basis. Therefore, what Blavatsky says in “The Secret Doctrine” seems only to contradict what our telescopes and so forth make clear to us astronomers. But the theosophist does not need to contradict what the astronomer claims. It isn't necessary, although there are theosophists who think they must fight against present day astronomy in order to make room for their own teaching. I know very well that the leaders of the theosophical movement think they can instruct astronomers. I would like to illustrate the theosophists' [correct] attitude in respect to astronomers with one simple example.
Take a poet whose work gives us pleasure. This poet may find a biographer who will try to explain the inner spiritual aspects of the poet's being. There is, however, another possibility—the physiological, the scientific way. Let's say that a natural scientist studies the poet. He will only take into consideration the poet's physiological and physiognomic characteristics; he studies him from the natural scientific point of view, and will tell us what he can see and combine with a natural scientific understanding. We as theosophists would say that this investigator describes the poet from the standpoint of the physical plane. He won't say a word about what we call the poet's biography—the soul-spiritual aspect. So we would have two coexisting ways of describing the poet, which do not need to contradict each other at all. Why shouldn't the natural scientific and the soul-spiritual coexist and each be relevant in its own way? One doesn't have to contradict the other.
It is the same with natural scientific cosmology, with what our astronomers tell us about the structure of the world and the evolution of the world system. They will say what their physical senses reveal to them. Alongside this, however, the soul-spiritual way of looking at things is possible, and when we look at it this way, we will never collide with astronomy; on the contrary, both ways of thinking will sometimes support each other. When, for example, scientific brain physiology was far less advanced than it is now, there were authors who wrote biographies of important people. The astronomer cannot therefore object that the esoteric way of thinking is antiquated and impossible just because Copernicus gave astronomy a new basis. The esoteric sources are completely different; they existed long before the eye learned to observe the heavens through telescopes and before the stars could be photographed. Copernican and esoteric research have quite different things to say; and the force of the one in the human soul is not dependent on the other. The force that gives us information about the soul-spiritual aspects goes so far back that no historian can tell us when this way of describing the world structure began. It is not possible to discover how the spiritual leaders came upon these esoteric views.
Esoteric schools existed in Europe before the founding of the Theosophical Society in 1875. The knowledge was only disseminated in small circles, however. A strict rule stated that the knowledge was not to pass beyond the walls of the schools. If someone wanted to enter a school, he had to work hard on himself before the first truths were communicated to him. It was held that a person had to make himself ready before receiving these truths. There were many degrees in the schools through which one had to pass—trial grades; and whoever was considered not ready had to prepare himself further. If I described those degrees to you, the strictness of the trials would make you dizzy. The things about the evolution of the world were considered to be the most important and were communicated only to those who had reached the highest degrees. During the 17th century, which had a great influence on culture, this knowledge was in the hands of the Rosenkreuz (Rose Cross) movement, which was originally based on oriental knowledge, and this knowledge was passed on to the European adepts in the various degrees. At the end of the 18th century and especially at the beginning of the 19th century, these esoteric schools disappeared from the European cultural scene and the last Rosenkreuz adepts withdrew to the Orient. It was the era in which men were to organize life according to external knowledge; the invention of the steam engine, scientific research into cell biology and so on came about. Esoteric wisdom had nothing to contribute then and those who had reached the highest points of this wisdom, the highest grades, withdrew to the Orient. Although there were esoteric schools later on, they do not interest us much now; but I must mention them because Mrs. Blavatsky and Mr. Sinnet, when they received cosmological knowledge from the Tibet-Buddhist esoteric schools, went to the basic sources.
A long spiritual development in Europe had brought the European brain, the European thinking ability, to such a point that difficulties arose for the understanding of esoteric truths. These truths were understood only through great exertion. When this knowledge was first made public partly by “Esoteric Buddhism”, partly by “The Secret Doctrine”, the followers of the esoteric schools took notice, and it seemed to them a mistake that the strict rule not to let anything go beyond the walls of the schools had been broken. The followers of the theosophical movement knew, however, that it was necessary to make some of these things known. Western science could not accept what they said because no one was able to prove what Mrs. Blavatsky and Sinnet had written. Especially puzzling was the beautiful cosmological song that comes from the so-called Dzyan verses,1Later, the Tibetologist David Reigel identified these verses as a part of the “Kui-Te” books, probably also as the fifth, esoteric part of the “Kalachakra-Tantra” with the title “Jnana”. which introduce both volumes of Madame Blavatsky's book. The authenticity of these verses, which relate the history of the universe, was challenged; no scientific investigator could make anything of them; it all seemed a slap in the face of everything European scholars knew. There was one researcher, an orientalist named Max Müller,2Max Müller, 1823-1900, one of the most well-known orientalism, speech and religion experts. He was a member of the Theosophical Society, as long as it stood on a purely Indian philosophical basis. whom I greatly respect, who energetically stood up for oriental wisdom. Everything he was able to learn about oriental wisdom he made available to Europe. But neither Max Müller nor any other scientist could do anything with what Madame Blavatsky proclaimed. They all said that the contents of “The Secret Doctrine” were pure fantasy. The scholars had never found anything like it in Indian documents.
Madame Blavatsky said that the place where she had obtained her secrets still contained great treasures of ancient literature, but that the most important parts of this wisdom had been kept protected from western eyes. Even the little that was revealed wasn't understood because of the European way of thinking; the commentary that contained the key to understanding was lacking. The books that showed how the individual propositions were to be understood were carefully hidden by the native Tibetan instructors—at least that's what Madame Blavatsky said. But other thinkers claimed that this literature testifies that an ancient wisdom existed that went far beyond anything the world knows about spiritual matters today. The oriental wise men say that ancient wisdom is contained in those books, which they have carefully protected, and that this ancient wisdom has not been handed down by people like us, but they derive from higher beings, that they derive from divine sources. The Orientals speak of a divine ancient wisdom. But Max Müller said in a lecture to his students that it is not possible to verify that such an ancient wisdom existed. When a great Brahmin Sanskrit scholar heard about this from Mrs. Blavatsky, he said: Oh, if only Max Müller were a Brahmin and I could take him to a temple; I could convince him there that a divine wisdom exists.
The things that Blavatsky revealed through the Dzyan verses are in part from such hidden sources. If Mrs. Blavatsky had invented these verses by herself we would be facing an even greater wonder.
We are not obliged, however, to take the esoteric messages about the origin of the world from the old writings. There are forces in man that enable him to observe and investigate the truths himself, when he develops these forces in the right way. And what one can experience in this way agrees with what Mrs. Blavatsky brought from the Far East. It turns out that the occultists in Europe also protected knowledge that the teacher passed on from generation to generation without ever entrusting it to books. The occultists could therefore assess what Blavatsky indicated in “The Secret Doctrine” according to their own knowledge, especially what they had acquired through their own capabilities. It was tested and confirmed,3An obvious reference to “The Transcendental Universe, 6 lectures on occult science, theosophy and the Catholic faith”, London 1893/94. but it is nevertheless difficult for the European occultist to come to terms with it. I will just mention one point: European esoteric knowledge is in a very definite way determined by Christian and Cabbalistic influences and has therefore taken on a one-sided character. If we take this into consideration though, and go back to the basis of this knowledge, full agreement with what has been revealed through Mrs. Blavatsky is possible.
Although a kind of verification of what Mrs. Blavatsky told us about cosmology was possible, it is difficult to make the scholars understand what is meant when the origin of the world is spoken of based on esoteric knowledge. It is of course amazing what the scholars have accomplished in deciphering the old documents, how they struggle to decipher the Babylonian cuneiform characters and the Egyptian hieroglyphics; but Max Müller said that these inscriptions give no indication about the origin of the world. We see how the scholars work around the edge of things and don't get to the core. I am not criticizing the great care and the exact mosaic work the scholars have performed. I will only point to the books that have appeared concerning the Bible-Babel arguments.4Friedrich Delitzsch, 1850-1922, Professor of Assyrology and Semitic languages, found a certain relationship between the Old Testament and Assyrian creation myths (“Bibel und Babel”, Leipzig 1902). His lectures on the subject generated vehement arguments and many articles contradicting him. That is all fine mosaic work, but the scholars are stuck at the periphery. One feels that they have no idea of how to arrive at the key to these mysteries. It is like when one begins to translate a book written in a foreign language. At first it is imperfect. It's the same with the translations of the old creation myths by our scholars. These are mutilations of the ancient teachings that were handed down from generation to generation. Only those who reached a certain degree of initiation could know something about them. At the end of these lectures I will come back to this.
Initiates are those who have attained knowledge of these things through their own experience. You may ask: what is an initiate anyway? In Theosophy and in the esoteric societies so much is said about so-called initiates. An initiate is one who has developed to a high degree the force that slumbers in every person—and which can be developed by every person. The initiate has cultivated these forces and adapted them to the point that he can understand what kind of forces in the universe are the subjects of what I want to explain. Well, you will say: we are always told that such occult forces exist which slumber in men, but that doesn't make it certain. That is the result of a misunderstanding. The mystic, the occultist, does not assert anything that a scholar cannot assert in his field. Let's say that someone tells you a mathematical truth. If you haven't studied mathematics you don't have the necessary knowledge to verify this truth. No one will deny that to judge a mathematical truth the necessary capacities must be attained first. No authority can decide about such a truth, only the individual who has experienced it can judge. And only someone who has experienced an esoteric truth can judge it. Our contemporaries, however, demand that the occultist prove what he says to the satisfaction of every average intelligence. They stand by the sentence: what is true must be provable and everyone must be able to understand it. The occultist, however, asserts nothing else than what any other scholar asserts in his own field, and he demands nothing more than every mathematician also demands.
You could ask: why are occult truths reported today? The previous method used by the esoteric schools was to keep them in small groups. This method is still used by the occultists of the “right”. Whoever has experience and can read the signs of the times, however, knows that this is no longer correct. And the fact that it is no longer correct is the reason for the origin of the theosophical world movement. What is most developed in our times is understanding. We thank the advances in industry and technology to our combining thinking with the senses. This understanding, or intellectualism, celebrated its greatest triumphs in the 19th century. Intellectual thinking has never been so strongly developed as it is today. I said that the oriental wise men possessed an ancient wisdom, but it was in a completely different form than that of today's thinking. The great teachers of the Orient did not have this cleverness of logical thinking, this pure logic; they didn't need it. Therefore it was difficult to understand them. They had intuition, inner vision. True intuition is not acquired through logical thinking; rather a truth appears directly before the spirit of the person concerned. He knows it. It doesn't need to be proven to him.
The Teachers of the theosophical movement now have the right to impart a certain part of this esoteric wisdom. We have the right to clothe in the modern form of thinking the wisdom that has been imparted to us in the form of intuition. Thought is a force like electricity, like steam power, like the power of heat. And whoever receives the thoughts that are taught within the theosophical movement and devotes himself to them without being mistrustful from the start, in him these thoughts are a force. The listeners don't realize it at first; the seed begins to grow later. No theosophical teacher asks anything more than to be heard. He doesn't demand blind faith, only listening. Neither believing acceptance nor unbelieving rejection are correct standpoints. The listener should only consider the thoughts conveyed to him, free from belief or doubt, free from Yes or No. He must be “neutral” and allow the teachings to work “on probation”. Whoever does this has not only thoughts flowing into him, but also a spiritual power that acts.
People find the easiest access through thinking because Western European culture has developed this capacity to such an extent. Even the most faithful church-going Christians cannot imagine to what extent people believed earlier. This source of conviction no longer flows. Today we must fructify our thought in a completely different way. In the past spiritual communications had to be imparted in secret esoteric schools because thinking was not cultivated as it is today. Today we must combine spirituality with the force of thinking, by which we kindle the thoughts so they live. The spiritual speaker speaks in a different way to his listeners than does a common speaker. He speaks so that a kind of spiritual fluid, a spiritual force flows from him. The listener should be objective, without a Yes or No; he should live with this thought, meditate on it and let it work in him. Then a force will be lighted in him.
Today we must announce esoteric truths about the origin and evolution of the world in the form of European thinking and science. These lectures will describe in this way the conditions that preceded the formation of our earth. We will be led back to the most ancient times where, in the grayest light of dawn, those beings formed who later developed into human beings. We will be led to the stage where this human being was imbued with earthly forces, where he was surrounded by earthly matter, to the point where he now stands. We will learn and see the pre-earthly and earthly evolution of our world, and how Theosophy gives us an outlook into the future. We will see where the evolution of the world is going. We want to show all that without opposing the ideas of today's astronomers. If we develop the forces that slumber in us, we will see for ourselves the great goal to which we are heading: the acquisition of cosmological wisdom. We will consider this cosmological wisdom in the next lectures.
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.