The Gospel of Matthew
GA 123
1 September 1910, Bern
Lecture I
The post-Atlantean migrations. The Iranians and Turanians. Zarathustra
This is the third occasion on which I have had the opportunity of speaking in Switzerland of the greatest Event in the history of the earth and of man. The first time was at Basle, when I spoke from the aspect of this Event presented in the Gospel of John; the second was in accordance with descriptions of the event given by Luke; and now, the third time, the impulse for what I have to say will come from the Gospel of Matthew.
I have often pointed out how important it is that accounts of this Event are preserved in four documents apparently so different from one another. But what gives opportunity for so much adverse criticism from the side of the materialistic thought of the present day is precisely what strikes us as important according to our anthroposophical outlook. No one should permit himself to describe any fact or being that has been viewed only from one point. A man may photograph a tree from one side, but the result cannot be regarded as a true replica of the tree. If, however, he photographs it from four sides, he can, by comparing the four pictures, form a comprehensive idea of the appearance of the tree. If this is true as regards ordinary external things, how should one suppose that an Event comprising in itself such a sum of occurrences—the fullest measure of all the things essential to human existence—can be really grasped if described only from one side. Contradictions between the Gospels are only apparent; the explanation of them lies in the fact that each writer knew he was capable of describing one side only of this mighty Event. By recognizing this fact, and by comparing the different accounts, it is possible gradually to gain a complete picture.
Let us us then approach this, the greatest Event in earthly evolution, with patience, and with confidence in the four descriptions given in the New Testament, trusting that we may be able to enrich our knowledge of it through them.
It is customary to begin by giving an historical account of the origin of the Gospels. It will, however, give us the best result if what is to be said of the origin of the Matthew Gospel is said towards the end of the course, for as is natural, and as other sciences show, the comprehension of a thing should precede its history. No one, for instance, can usefully approach the history of arithmetic who has no knowledge of arithmetic. In other cases it is universal to place historical descriptions at the end of a study; where this is not done, the arrangement contradicts the natural needs of human knowledge. Thus an attempt will be made here, first, to prove the contents of the Gospel of Matthew, and afterwards to examine its historical origin.
When we allow the Gospels to affect us, even externally, we are soon aware of something distinctive in the way each is expressed, and this feeling is intensified when we keep in mind the lectures previously given on the Gospels of John and Luke. In seeking to understand the mighty communications of the Gospel of John, we feel overpowered by its spiritual grandeur; and must confess that in this Gospel—because it tells of the highest attainable by human wisdom—we find the highest to which human understanding can gradually attain. In it man seems to raise his eyes to a summit of world existence and say to himself: ‘However small I may be as man, the Gospel of John permits me to divine that something has entered my soul with which I am united, and which overcomes me with a feeling of the infinite.’ The spiritual greatness of a Cosmic Being with whom humanity is related sinks into the human soul when we speak of the Gospel of John.
Recall your feelings on reading what was said concerning the Gospel of Luke; what filled your soul then was something quite different.
In the Gospel of John it is chiefly the revelation of spiritual greatness that arouses longing in the receptive human soul, and fills it as with a breath of magic; in the the Gospel of Luke we encounter an inwardness of soul-nature, the intensity of the power of love and of sacrifice in the world when these are experienced by the human heart. John describes the Being of Christ Jesus in its spiritual grandeur. Luke shows us this Being in its immeasurable capacity of sacrifice, and gives us some idea of the nature of that force which as sacrificial love pulsates through the world in the way other forces do, permeating the whole evolution of the world and all the deeds of men.
We live mainly in the element feeling when we let the influence of the Gospel of Luke work in us; and it is the element of understanding, speaking of the ultimate ends and aims of knowledge, that meets us in the Gospel of John. John speaks more to our understanding, Luke to our hearts. This can be felt from the Gospels themselves, but it is also our endeavour to give out what we are able to add to these documents through the revelation of spiritual science. Those to whom these Gospels are only words have not by any means heard all that can be heard. There was a profound difference both in language and style between the cycle of lectures on the Gospels of John and that of Luke. These must again be different when we approach the Gospel of Matthew.
In the Gospel of Luke, it is as if all that ever existed in the evolution of mankind as human love were seen to be concentrated within the Being, Who at the beginning of our era, is called Christ Jesus.
To merely external perception the Gospel of Matthew appears more many-sided than the other two, even more many-sided than the three others, but when we come to consider the Gospel of Mark we shall find that unlike the others it is in a certain sense one-sided.
The Gospel of John reveals the greatness of the wisdom of Christ Jesus; the Gospel of Luke, the power of His love; the Gospel of Mark, mainly the power of the creative forces and the splendour permeating universal space. From this Gospel we divine something stupendous in the out-pouring of the cosmic forces which seem to rush towards us from all directions of space.
While that which breathes from Luke fills the soul with inward warmth, and that which springs from John fills it with hope, that which emerges from the Gospel of Mark is the overwhelming power and splendour of the cosmic forces before which the soul feels almost shattered. All three elements are present in the Gospel of Matthew—the deep warmth of the love-element, the hopeful reaching forth of the understanding, and the majestic greatness of the universe. But in a certain sense they are present in a weaker form and therefore seem to be more closely related to humanity than is the case in the other Gospels. Whereas we might be overwhelmed so that we almost prostrate ourselves before the love, the wisdom and the greatness of the other three, we feel more able to stand erect before the Gospel of Matthew, even to approach and place ourselves alongside of it. We are nowhere shattered by the Matthew Gospel, although it also brings something of that which in the other three Gospels can work shatteringly. It is, therefore, the most human document of them all, and more than the others it presents Christ Jesus as man. It is in a sense a commentary on the others, and by making clear what is too great for human understanding in the other Gospels, it throws a remarkable light upon them.
Let us take what is now to be said as referring more to the style of the different Gospels. The Gospel of Luke tells how the highest degree of love and sacrifice was reached in the Being to Whom we give the name of Christ Jesus. how this flowed out into the world and into men, and how for the salvation of men a human outpouring came down from out the primeval ages of earthly development, and it describes this same stream up to the earliest beginnings of man.
In the Gospel of John we are shown how man can look with his wisdom and knowledge to a beginning, and also to a goal, to which this understanding can attain; we are shown this from the very beginning of the Gospel, for here the description of Christ Jesus points to the creative Logos itself. The most exalted spiritual conception our minds can reach is defined in the opening sentences of this Gospel. It is otherwise in the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew treats of the man, Jesus of Nazareth; it refers at the very beginning to the origin of his lineage, showing how he sprang from a definite point in history. It traces the line of descent in a certain people. It shows how all the qualities we find in Jesus had been concentrated within the race of Abraham; how for three times fourteen generations the best it had to give had wed in the blood of this people, to prepare it for the perfect flowering of the highest human powers in one human individual.
While John points to the eternal quality of the Logos, Luke to the immensity of human evolution, taking us back to its very beginning—the Gospel of Matthew tells us of a man, Jesus of Nazareth, who belonged to a people able to trace the descent of its qualities through three times fourteen generations—to Abraham, the founder of the race.
It is only possible to hint here at what is necessary before any real understanding of what the Gospel of Mark seeks to explain, can be reached. This is, that we must learn in a certain way to know the cosmic forces streaming through the whole course of the world's development. For in this Gospel, Christ Jesus is presented to us as an essence from the cosmos working within a human agency; an essence of that which previously had dwelt in the infinity of space as cosmic force. Mark seeks to describe the acts of Christ as an extract of cosmic activity; to him the divine man, Christ Jesus, walking on the earth, is a quintessence of the Sun-force in its boundless activity. Thus it is stellar forces working through a human agency which Mark describes.
In a certain way, the writer of the Gospel of Matthew touches also upon this stellar activity, for, at the very beginning, when describing the birth of Jesus of Nazareth he leads us to a point where we are shown that cosmic facts are connected with the birth of a man; this is, when he speaks of the star guiding the three Magii to the birthplace of Jesus.
But he does not describe a cosmic activity as is done in the Gospel of Mark; he does not demand that we raise our eyes to this cosmic activity; he shows us three men—the Magi—and the effect these cosmic events had upon them. We can turn to these three men and divine their feelings. Thus, if we would rise to what is cosmic, Matthew directs our gaze, not to boundless space, but to man, to the action of the cosmos in human hearts.
These hints should only be accepted as showing the difference in style of the Gospels. The main characteristic of each Gospel is that it gives a description from a different point of view, and each has its own special manner and method of describing this, the greatest event in human and earthly evolution.
The most important facts at the commencement of the Gospel of Matthew concern the near blood-relations of Jesus of Nazareth. We are told how the physical person of Jesus was created; and how the qualities of a whole people, since its originator Abraham, were contained as an extract in one human being, Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore it had to be shown how the blood of Jesus reached back by way of the generations to the Father of the Hebrew people; and how on this account the nature of this people—that for which they particularly stood in regard to human and earthly evolution—was concentrated within the physical personality of Jesus of Nazareth. It is necessary, therefore, in order to understand the point of view of the writer of the Gospel, to know something of the nature of the Hebrew people, and to be able to answer the question: ‘What was it that the Hebrew people, by virtue of their special character, were able to impart to mankind?’ External materialistic history gives little attention to the facts emphasized here. The fact that no one people in human evolution has the same task as another, that each has its own special mission, is hardly noticed; to those who understand human evolution, however, this is all-important. All peoples, down even to physical details, are formed in accordance with their destiny. Thus the bodies of any one race reveal a certain construction in their physical as well as in their etheric and astral sheaths; and the way these interpenetrate one another produces the most appropriate instrument for that people's contribution to humanity.
The question can now be modified to: ‘What was the special contribution of the Hebrew people to humanity, and how was this built into the physical body of Jesus of Nazareth?’
To understand correctly the answer to this question it will be necessary to enter more exactly into the whole evolution of mankind, already dealt with in an Outline of Occult Science, and in other courses of lectures. It is well to take the Atlantean catastrophe as a starting point. The Atlanteans journeyed from the west towards the east; one principal stream passed through Europe to the regions round the Caspian Sea in Asia; the other on a more southerly course, through the Africa of to-day. A kind of union of these two wanderings took place in yonder Asia, as when two floods meet and form a kind of whirlpool.
The thing that chiefly interests us is the whole soul-formation and point of view of these peoples, or at least the main part of those who journeyed from ancient Atlantis to the East.
The whole attitude of soul of these people of the first post-Atlantean Age was quite different from that of the men of to-day. They possessed a more clairvoyant perception of their environment than was later the case. To a certain extent they could perceive the spirit. What to-day is perceived by physical sight was then seen in a more spiritual manner. Yet it is important to note that their clairvoyance differed again in certain respects from that of the more ancient Atlanteans when this development was at its height. During the bloom of their development the Atlanteans had been able to see into the spiritual world in a very pure way, and to receive spiritual revelations as an impulse for good. The greater their capacity for perception, the greater the impulse for good they received through it; the less they were able to perceive, the less the impulse for good they received. The changes that took place on the earth during the last third of the Atlantean period, and at the opening of the post-Atlantean Age, were associated with a weakening of this clairvoyant faculty. The perception of what was good gradually diminished, until it was only retained in a high degree by those who underwent a special training in the schools of initiation. For the majority, clairvoyant perception became at last too weak to perceive the good and saw instead what was bad—the tempting and misleading forces of existence. There was indeed, in certain regions peopled by these post-Atlantean races, a form of clairvoyance that was by no means good; it was clairvoyance that was really itself a form of temptation.
With the decline of clairvoyant power was associated the gradual development or blossoming of sense-perception as is normal for the men of to-day. The things that were seen by the men of early post-Atlantean times with ordinary eyes and are also seen by the men of to-day, were not then in the least misleading, because the soul-forces now open to temptation did not as yet exist. The vision of external objects which gives men so much enjoyment to-day, even if it is misleading, was not felt by the post-Atlantean to be a temptation. On the other hand, he was led into temptation by the inherited tendencies of the old clairvoyance. The good side of the spiritual world he hardly saw any more, but the deceptive and misleading forces of Lucifer and Ahriman worked on him with great power. Thus he beheld the forces and powers which tempted and deceived—the Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces—by the power of the old inherited forces of clairvoyance. The outcome of this was that the leaders and guides of human evolution, who received from the Mysteries the wisdom by which they were able to guide men, undertook, in spite of this fact, to lead them ever more and more towards understanding and goodness.
Now the people who had spread eastwards after the great Atlantean catastrophe were at very different stages of evolution; the farther east we go, the more moral and more highly spiritual was their evolution. External perception worked on them educatively with ever greater clearness: it was like the opening of a new world, revealing as it did the vastness and splendour of the external world of the senses. This increased the farther east they travelled, and was more especially noticeable in those who dwelt north of the India of to-day towards the Caspian Sea, as far as the Oxus and Jaxartes. Here in this central region of Asia a people settled who provided the material for many nationalities which then spread in all directions, as well as of that people often mentioned by us in regard to their spiritual world-concept—the ancient Indian race.
In this settlement in Central Asia even soon after the Atlantean catastrophe, and indeed partly during the catastrophe itself, the sense for external actuality became very strongly developed. At the same time, however, among those who incarnated in this part of the world there was still a living recollection of what they had experienced in Atlantis. This recollection was strongest among those who then journeyed down to India. On the one hand, they had a great and real understanding for the splendour of the external world, while, on the other hand, they were a people in whom the remembrance of the old spiritual powers of perception of Atlantean times was most strongly developed. Therefore there arose in them an intense desire for the spiritual world which they remembered, and it was comparatively easy for them to gaze again into this world. Compared to the reality of the spiritual world, they felt that what the external world presented was illusion—Maya. Therefore, there was an inclination among these people to undervalue the sense-world and to do everything possible that by training—that is, by Yoga—their souls might again be raised to what in the age of Atlantis they had received directly from the spiritual world.
To undervalue the external world and treat it as illusion, and so to develop the impulse to penetrate to what was spiritual, was less marked among the peoples who remained in the north of India. The position of this community was tragic. The endowments of the Indian peoples consisted in the fact that they could go through a Yoga training with comparative ease, and by this means could again enter into the realms in which they had dwelt during the Atlantean Age. It was easy for them to overcome what they regarded as illusion. They overcame it through knowledge. The height of knowledge for them consisted in the conviction: ‘This world of the senses is illusion, is Maya; but when I take trouble to develop my soul, I can attain to a world that is behind the world of the senses Thus the Indian overcame, through an inner process, what he regarded as illusion, and this conquest was the object of his desire.
It was different with regard to the northern peoples named by history in a narrow sense, Aryans. These were the Persians, Medes, Bactrians, and others. In them the power of external sight was strongly developed, also the power of the intellect; but the inward urge to develop themselves through Yoga and thus attain what the Atlantean had lost, was not specially strong in them. The living memory of the past was not so keen in these northern peoples that they should set themselves to overcome the illusion of the world through knowledge. These northern people had not the same soul-nature as the Indian. The Iranians, Persians, or Medes felt what we can express in modern language as follows: If once we dwelt as men in a spiritual world, perceiving spiritual realities, and now find ourselves in a physical world which we see with our eyes and understand by means of the intellect bound to our brain, the cause of this is not to be sought in man alone; what has to be overcome cannot be overcome only in man's inner nature. The Iranian felt: It is not only in man that a change has taken place; everything in Nature, everything on earth was also changed at the descent of man. It was therefore not enough for man simply to say: All this is Maya, is illusion, let us raise ourselves to the spiritual world! We shall then certainly have changed ourselves, but not all that has become changed in the world around us.’ So the Iranian did not say: ‘Around me is Maya on every side—I will rise above this Maya, will overcome it in myself, and so attain to spiritual worlds.’ No, he said: ‘Man belongs to the world around him; he is but a part of it. Therefore if that which is divine in him, and which descended with him from spiritual heights is to be changed, then not only man must be changed back again, but everything that surrounds him must also be changed back to what it was.’ This feeling gave this people a special impulse to enter energetically into the task of transforming and changing the world. While the Indian said: ‘The world has changed, deteriorated; what we now behold is Maya,’ the people of the north said: ‘Certainly the world has come down, but we must so change it that it is made into something spiritual once more!’
Contemplation and wisdom were the fundamental characteristics of the Indian people; they had no further interest in the world which they regarded as Maya, or illusion. Activity, energy, and the desire to transform and work upon external nature was what characterized the Iranians and the other northern peoples. They said: ‘What we see around us has come down from divinity, and the mission of humanity is to lead it back to this divinity once more.’
This tendency, which was already perceptible in the Iranian people, was raised to its highest form and inspired with the greatest energy through the spiritual leaders who proceeded from the Mysteries.
What took place east and south of the Caspian Sea can only be fully understood, even externally, when it is compared with what took place to the north, that is, in the regions we to-day call Siberia and Russia, and the regions extending even into Europe. Here a people dwelt who had preserved to a great extent their ancient clairvoyance, men who, in a certain sense, held the balance between the old and the new, between the old spiritual perception and the new sense-perception associated with rational thought. Many of them were still capable of looking directly into the spiritual world; but for the majority, indeed for the greater part of humanity, spiritual perception had deteriorated to a lower astral clairvoyance. This had a certain consequence for human evolution. (The men who had this kind of clairvoyance were of a quite distinct type; through it they acquired a distinctive character. Their environment urged them to demand the necessities of life from Nature with the minimum of exertion. They did not doubt the existence of spiritual beings in what they beheld, for they perceived them as man to-day perceives plants and animals; and in the existence in which these divine beings had placed them they demanded provision for themselves without much personal effort. Much could be said regarding the outward expression of the mental attitude in the peoples endowed with this astral clairvoyance. At this time, which it is now important for us to consider, most of those who were endowed with a clairvoyance that had fallen into decadence, were nomadic peoples, people without a settled dwelling-place, wandering shepherds careless of earthly possessions, and ready to destroy anything if its destruction might serve their needs. Such people were not suited to raise the level of culture, to conserve the gifts of Nature, or cultivate the earth.
Hence arose the greatest opposition that has existed in post-Atlantean civilization, the great opposition between these more northern people and the Iranians. A longing arose in the Iranians to take hold of their environment and to live a settled life; to satisfy their human needs by work, and transform Nature by their human spiritual forces. Immediately to the north of them wandered the people who were on what one might call familiar terms with the spiritual beings, who disliked labour, and were not interested in advancing the culture of the physical world. This is perhaps the greatest difference that external history has to show in early post-Atlantean times and is purely the result of a difference in soul-development. The contrast is recognized in history, the great contrast between Iranian and Turanian; but the cause is not known. Here we now have the causes.
The Turanians in the north towards Siberia, who had inherited a lower astral clairvoyance, had no desire to establish external civilization, and their passive disposition, influenced by many priests who practised magic, led them frequently to occupy themselves with lower magic, and even black magic. To the south, the Iranians, with an inclination to influence the sense-world by their human spiritual force, were working in a primitive way at the beginnings of civilization.
This is the great contrast between Iranians and Turanians. These facts are expressed in a beautiful myth, the legend of Djemjid. Djemjid was a king who led his people from the north towards Iran, and who received from the God, whom he called Ahura Mazdao, a golden dagger, by means of which he was to fulfil his mission on earth.
In this golden dagger of King Djemjid, who tried to educate his people beyond the mass of the backward Turanians, we have to recognize the gift of an impulse towards a knowledge connected with man's external forces; a knowledge that sought to redeem his decadent powers and permeate them with spiritual forces that can be acquired by him on the physical plane. This golden dagger has, like a plough, turned the earth over, has transformed it into arable land, has brought about the earliest and most primitive inventions, and has been the impulse for all the attainments of civilization of which man is so proud. The golden dagger received by King Djemjid from Ahura Mazdao was something of very great importance. It represents a force given to man by which he can manipulate and transform external nature.
The giver of the golden dagger was the same being who inspired Zarathustra, or Zoroaster, or Zerdutsch, the great leader of the Iranians. It was he who in primeval times, soon after the Atlantean catastrophe, poured out upon this people the treasures he drew from the Holy Mysteries, that they might be induced to use the forces of the human spirit upon external culture; thus giving to those who had lost the Atlantean clairvoyant vision, a new outlook and a new hope of the spiritual world. He opened out a new path to these people. He pointed towards the sunlight as the external body of a high Spiritual Being, and to distinguish it from the small human aura, he called it the 'Great Aura' Ahura Mazdao. In his teaching he indicated that this as yet remote Being, would one day descend to earth in order to unite with its substance, and that this would be an historical event affecting the whole future of mankind. Thus in speaking of Ahura Mazdao, Zarathustra referred to the Being known later in history as the Christ. Such was the mighty mission of Zarathustra.
To the new post-Atlantean humanity, who had lost touch with divinity, he revealed the way of return to what was spiritual. He gave them the hope, through power poured down to them on the physical plane, of yet attaining to spirituality. The ancient Indian could attain to spirituality in a certain way through Yoga-training, but a new way was to be opened for men by Zarathustra.
Now Zarathustra had an important patron or protector—but I must emphasize that in speaking here of Zarathustra I do not refer to the man of that name who lived in the time of Darius, but to an individuality who was placed, even by the Greeks, about 5000 years before the Trojan War. This Zarathustra of those far-off times had a protector who may be described by the name that became customary later, that of Guschtasb.
In Zarathustra we have, therefore, a mighty priestly nature, one who pointed the way to the great Sun Spirit, Ahura Mazdao, the Being who is to guide humanity back from the externally physical to the spiritual plane. And in Guschtasb we have a kingly nature, one capable of doing all that was necessary in the external world to spread abroad the mighty inspirations of Zarathustra.
It was therefore inevitable that these inspirations and intentions should bring the Iranians into conflict with the people dwelling to the north—the Turanians. And actually through this conflict arose one of the greatest wars that have ever been fought, of which external history records rery little, since it falls in primeval ages. It lasted, not for tens, but for hundreds of years, and from it arose a certain attitude that persisted for a long time in Central Asia: an attitude which must be expressed somewhat as follows.
The Iranians—the people who followed Zarathustra—would have expressed this attitude in the following way: ‘All around us, wherever we look, we see a world that has most surely come down from what is divinely spiritual, but all we now see has declined from its former high estate. We must acknowledge that the animal, plant, and mineral worlds were formerly more noble than they are now, that they have fallen into decadence. Man, however, has the hope of leading these back again to what they were.’ Let as try and translate this feeling that dwelt in the typical Iranian into our language. Speaking as a teacher to his pupils he might say: ‘Look at everything around you—formerly this was of a spiritual nature; it has now fallen into decadence. Take, for instance, the wolf. The animal that is in the wolf you see, as a creature of the sense-world, has declined from what it once was. Formerly it did not show bad qualities; but you, when you have developed good qualities and have acquired spiritual power, will be able to tame this animal; you will be able to implant your own qualities in it, and tame it, making of the wolf a dog to serve you.’ In the wolf and in the dog there are two natures which correspond to two great tendencies in the world. Here are two opposing forces. On the one side are those who employ their spiritual forces to work upon the world, who were able to tame animals and raise them to a higher stage; on the other, those who instead of using their powers for this purpose leave the animals to sink lower and lower. The one can be seen in the following mood: ‘If I leave Nature as she is, then she will sink lower and ever lower; and everything will be wild and savage. But I can raise my spiritual eyes to a good Power, whom I acknowledge, and this good Power then helps me, and I can then lead up again what is deteriorating. This Power to whom I can look up can give me hope for further development'. The Iranian identified this Power with Ahura Mazdao, and he said to himself: ‘Everything a man can do to ennoble the forces of Nature, to elevate them, can be done, if he will attach himself to Ahura Mazdao, to the power of Ormuzd. Ormuzd is an ascending stream. But if a man leaves Nature as she is, then everything becomes a wilderness and reverts to savagery. This comes from Ahriman.’ Add now the following mood developed in the Iranian regions: ‘To the north of us many people are going about; they are in the service of Ahriman. They are Ahriman's people, who only roam about gathering what Nature offers them; they will not raise a hand towards the spiritualization of Nature. But we wish to unite ourselves with Ormuzd, Ahura Mazdao.’
So a duality was felt at that time to be rising in the world. Thus it was that the Iranians, the Zarathustra-men felt, and they expressed these feelings in laws or rules. They wished to arrange their life so that eternal law gave, in its expression, the impulse upwards. That was the external result of Zarathustrianism. Here we see the contrast between Iran and Turan.
The profound difference between the Turanians and Iranians explains the war between Ardschasb, king of Turania, and Guschtasb, king of Irania, the protector of Zarathustra, of which occult history gives so many and such precise accounts.
The most important fact to be grasped in this connection is the wonderful and widespread influence of Zarathustra on the soul-life of mankind.
I had in the first place to describe the nature, the whole milieu, within which Zarathustra was placed; for you are aware that the individual who incarnated in the blood which passed from Abraham through three times fourteen generations, and who appears in the Gospel of Matthew as Jesus of Nazareth, was the Zarathustra individuality. He is met with here for the first time in post-Atlantean times, and we are faced with the question: ‘Why was the blood which flowed through the generations from Abraham in Asia Minor best suited for the subsequent return of Zarathustra in bodily form?’ For one of the subsequent incarnations of Zarathustra is that of Jesus of Nazareth. Before this question is asked it was necessary to ask and answer another regarding his special essence, the essence which found expression in this blood. In Zarathustra this special essence which incarnated in the blood of the Hebrew people is to be found.
In the next lecture we will explain why it must be precisely from this blood, from this race, that Zarathustra drew his bodily nature.
Erster Vortrag
Es ist jetzt das dritte Mal, daß mir hier in der Schweiz die Möglichkeit geboten ist, von einer gewissen Seite her das größte Ereignis der Erd- und Menschheitsgeschichte zu besprechen. Das erste Mal war es, als in Basel gesprochen werden durfte über dieses Ereignis von jener Seite her, zu der das Johannes-Evangelium die Veranlassung bietet; das zweite Mal, als jene Charakteristik dieses Ereignisses gegeben werden durfte, zu welcher das Lukas-Evangelium die Unterlage bietet; und dieses Mal, als zum dritten Mal, soll der Impuls zu dieser Schilderung ausgehen vom Matthäus-Evangelium. Es ist von mir des öftern angedeutet worden, daß gerade darin etwas Bedeutungsvolles liegt, daß uns dieses Ereignis in vier, scheinbar in einer gewissen Weise sich unterscheidenden Urkunden aufbewahrt ist. Was gewissermaßen der heutigen äußeren materialistischen Gesinnung Veranlassung gibt, mit einer negativen, zersetzenden Kritik einzugreifen, das ist gerade das, was uns nach unserer anthroposophischen Überzeugung als bedeutungsvoll erscheint. Niemand sollte sich vermessen, irgendein Wesen oder eine Tatsache zu charakterisieren, wenn er sie nur von einer Seite ansieht. Jener Vergleich wurde von mir öfter gebraucht: Wenn man einen Baum von einer Seite aus photographiert, so darf niemand behaupten, daß er in dieser Photographie eine wirkliche Wiedergabe dessen hat, was der Baum in seinem Anblick nach außen darbietet; wenn man dagegen den Baum von vier Seiten photographieren würde, und wenn man auch vier verschiedene Bilder bekäme, die sich untereinander wenig gleichen könnten, so würde man aus dem Zusammenschauen dieser vier Bilder auch eine geschlossene Ansicht von dem Baum erhalten können. Wenn das in solch äußerlicher Weise schon der Fall ist für ein jegliches Ding, wie sollte man nicht vermuten können, daß ein Ereignis, welches die größte Fülle des Geschehens, die größte Fülle des Wesentlichen alles Daseins für uns Menschen in sich schließt, gar nicht umfaßt werden könnte, wenn man es nur von einer Seite aus schildert? Daher sind es nicht Widersprüche, welche uns in den vier Evangelien zutage treten. Es ist hier vielmehr die Tatsache zugrunde liegend, daß die Schilderer sich bewußt waren, daß ein jeglicher von ihnen dieses gewaltige Ereignis nur von einer Seite aus zu schildern vermag, und daß es der Menschheit gelingen kann, durch das Zusammenschauen dieser verschiedenen Schilderungen nach und nach ein Gesamtbild zu gewinnen. Und so wollen auch wir geduldig sein und versuchen, uns dieser größten Tatsache des Erdenwerdens nach und nach dadurch zu nähern, daß wir uns anlehnen an diese vier Schilderungen und selbst das, was wir wissen können, entwickeln mit Anlehnung an diese Dokumente, die wir als das Neue Testament bezeichnen.
Aus einigem, was früher gesagt worden ist, können Sie schon ermessen, wie etwa die vier verschiedenen Ausgangspunkte oder Gesichtspunkte der Evangelien sich darstellen lassen. Vorerst aber, bevor ich auch nur eine äußerliche Charakteristik dieser vier Gesichtspunkte gebe, möchte ich darauf aufmerksam machen, daß ich im Beginne dieses Vortragszyklus nicht das tun will, womit man heute die Darstellung der oder eines der Evangelien beginnt. Man beginnt gewöhnlich damit, daß man ihre geschichtliche Entstehung darstellt. Es wird sich uns das am besten ergeben, wenn wir am Schlusse unseres Zyklus erst sagen werden, was über die Geschichte der Entstehung des MatthäusEvangeliums zum Beispiel zu sagen ist. Denn es ist doch nur natürlich und könnte an dem Beispiel anderer Wissenschaften gezeigt werden, daß man die Geschichte irgendeiner Sache erst dann verstehen kann, wenn man die Sache selber begriffen hat. Niemand wird zum Beispiel mit Nutzen an eine Geschichte der Arithmetik herangehen können, der nichts weiß von Arithmetik. Überall sonst wird die geschichtliche Darstellung ans Ende gelegt, und wo das nicht getan wird, da widerspricht die Einteilung den natürlichen Bedürfnissen des menschlichen Erkennens. Und so werden wir auch diesen Bedürfnissen des menschlichen Erkennens entgegenkommen und versuchen, den Gehalt des Evangeliums, das wir besprechen wollen, zu prüfen und dann auf eine Darstellung des geschichtlichen Werdens gerade bei diesem Evangelium etwas eingehen.
Wenn man von außen die Evangelien auf sich wirken läßt, kann man schon einen gewissen Unterschied fühlen in der Art, wie diese Evangelien darstellen, wie sie sprechen. Wenn Sie auf sich wirken lassen, was in meinen Vorträgen über das Johannes-Evangelium und über das Lukas-Evangelium gesagt worden ist, dann werden Sie gerade in bezug auf diese zwei Evangelien die entsprechende Empfindung noch genauer haben. Wenn man sich einläßt auf das Johannes-Evangelium, dann muß man sagen, daß einen überall, wo man versucht in die gewaltigen Mitteilungen einzudringen, eine Empfindung von geistiger Größe überkommt, zu der man ahnend hinaufblickt, und daß man im Johannes-Evangelium finden kann, wie es uns das Höchste verrät, wozu menschliche Weisheit hinaufblicken kann, das Höchste, was menschlichem Erkennen nach und nach zugänglich werden kann. Der Mensch steht da gleichsam unten und blickt hinauf zu einem Gipfel des Weltendaseins und sagt sich: So klein du auch sein magst alsMensch, das Johannes-Evangelium läßt dich ahnen, daß in deine Seele etwas hineintaucht, mit dem du verwandt bist und das dich überkommt wie mit einem Gefühl des Unendlichen. So ist es vorzugsweise die mit dem Menschen verwandte geistige Größe der Weltenwesen, welche in unsere Seele hineintaucht, wenn wir vom Johannes-Evangelium sprechen.
Erinnern wir uns nun einmal an das Gefühl, das uns überkommen konnte bei der Darstellung des Lukas-Evangeliums. Alles, was diese Darstellung des Lukas-Evangeliums damals durchdringen mußte, war anders. Ist es beim Johannes-Evangelium vorzugsweise die geistige Größe, zu der wir ahnend hinaufblicken, die wie ein Zauberhauch unsere Seele durchdringt, wenn wir uns den Mitteilungen dieses Evangeliums hingeben, so ist es beim Lukas-Evangelium die Innigkeit, das Seelenhafte selber, das uns entgegentritt, man möchte sagen, die Intensität alles dessen, was Liebeskräfte der Welt vermögen, was Opferkräfte in der Welt zuwege bringen, wenn wir ihrer teilhaftig sein können. Schildert uns das Johannes-Evangelium die Wesenheit des Christus Jesus in ihrer geistigen Größe, so zeigt uns das Lukas-Evangelium diese Wesenheit in ihrer unermeßlichen Opferfähigkeit, und es läßt uns ahnen, was durch solches Liebesopfer, das wie eine Kraft gleich anderen Kräften die Welt durchpulst und durchwebt, in der Gesamtevolution der Welt und der Menschheit geschehen ist. So ist es vorzugsweise das Element des Gefühls, in dem wir weben und leben, wenn wir das Lukas-Evangelium auf uns wirken lassen, und so istes das Element der Erkenntnis, das uns etwas sagt über die letzten Gründe und letzten Ziele dieser Erkenntnis, was uns aus dem JohannesEvangelium entgegentritt. Das Johannes-Evangelium spricht mehr zu unserer Erkenntnis, das Lukas-Evangelium mehr zu unserem Herzen. Das kann man fühlen an den einzelnen Evangelien selbst; es war aber auch unser Bestreben, das, was wir als geisteswissenschaftliche Darstellungen an diesebeidenUrkunden anknüpften, von dieserGrundstimmung gleichsam durchwehen zu lassen. Wer nur Worte hören wollte beim Zyklus über das Johannes-Evangelium oder über das Lukas-Evangelium, der hat wahrhaftig nicht alles gehört. Die Art und Weise des Sprechens war bei den Vortragszyklen eine grundverschiedene. Ganz anders wird wiederum alles sein müssen, wenn wir an das Matthäus-Evangelium herantreten.
Beim Lukas-Evangelium war es so, daß wir alles, was wirMenschenliebe nennen, wie es einmal in der Menschheitsentwickelung da war, hineinfließen sahen in die Wesenheit, welche als der Christus Jesus im Beginne unserer neutestamentlichen Zeitrechnung lebte. Wenn man das Matthäus-Evangelium nur äußerlich auf sich wirken läßt, dann muß man sagen, daß es zunächst eine Urkunde ist, welche eigentlich vielseitiger ist als die beiden anderen, ja sogar in einer gewissen Beziehung vielseitiger als alle drei anderen Evangelien.
Und wenn wir einmal das Markus-Evangelium darstellen werden, dann werden wir sehen, daß auch dieses in einer gewissen Weise einseitig ist. Zeigt uns das Johannes-Evangelium die Weisheitsgröße des Christus Jesus, zeigt das Lukas-Evangelium die Liebesmacht, so wird uns bei einer Schilderung des Markus-Evangeliums entgegentreten, was vor allen Dingen als Kraft, als Schaffensmächte, man möchte sagen, als Herrlichkeit der Welt durch alle Weltenräume hindurchgeht. Aber es ist beim Markus-Evangelium etwas Überwältigendes in dem Ausleben der Intensität der Weltenkraft. Es ist, wie wenn die Weltenkraft von allen Seiten des Raumes rauschend an uns herankäme, wenn wir das Markus-Evangelium wirklich uns zum Verständnis bringen!
So ist es etwas, das sich uns innig warm in die Seele drängt, was uns beim Lukas-Evangelium entgegentritt, etwas, das uns Hoffnung für die Seele gibt, was uns beim Johannes-Evangelium überkommt; und es ist etwas wie Schauer vor der Gewalt und Herrlichkeit der Weltenkräfte, denen gegenüber wir fast zusammensinken könnten, wenn wir das Markus-Evangelium auf uns wirken lassen.
Anders das Matthäus-Evangelium. Alle die drei Elemente, das hoffnungsvolle, aussichtsteiche Erkenntniselement, das warme Gefühlsund Liebeselement und auch die majestätische Weltengröße, sie alle sind, möchte man sagen, in dem Matthäus-Evangelium darinnen. Aber sie sind in einer gewissen Weise so abgeschwächt darinnen, daß sie in ihrer Abschwächung uns menschlich viel verwandter erscheinen als in den drei anderen Evangelien. Vor der Erkenntnis-, vor der Liebes- und der Herrlichkeitsgröße möchten wir bei den drei anderen Evangelien, wenn wir sie auf uns wirken lassen, so recht zusammensinken. Das alles ist im Matthäus-Evangelium darinnen, nur ist es so darinnen, daß wir uns ihm gegenüber aufrecht zu erhalten vermögen. Es ist uns alles menschlich verwandter, so daß wir uns nicht darunter, sondern in gewissem Sinne daneben stellen können. Wir werden vom MatthäusEvangelium nirgends zerschmettert, obwohl es auch von dem etwas bringt, was in den drei anderen Evangelien zerschmetternd wirken kann. Daher ist das Matthäus-Evangelium die allgemein-menschlichste dieser vier Urkunden. Es schildert uns den Christus Jesus am meisten als Menschen, so daß er uns, wenn wir ihn als Matthäus-Christus Jesus auf uns wirken lassen, in allen seinen Gliedern, in allen seinen Taten menschlich nahe steht. Es ist das Matthäus-Evangelium in gewisser Beziehung etwas wie ein Kommentar für die drei übrigen Evangelien. Was uns in den drei anderen zuweilen zu groß ist, als daß wir es überschauen könnten, es wird uns im kleineren Maßstabe durch das Matthäus-Evangelium klar. Und wenn wir dieses begreifen, wird uns ein bedeutungsvolles Licht auf die drei anderen Evangelien fallen können. Das ist uns aus Einzelheiten leicht verständlich.
Nehmen wir das, was jetzt gesagt werden soll, zunächst einmal rein stilistisch. Damit uns im Lukas-Evangelium geschildert werden kann, wie der höchste Grad von Liebes- und Opferfähigkeit von diesem Wesen, das wir den Christus Jesus nennen, ausfließt in die Menschheit und in die Welt, dazu wird zu Hilfe genommen eine Menschheitsströmung, die herunterkommt aus den urältesten Zeiten des Erdenwerdens. Und Lukas selber schildert uns diese Strömung bis hinauf zum Menschheitsanfang. - Damit uns gezeigt werden kann, wo der Mensch mit seiner Erkenntnis und seiner Weisheit einsetzen kann und einen Anfang nimmt nach dem Ziel, zu dem diese Erkenntnis hinkommen kann, dazu wird uns im Johannes-Evangelium gleich im Anfange dargestellt, wie die Schilderung des Christus Jesus sich anlehnt an den schöpferischen Logos selber. Das Geistigste, was wir mit unserer Erkenntnis erreichen können, wird gleich in den ersten Sätzen des Johannes-Evangeliums angeschlagen. Wir werden gleich hingeführt zu einem Höchsten des Erkenntnisstrebens, zu einem Höchsten, das in der menschlichen Brust vergegenwärtigt werden kann. - Anders ist es im Matthäus-Evangelium. Das beginnt damit, daß es uns zeigt die Vererbungsverhältnisse des Menschen Jesus von Nazareth in ihrer Herkunft, sozusagen von einem historischen Moment aus. Es zeigt uns die Vererbungsverhältnisse innerhalb eines einzelnen Volkes: wie gewissermaßen alle die Rigenschaften, die wir in dem Jesus von Nazareth vereinigt finden, sich summiert haben durch die Vererbung seit ‚Abraham herunter, wie gleichsam ein Volk, durch dreimal vierzehn Generationen hindurch, das Beste, was es gehabt hat, in das Blut hineinfließen ließ, um in einer vollkommenen Weise in einer menschlichen Individualität höchste menschliche Kräfte darzustellen. - In die Unendlichkeit des Logos führt uns das Johannes-Evangelium. In das Unermeßliche der Menschheitsevolution bis zum Anfang hinauf steigt das Lukas-Evangelium. Ein überschaubares Volk, heruntervererbend seine Eigenschaften vom Stammvater Abraham durch dreimal vierzehn Generationen, das zeigt uns das Matthäus-Evangelium, so zeigt es uns den Menschen Jesus von Nazareth.
Es kann hier nur angedeutet werden, daß es für den, welcher das Markus-Evangelium wirklich verstehen will, notwendig ist, daß er in einer gewissen Beziehung die kosmologischen Kräfte kennt, die unser ganzes Weltenwerden durchströmen. Denn so, wie der Christus Jesus im Markus-Evangelium dargestellt wird, wird uns gezeigt, wie in einer menschlichen Wirksamkeit ein Auszug, eine Essenz aus dem Kosmos gegeben ist, eine Essenz von dem, was sonst in dem UnermebBlichen der Weltenweiten als Weltenkräfte lebt. Es wird uns gezeigt, wie die Taten des Christus Jesus gleichsam Extrakte sind von kosmischen Wirksamkeiten. Wie der Menschengott Christus Jesus, so wie er auf der Erde steht, gleichsam als ein Extrakt der Sonnenwirksamkeit mit all ihren Unermeßlichkeiten vor uns steht, das will uns das MarkusEvangelium schildern. Also wie die Sternenwirksamkeit durch Menschenkraft wirkt, das schildert Markus.
Das Matthäus-Evangelium knüpft in einer gewissen Weise auch an Sternenwirksamkeit an. Es führt uns deshalb, gleich da, wo es uns die Geburt des Jesus von Nazareth schildert, zu einem Punkt, von dem aus wir das große Weltenereignis so ansehen sollen, daß kosmische Tatsachen in einem gewissen Zusammenhang mit dem Menschheitswerden stehen, indem es den Stern zeigt, der die drei Magier hinführt zur Gebuttsstätte des Jesus. Aber es schildert uns nicht eine kosmische Wirkung, wie es das Markus-Evangelium tut; es fordert nicht von uns, daß wir unseren Blick erheben zu dieser kosmischen Wirkung: es zeigt uns drei Menschen, drei Magier und die Wirkung, welche das Kosmische auf diese drei Menschen ausübt. Und wir können uns zu den drei Menschen wenden, um zu verspüren, was sie fühlen. Also zum Menschen werden wir selbst dann gewiesen, wenn wir uns zum Kosmischen aufschwingen sollen. Der Reflex des Kosmischen im Menschenherzen wird gezeigt. Der Blick wird nicht hinausgetragen in unermeßliche Weiten, sondern die Wirkung des Kosmischen im menschlichen Herzen wird uns gezeigt.
Ich bitte noch einmal, diese Andeutungen nur stilistisch aufzufassen. Denn so ist der Grundcharakter der Evangelien, daß sie von verschiedenen Seiten schildern. Die Art und Weise, wie sie schildern, ist durchaus charakteristisch für das, was sie uns sagen wollen über das größte Ereignis der Menschheits- und Erdenevolution.
Das ist auch zunächst das Allerbedeutsamste im Eingange des Matthäus-Evangeliums, daß wir hingewiesen werden auf die nächste Blutsverwandtschaft des Jesus von Nazareth. Es wird uns darin gleichsam die Frage beantwortet: Wie war die physische Persönlichkeit dieses Jesus von Nazareth beschaffen? Wie summierten sich alle Eigenschaften eines Volkes seit dem Stammvater Abraham in dieser einen Persönlichkeit, damit in ihr jene Wesenheit sich offenbaren konnte, welche wir die Christus-Wesenheit nennen? Diese Frage wird uns beantwortet. Es wird uns gesagt: Damit die Christus-Wesenheit sich in einem physischen Leibe inkarnieren konnte, dazu mußte dieser physische Leib Eigenschaften haben, wie er sie nur haben konnte, wenn alle Eigenschaften des Blutes jenes Volkes, das von Abraham abstammte, summiert in einem Extrakt dargestellt wurden in der einen Persönlichkeit: Jesus von Nazareth. Es soll daher gezeigt werden: Dieses Blut in Jesus von Nazareth führt wirklich zurück generationenweise bis zum Stammvater des hebräischen Volkes. Daher ist die Wesenheit dieses Volkes, das, was dieses Volk besonders für die Weltgeschichte, für die Menschheits- und Erdenentwickelung ist, insbesondere in der physischen Persönlichkeit des Jesus von Nazareth zusammengedrängt. Was muß man also zunächst kennen, wenn man die Absicht des Schilderers des Matthäus-Evangeliums treffen will in bezug auf diese Einleitung? Man muß das Wesen des hebräischen Volkes kennen! Man muß sich die Frage beantworten können: Welches konnte der Anteil sein, den das hebräische Volk gerade durch seine Eigentümlichkeit der Menschheit zu geben hatte?
Unsere äußere Geschichte, die äußeren materialistischen Geschichtsschilderungen nehmen wenig auf das Rücksicht, was hiermit angeführt wird. In der äußeren Geschichte schildert man die äußeren Tatsachen. Und da steht eigentlich so ziemlich ein Volk neben dem anderen, weil man ganz abstrakt schildert. Dabei tritt diejenige Tatsache, welche eine fundamentale Tatsache ist für den, der die Menschheitsentwickelung verstehen will, ganz zurück: jene Tatsache nämlich, daß kein Volk in der Menschheitsentwickelung dieselbe Aufgabe hat wie ein anderes, sondern daß ein jedes Volk seine besondere Mission und seine besonderen Aufgaben hat. Ein jedes Volk hat zu dem Gesamtschatz, welcher der Erde durch die Menschheitsentwickelung geliefert werden soll, einen Teil beizutragen. Und jeder dieser Teile ist ein anderer, ein ganz bestimmter. Ein jedes Volk hat seine bestimmte Mission. Nun aber ist bis in die Details der physischen Verhältnisse hinein ein jedes Volk so beschaffen, daß es diesen Anteil, den es der gesamten Menschheit zu bringen hat, auch richtig bringen kann. Mit anderen Worten, die Leiber der Menschen, die zu einem Volke gehören, zeigen uns eine solche Ausgestaltung sowohl des physischen Leibes wie auch des Ätherleibes und des astralischen Leibes und eine solche Zusammenfügung dieser Leiber, daß sie das rechte Werkzeug werden können, damit jener Anteil zustande komme, den ein jedes Volk für die gesamte Menschheit zu leisten hat. - Welchen Anteil hatte nun insbesondere das hebräische Volk zu leisten, und wie bildete sich dann die Essenz dieses Anteiles des hebräischen Volkes zu dem Leibe des Jesus von Nazareth?
Wenn man die Mission des hebräischen Volkes verstehen will, muß man schon etwas tiefer hineinschauen in die Gesamtentwickelung der Menschheit. Es wird notwendig sein, einiges von dem, was Sie skizzenhaft in meiner «Geheimwissenschaft im Umriß» und in Vorträgen angedeutet finden können, hier etwas genauer zu charaktezisieren. Wir verstehen wohl am besten den Anteil des hebräischen Volkes an der Gesamtentwickelung der Menschheit, wenn wir wenigstens mit einigen kurzen charakteristischen Strichen den Ausgangspunkt nehmen von jener großen Katastrophe in der Menschheitsentwickelung, welche wir die atlantische Katastrophe nennen.
Als die atlantische Katastrophe nach und nach über die Erdenverhältnisse hereinbrach, zogen die Menschen, welche damals auf dem alten atlantischen Kontinente wohnten, von dem Westen nach dem Osten. Im wesentlichen waren bei diesem Zuge zwei Strömungen vorhanden: eine Strömung, welche sich mehr im Norden bewegte, und eine andere, die mehr einen südlichen Weg nahm. Daher haben wir eine große Menschheitsströmung von atlantischer Bevölkerung, welche durch Europa hindurch bis nach Asien hinüberging;; und wenn man das Gebiet um den Kaspisee herum in Betracht zieht, hat man ungefähr die Art, wie sich dieser Völkerzug der atlantischen Bevölkerung allmählich ausbreitete. Ein anderer Strom ging dagegen durch das heutige Afrika hindurch. Und in Asien drüben entstand dann eine Art von Zusammenströmen dieser beiden Züge, wie wenn sich gleichsam zwei Ströme treffen und einen Wirbel bilden.
Was uns nun vorzugsweise interessieren soll, das ist, wie die Anschauungsweise, die ganze Seelenform dieser Völker oder wenigstens ihrer Hauptmassen war, welche da von der alten Atlantis nach dem Osten hinübergeworfen wurden. Es war tatsächlich so, daß in der ersten nachatlantischen Zeit die ganze Seelenverfassung eine andere war, als sie später geworden ist, und namentlich als sie heute ist. Es war bei all diesen Völkermassen noch eine mehr hellseherische Wahrnehmung der Umgebung vorhanden. Die Menschen konnten damals Geistiges gewissermaßen noch sehen, und auch das, was heute physisch gesehen wird, wurde auf eine mehr geistige Art gesehen. Also eine mehr hellseherische Lebens- und Seelenform war damals vorhanden. Besonders wichtig ist es aber, daß dieses Hellsehen der ursprünglichen nachatlantischen Bevölkerung wieder in einer gewissen Beziehung anders war als zum Beispiel das Hellsehen der atlantischen Bevölkerung selbst in der eigentlichen Blütezeit der atlantischen Entwickelung. In der Blütezeit der atlantischen Entwickelung war das in einem hohen Grade vorhandene hellseherische Vermögen der Menschen so, daß sie hineinschauten auf reine Art in eine geistige Welt, und daß die Offenbarungen der geistigen Welt in der Menschenseele Impulse zum Guten bewirkten. Und man könnte sogar sagen: Wer mehr fähig war, in die geistige Welt hineinzuschauen, der bekam in dieser Blütezeit atlantischer Entwickelung einen größeren Impuls des Guten; und wer weniger sehen konnte, bekam einen weniger hohen Impuls des Guten.
Die Veränderungen, die dann auf der Erde vor sich gingen, waren allerdings so geartet, daß schon gegen das letzte Drittel der atlantischen Zeit, besonders aber in der nachatlantischen Zeit, gerade die guten Seiten des alten Hellschens immer mehr und mehr dahingeschwunden waren. Nur diejenigen, welche in den Einweihungsstätten eine besondere Schulung durchmachten, hatten die guten Seiten des atlantischen Hellsehens bewahrt. Was dagegen auf natürliche Art von dem atlantischen Hellsehen geblieben war, nahm im Laufe der Zeit immer mehr einen solchen Charakter an, daß man sagen kann: Was die Menschen da sahen, führte sehr leicht zum Schauen gerade der schlimmen, der verführerischen und versuchenden Mächte des Daseins. Der hellseherische Menschenblick war nach und nach kaum mehr stark genug, die guten Kräfte zu schauen. Dagegen war es der Menschheit geblieben, Schlimmes zu schauen, dasjenige, was Versuchung, Verführung für die Menschen sein konnte. Und über bestimmte Gebiete der nachatlantischen Bevölkerung war eine gar nicht gute Form des Hellsehens verbreitet, ein Hellsehen, das eigentlich selbst schon eine Art von Versucher war.
Mit diesem Niedergehen der alten hellseherischen Kraft war nun verbunden ein Aufblühen, eine allmähliche Entwickelung jener Sinneswahrnehmung, die wir als die normale für die heutige Menschheit erkennen. Die Dinge, welche die Menschen in der ersten nachatlantischen Zeit mit ihren Augen sahen und die der Mensch heute mit seinen gewöhnlichen Augen sieht, waren damals gar nicht verführerisch, weil die versuchenden Seelenkräfte dafür noch nicht vorhanden waren. Durch ein Äußeres, wodurch heute der Mensch so sehr zum Genüßling werden kann, und wenn ein solcher Anblick auch für den heutigen Menschen der verführerischste wäre, fühlte sich der nachatlantische Mensch nicht besonders verführt. Dagegen stachelte es ihn, wenn er Erbstücke des alten Hellsehens entwickelte. Die gute Seite der geistigen Welt sah er kaum mehr, aber das Luziferische und das Ahrimanische wirkte da mit starker Gewalt auf ihn, so daß er die Kräfte und Mächte sah, die Versucher und Täuscher sein konnten. Die luziferischen und ahrimanischen Kräfte nahm also der Mensch wahr mit seinen alten, vererbten Kräften des Hellsehens. Worauf es nun ankam, das war, daß die Führer und Lenker der Menschheitsevolution, die ihre Weisheit zur Führung der Menschheit aus den Mysterien erhielten, Anstalten trafen, daß die Menschen trotz dieses Tatbestandes dennoch immer mehr und mehr zum Guten und zur Klarheit kamen.
Nun waren die Menschen, welche nach der atlantischen Katastrophe sich nach dem Osten hinüber ausgebreitet hatten, von sehr verschiedenen Entwickelungsstufen. Man kann sagen, je weiter man nach dem Osten hinüberkam, desto moralischer und geistig höher war die Entwickelungsstufe der Menschen. In gewissem Sinne wirkte das, was sich als äußeres Wahrnehmen wie eine neue Welt heranbildete, mit immer größerer Klarheit; es wirkte immer mehr so, daß es die Größe und Herrlichkeit der äußeren Sinneswelt auf die Menschen wirken ließ. Das war der Fall, je weiter man nach dem Osten hinüberkam. Starke Anlagen nach dieser Seite hin hatten namentlich jene Menschen, welche zum Beispiel in den Gegenden nördlich vom heutigen Indien wohnten, bis zum Kaspischen Meer hin, bis zum Oxus und Jaxartes. In diesem mittleren Gebiete Asiens war ein Völkergemenge angesiedelt, das wirklich das Material hergeben konnte zu mancherlei Volksströmungen, die sich dann nach verschiedenen Seiten hin ausbreiteten, auch zu jenem Volke, das wir in bezug auf seine spirituelle Weltauffassung oft charakterisiert haben, zu dem altindischen Volke.
Inmitten Asiens, bei diesem Völkergemenge, war bald nach der atlantischen Katastrophe, zum Teil schon während dieser Zeit, der Sinn für die äußere Wirklichkeit schon sehr stark entwickelt. Dabei war aber bei den Menschen, die auf diesem Gebiet inkarniert waren, noch eine lebendige Erinnerung, eine Art Erinnerungserkenntnis an das vorhanden, was sie in der atlantischen Welt erlebt hatten. Am stärksten war dies bei jener Volksmasse der Fall, welche dann nach Indien herunterzog. Sie hatte zwar ein großes Verständnis für die Herrlichkeit der äußeren Welt, sie war am weitesten fortgeschritten im Beobachten der äußeren Sinneswahrnehmungen, aber gleichzeitig war bei ihr am stärksten entwickelt die Erinnerung an die alten spirituellen Wahrnehmungen der atlantischen Zeit. Daher entwickelte sich bei diesem Volk ein starker Drang nach der geistigen Welt hinauf, an die man sich erinnerte, und eine Leichtigkeit, wieder hineinzublicken in die spirituelle Welt - daneben aber ein Gefühl, daß das, was die äußeren Sinne darboten, Maja oder Illusion sei. Daher entsprang auch bei diesem Volke der Impuls, nicht besonders auf die äußere Sinneswelt zu schauen, sondern alles zu tun, damit die Seele - jetzt durch künstliche Entwickelung, durch Joga - sich hinauferheben könne zu dem, was während der alten atlantischen Zeit der Mensch unmittelbar aus der spirituellen Welt haben konnte.
Weniger stark war diese Eigenart, die Außenwelt zu unterschätzen und als Maja oder Illusion anzuschauen und dafür nur jene Impulse zu entwickeln, welche zum Spirituellen hindrängen, bei dem im Norden von Indien gebliebenen Volksteil ausgebildet. Das war aber ein Volksgemenge, das in der tragischsten Situation war. In der ganzen Art der Begabung des alten indischen Volkes lag es, daß der Mensch mit einer gewissen Leichtigkeit eine bestimmte Jogaentwickelung durchmachen konnte, durch die er wieder hinaufgelangte in die Regionen, in welchen er in der atlantischen Zeit gelebt hatte. Leicht war es für ihn, was er als Illusion ansehen mußte, zu überwinden. Er überwand es in der Erkenntnis. Es war für ihn ein Höchstes die Erkenntnis: Diese Sinnenwelt ist eine Illusion, ist Maja; aber wenn du deine Seele entwickelst, wenn du dir Mühe gibst, dann gelangst du zu der Welt, die hinter der Sinneswelt liegt! Also durch einen inneren Vorgang überwand der Inder, was er als Maja oder Illusion ansah, und was er auch überwinden wollte.
Anders war es bei den nördlichen Völkern, welche in der Geschichte dann die Arier im engeren Sinne genannt werden: bei den Persern, Medern, Bakterern und so weiter. Da war auch stark der Sinn entwickelt für äußere Anschauung, für den äußeren Intellekt. Aber es war der innere Drang, der Impuls, dasselbe durch innere Entwickelung, durch eine Art von Joga erreichen zu wollen, was der atlantische Mensch auf naturgemäße Weise hatte, nicht besonders stark vorhanden. Es war die lebendige Erinnerung bei den nördlichen Völkern nicht so vorhanden, daß sie sie umsetzten in ein Streben, die Illusion der äußeren Welt in der Erkenntnis zu überwinden. Die Seelenverfassung der Inder war nicht bei diesen nördlichen Völkern vorhanden. Bei ihnen war eine Seelenverfassung vorhanden, in der ein jeder bei dem iranischen, persischen oder medischen Volke so etwas fühlte, was, wenn wir es mit unseren heutigen Worten aussprechen wollten, sich in folgender Weise ausnehmen würde: Wenn wir als Menschen einstmals in der spirituellen Welt darinnen waren und Geistiges, Seelisches erlebt und gesehen haben, und jetzt in die physische Welt hinausversetzt sind und vor einer Welt stehen, die wir mit unseren Augen sehen, mit dem Intellekt begreifen, welcher an das Gehirn gebunden ist, dann liegt der Grund dazu nicht bloß im Menschen, und man kann das, was da zu überwinden ist, nicht bloß im Inneren des Menschen überwinden, es ist nichts Besonderes dadurch getan! - Es hätte der Iranier gesagt: Es muß nicht nur mit dem Menschen eine Veränderung vorgegangen sein, es muß sich die Natur und alles, was auf der Erde ist, verändert haben, wenn der Mensch heruntergestiegen ist. Daher kann es nicht genügen, daß wir Menschen dasjenige, was um uns herum ist, lassen wie es ist, und einfach sagen: Es ist alles Illusion, Maja, und wir selber steigen hinauf in die geistige Welt! Dann ändern wir zwar uns, aber nicht das, was sich in der ganzen umliegenden Welt geändert hat.- Daher sagte er nicht: Draußen breitet sich die Maja aus, ich selbst werde diese Maja überschreiten, in mir selbst die Überwindung der Maja und damit die spirituelle Welt erreichen! - Nein, er sagte: Der Mensch gehört mit der übrigen umliegenden Welt zusammen, er ist nur ein Glied davon. Wenn also das, was göttlich im Menschen ist, und was aus göttlich-geistigen Höhen heruntergestiegen ist, umgewandelt werden soll, so darf nicht bloß das zurückverwandelt werden, was im Menschen ist, sondern es muß auch dasjenige zurückverwandelt werden, was in unserer Umgebung ist. - Das gab diesen Völkern besonders den Impuls, tatkräftig einzugreifen in die Umgestaltung und Umschaffung der Welt.
Während man in Indien sagte: Die Welt ist heruntergestiegen; was sie jetzt bietet, ist Maja -, sagte man nördlich davon: Gewiß, die Welt ist heruntergeschritten; aber wir müssen sie so verändern, daß wieder ein Geistiges aus ihr wird! — Sinnen, Erkenntnis-Sinnen war der Grundcharakter des indischen Volkes. Mit der Welt wurde dieses Volk dadurch fertig, daß es die Sinneswahrnehmung Illusion oder Maja nannte. Tatkraft, äußere Energie, Wille zum Umarbeiten dessen, was in der äußeren Natur ist, das war der Grundcharakter des iranischen Volkes und der übrigen nördlichen Völker. Sie sagten: Was um uns herum ist, das ist aus Göttlichem heruntergestiegen; aber der Mensch ist dazu berufen, es zum Göttlichen wieder zurückzuführen! - Was im Grunde genommen schon im Volkscharakter lag bei den Iraniern, das wurde auf ein Höchstes gehoben und mit der größten Energie durchsetzt bei den geistigen Führern, die aus den Mysterien hervorgingen.
Vollständig verstehen, auch äußerlich, kann man das, was ostwärts und südwärts vom Kaspisee sich abspielte, nur dann, wenn man es vergleicht mit dem, was mehr nördlich davon vorging, also in Gegenden, die an das heutige Sibirien, an das heutige Rußland angrenzen, sogar bis nach Europa hinein sich erstrecken. Da waren Menschen, welche sich in hohem Grade das alte Hellsehen bewahrt hatten, und bei denen sich in gewisser Beziehung die Waage hielten die Möglichkeit des alten geistigen Wahrnehmens und die des sinnlichen Anschauens, des neuen Verstandesdenkens. Bei ihnen war in weitesten Kreisen noch ein Hineinschauen in die geistige Welt vorhanden. Wenn man den Charakter dieses Hineinschauens in die geistige Welt, das allerdings schon auf eine niedere Stufe heruntergestiegen war und bei diesen Völkerschaften im wesentlichen - wie wit heute sagen würden - ein niederes astralisches Hellsehen war, in Betracht zieht, so ergibt sich für die Gesamtentwickelung der Menschheit eine bestimmte Folge daraus. Wer mit dieser Art von Hellsehen begabt ist, wird ein ganz bestimmter Mensch. Der Mensch erhält da eine gewisse Charakteranlage. Das zeigt sich besonders bei diesen Völkermassen, die im Volkscharakter dieses niedere Hellsehen hatten. Ein solcher Mensch hat im wesentlichen den Drang, von der Naturumgebung zu fordern, was er zu seinem Lebensunterhalt braucht, und möglichst wenig zu tun, um es der Natur zu entreißen. Schließlich weiß er ja, so wahr wie der heutige Sinnenmensch weiß, daß es Pflanzen, "Tiere und so weiter gibt, daß es göttlich-geistige Wesenheiten gibt, die in alledem darinnenstecken; denn er sieht sie. Er weiß auch, daß sie die mächtigen Wesen sind, die hinter den physischen Wesenheiten stehen. Aber er kennt sie auch so genau, daß er von ihnen fordert, sie sollen ihm ohne viel Arbeit das Dasein fristen, in das sie ihn hineingestellt haben. Man könnte vieles anführen, was äußerlicher Ausdruck ist für die Stimmung und Gesinnung dieser astralisch hellsehenden Menschen. Nur eines soll jetzt dafür angeführt werden.
In dieser Zeit, die jetzt für uns zu betrachten wichtig ist, waren alle diese Völkerschaften, die mit einem in der Dekadenz begriffenen Hellsehen begabt waren, Nomadenvölker, die, ohne seßhaft zu sein, ohne feste Wohnsitze zu gründen, als Hirten herumstreiften, keinen Fleck besonders lieb hatten, auch das, was die Erde ihnen bot, nicht besonders pflegten, und auch gern bereit waren zu zerstören, was um sie herum war, wenn sie etwas brauchten zu ihrem Lebensunterhalt. Aber etwas zu leisten, um das Kulturniveau zu erhöhen, um die Erde umzugestalten, dazu waren diese Völker nicht aufgelegt.
So entstand der große, der wichtige Gegensatz, der vielleicht zu dem Allerwichtigsten der nachatlantischen Entwickelung gehört: der Gegensatz zwischen diesen mehr nördlichen Völkern und den iranischen Völkern. Bei den Iraniern entwickelte sich die Sehnsucht, einzugreifen in das Geschehen rings um sie herum, seßhaft zu werden, was man als Mensch und als Menschheit hat, durch Arbeit sich zu erringen, das heißt also wirklich durch die menschlichen Geisteskräfte die Natur umzugestalten. Das war gerade in diesem Winkel der größte Drang der Menschen. Und unmittelbar daran stieß nach Norden jenes Volk, das hineinschaute in die geistige Welt, das sozusagen auf «du und du» war mit den geistigen Wesenheiten, das aber nicht gern arbeitete, das nicht seßhaft war und gar kein Interesse daran hatte, die Kulturarbeit in der physischen Welt vorwärts zu bringen.
Das ist der größte Gegensatz vielleicht, der sich äußerlich in der Geschichte der nachatlantischen Zeiten gebildet hat, und der rein eine Folge ist der verschiedenen Arten der Seelenentwickelung. Es ist der Gegensatz, den man in der äußeren Geschichte auch kennt: der große Gegensatz zwischen Iran und Turan. Aber man kennt nicht die Ursachen. Hier haben wir jetzt die Gründe.
Im Norden, nach Sibirien hinein: Turan, jenes Völkergemenge, das in hohem Grade mit den Erbstücken eines niederen astralischen Hellsehens begabt war, das infolge dieses Lebens in der geistigen Welt keine Neigung und keinen Sinn hatte, eine äußere Kultur zu begründen, sondern - weil diese Menschen mehr passiver Art waren und sogar zu ihren Priestern vielfach niedere Magier und Zauberer hatten - sich namentlich da, wo es auf das Geistige ankam, mit niederer Zauberei, ja zum Teil sogar mit schwarzer Magie beschäftigte. Im Süden davon: Iran, jene Gegenden, in denen frühzeitig der Drang entstand, mit den primitivsten Mitteln dasjenige, was in der Sinneswelt uns gegeben ist, durch menschliche Geisteskraft umzugestalten, so daß auf diese Weise äußere Kulturen entstehen können.
Das ist der große Gegensatz zwischen Iran und Turan. In einer schönen Weise wird mythisch, legendenhaft angedeutet, wie der nach dieser Kulturseite vorgeschrittenste Teil der Menschen von Norden herunterzog bis in die Gegend, die wir als die iranische angesprochen haben. Und wenn uns in der Legende von Dschemshid, jenem Könige, der seine Völker von Norden heruntergeführt hat nach Iran, erzählt wird: er bekam von jenem Gotte, der nach und nach anerkannt werden wird, den er Ahura Mazdao nannte, einen goldenen Dolch, mit dem er seine Mission auf der Erde erfüllen sollte - dann müssen wir uns klar sein, daß mit dem goldenen Dolch des Königs Dschemshid, der seine Völker herausentwickelte aus der trägen Masse der Turanier, dasjenige gegeben war, was das an die äußeren Menschenkräfte gebundene Weisheitsstreben ist, jenes Weisheitsstreben, welches die vorher in Dekadenz gekommenen Kräfte wieder heraufentwickelt und sie durchdringt und durchwebt mit dem, was der Mensch auf dem physischen Plan an Geisteskraft erringen kann. Dieser goldene Dolch hat als Pflug die Erde umgegraben, hat aus der Erde Ackerland gemacht, hat die ersten primitivsten Erfindungen der Menschheit gebracht. Er hat fortgewirkt und wirkt bis heute in alledem, auf das dieMenschen als ihre Kulturerrungenschaften stolz sind. Das ist etwas Bedeutsames, daß der König Dschemshid, der herunterzog aus Turan in die iranischen Gebiete, von Ahura Mazdao diesen goldenen Dolch erhielt, der den Menschen die Kraft gibt, sich die äußere sinnliche Welt zu erarbeiten.
Dieselbe Wesenheit, von der dieser goldene Dolch stammt, ist auch der große Inspirator jenes Führers der iranischen Bevölkerung, den wir als Zarathustra oder Zoroaster, Zerdutsch kennen. Und Zarathustra war es, der in uralten Zeiten — bald nach der atlantischen Katastrophe - mit den Gütern, die er aus den heiligen Mysterien heraustragen konnte, jenes Volk durchdrang, das den Drang hatte, die äußere Kultur mit menschlicher Geisteskraft zu durchweben. Dazu sollte Zarathustra diesen Völkern, die nicht mehr die alte atlantische Fähigkeit hatten, hineinzuschauen in die geistige Welt, neue Aussichten und neue Hoffnungen auf die geistige Welt geben. So eröffnete Zarathustra jenen Weg, den wir öfter besprochen haben, auf dem die Völker einsehen sollten, daß in dem äußeren Sonnenlichtleib nur gegeben ist der äußere Leib eines hohen geistigen Wesens, welches er, im Gegensatz zu der kleinen menschlichen Aura, die «Große Aura», Ahura Mazdao nannte. Er wollte damit andeuten, daß dieses zwar jetzt noch weit entfernte Wesen einstmals heruntersteigen würde auf die Erde, um innerhalb der Menschheitsgeschichte sich substantiellmitderErde zu vereinigen und im Menschheitswerden weiter zu wirken. Damit wurde für diese Menschen von Zarathustra auf dieselbe Wesenheit hingewiesen, die später in der Geschichte als der Christus lebte. Damit hatte Zarathustra oder Zoroaster etwas Großes, etwas Gewaltiges vollbracht. Er hatte der neuen nachatlantischen Menschheit, der entgötterten Menschheit, wieder den Aufstieg gebracht zu einem Geistigen und die Hoffnung, daß die Menschen mit den Kräften, die heruntergestiegen waren auf den physischen Plan, dennoch zum Geistigen kommen können. Der alte Inder erreichte das alte Geistige wieder in einer gewissen Weise durch die Jogaschulung. Ein neuer Weg aber sollte den Menschen eröffnet werden durch das, was Zarathustra brachte.
Zarathustra hatte nun einen bedeutsamen Beschützer. - Ich möchte ausdrücklich betonen, daß ich von Zarathustra als von einem Wesen spreche, welches schon die Griechen in die Zeit fünftausend Jahre vor dem Trojanischen Krieg versetzten, das also nichts zu tun hat mit dem, was die äußere Geschichte als Zarathustra bezeichnet, und auch nichts mit dem, was in der Zeit des Darius als Zarathustra erwähnt wird. Der Zarathustra dieser alten Zeiten hatte einen Beschützer, welcher mit dem später üblich gewordenen Namen Guschtasb bezeichnet werden kann. Wir haben also in Zarathustra eine mächtige priesterhafte Natur, welche auf den großen Sonnengeist, auf Ahura Mazdao, hinweist, auf jene Wesenheit, welche der Führer sein soll für die Menschen aus dem äußeren Physischen zurück zum Geistigen. Und in Guschtasb haben wir die königliche Natur dessen, der geneigt war, alles zu tun auf dem äußeren Gebiete, was die großen Inspirationen Zarathustras in der Welt verbreiten konnte. Daher konnte es nicht ausbleiben, daß diese Inspirationen und diese Intentionen, welche in dem alten Iran durch Zarathustra, durch Guschtasb sich geltend machten, zusammenstießen mit dem, was unmittelbar nördlich dieses Gebietes war. Und es entwickelte sich durch diesen Zusammenstoß tatsächlich einer der größten Kriege, die es in der Welt gegeben hat, von dem die äußere Geschichte nicht viel berichtet, weil er in uralte Zeiten fällt. Es war ein gewaltiger Zusammenstoß zwischen Iran und Turan. Und es entwickelte sich aus diesem Kriege, der nicht Jahrzehnte, der Jahrhunderte dauerte, eine gewisse Stimmung, die lange Zeit im Inneren Asiens andauerte, eine Stimmung, die etwa in folgender Weise in Worte gefaßt werden muß. Der Iranier, der Zarathustra-Mensch, sagte sich etwa folgendes: Überall, wo wir hinschauen, gibt es eine Welt, die zwar herabgestiegen ist aus dem Göttlich-Geistigen, die sich aber jetzt darstellt wie ein Abfall von der früheren Höhe. Wir müssen voraussetzen, daß alles, was um uns herum ist als die Welt der Tiere, Pflanzen und Mineralien, früher höher war, und daß alles dies in Dekadenz gekommen ist. Der Mensch aber hat die Hoffnung, es wieder hinaufzuführen. - Nehmen wir zum Beispiel ein Tier. Reden wir so, daß wir das, was in dem Gefühl eines Iraniers lebte, übersetzen in unsere Sprache, und reden wir so, wie etwa ein Lehrer in der Schule zu seinen Schülern reden würde, wenn er eine ähnliche Gesinnung charakterisieren wollte. Dann könnten wir sagen: Sieh dir an, was du um dich herum hast. Das war früher geistiger; jetzt ist es heruntergestiegen, ist in Dekadenz gekommen. Nehmen wir einmal den Wolf. Das Tier, das im Wolf ist, das du als sinnliches Wesen siehst, ist heruntergestiegen, ist in Dekadenz gekommen. Es zeigte vor allen Dingen früher seine schlechten Eigenschaften nicht. Du aber, wenn in dir selbst gute Eigenschaften keimen, wenn du deine guten Eigenschaften und geistigen Kräfte zusammen nimmst, du kannst das Tier zähmen. Du kannst ihm einverweben deine eigenen Eigenschaften. Dann kannst du aus dem Wolf einen zahmen Hund bilden, der dir dient! Da hast du in Wolf und Hund zwei Wesen, die gleichsam zwei Weltenströmungen charakterisieren. - Die Menschen, die ihre geistigen Kräfte verwendeten, um die Umwelt zu bearbeiten, sie waren imstande, die Tiere zu zähmen, auf eine höhere Stufe zu bringen, während die anderen, welche ihre Kräfte nicht dazu verwendeten, die Tiere so ließen, wie sie waren, so daß sie immer tiefer und tiefer sinken mußten. Das sind zwei verschiedene Kräfte. Die eine tritt in der Stimmung hervor: Wenn ich die Natur so lasse, wie sie ist, dann sinkt sie immer tiefer und tiefer herunter, dann wird alles wild. Die andere: Aber ich kann meine geistigen Augen auf eine gute Macht richten, deren Bekenner ich bin, dann hilft sie mir, dann kann ich das, was hinuntersinken will, mit ihrer Hilfe wieder hinaufführen. Diese Macht, zu der ich hinaufblicken kann, sie kann mir die Hoffnung zu einer Weiterentwickelung geben! - Diese Macht identifizierte sich für den Iranier mit Ahura Mazdao, und er sagte sich: Alles, was der Mensch tun kann, um die Kräfte der Natur zu veredeln, um sie hinaufzuheben, das kann geschehen, wenn der Mensch sich verbindet mit Ahura Mazdao, mit der Kraft des Ormuzd. Ormuzd ist eine aufwärtsgehende Strömung. Wenn der Mensch aber die Natur so läßt, wie sie ist, dann kann man sehen, wie alles in die Wildheit hineintreibt. Das kommt von Ahriman! - Und nun entwickelte sich folgende Stimmung im iranischen Gebiete: Im Norden von uns gehen viele Menschen herum. Sie sind im Dienste von Ahriman. Das sind die Ahrimanleute, die nur in der Welt herumstreifen und nur nehmen, was ihnen die Natur bietet, die nicht Hand anlegen wollen, um die Natur zu vergeistigen. Wir aber wollen uns verbünden dem Ormuzd, dem Ahura Mazdao!
So fühlte man in der Welt die Zweiheit, die da auftrat. So fühlten die iranischen Menschen, die Zarathustra-Menschen, und was sie so fühlten, das brachten sie auch in den Gesetzen zum Ausdruck. Sie wollten ihr Leben so einrichten, daß in der äußeren Gesetzgebung der Drang nach aufwärts zum Ausdruck kommen sollte. Das war die äußere Folge des Zarathustrismus. So müssen wir den Gegensatz von Iran und Turan ansprechen. Und jenen Krieg, von dem die okkulte Geschichte so vieles und so Genaues berichtet, den Krieg zwischen Ardschasb und Guschtasb, wovon der eine der König der’Turanier war und derandere der Beschützer des Zarathustra, diesen Krieg als Gegensatz zwischen Nord und Süd müssen wir als Stimmung sich fortsetzen sehen auf die beiden Gebiete Iran und Turan. Wenn wir das begreifen, werden wir fließen sehen eine gewisse Seelenströmung von Zarathustra aus auf die ganze Menschheit, auf die er gewirkt hat.
So mußte zunächst charakterisiert werden, wie das ganze Milieu, die ganze Umgebung war, in welche Zarathustra hineingestellt war. Denn wir wissen ja, daß diejenige Individualität, die in das Blut, das von Abraham durch dreimal vierzehn Generationen hinunterfloß, sich hineininkarnierte und die im Matthäus-Evangelium als Jesus von Nazareth auftritt, die Zarathustra-Individualität war. Sie mußten wir zunächst dort aufsuchen, wo sie uns zuerst in der nachatlantischen Zeit entgegentritt. Und jetzt entsteht für uns die Frage: Wieso war gerade das Blut, das von Abraham in Vorderasien durch die Generationen hinunterrann, dasjenige, welches am besten geeignet sein konnte für eine spätere Leiblichkeit des Zarathustra? Denn eine der nachfolgenden Inkarnationen des Zarathustra ist der Jesus von Nazareth.
Damit diese zweite Frage aufgeworfen werden kann, war es notwendig, zuerst die Frage nach dem Zentrum aufzuwerfen und zu beantworten, nach jenem Zentrum, das sich in diesem Blute zum Ausdruck bringt. Wir haben in der Zarathustra-Individualität dieses Zentrum, welches sich in dieses Blut des hebräischen Volkes hineininkarniert. Wir werden nun morgen zu besprechen haben, warum es gerade dieses Blut, dieses Volkstum sein mußte, aus dem Zarathustra seine äußere Leiblichkeit nahm.
First Lecture
This is now the third time that I have been given the opportunity here in Switzerland to discuss the greatest event in the history of the earth and mankind from a certain perspective. The first time was when I was allowed to speak in Basel about this event from the perspective provided by the Gospel of John; the second time was when I was allowed to give a characterization of this event based on the Gospel of Luke; and this time, for the third time, the impulse for this description will come from the Gospel of Matthew. I have often pointed out that there is something significant in the fact that this event has been preserved for us in four documents that appear to differ in a certain way. What, in a sense, gives rise to the negative, destructive criticism of today's external materialistic attitude is precisely what, according to our anthroposophical conviction, appears to us as significant. No one should presume to characterize any being or fact if they view it from only one side. I have often used the following comparison: If you photograph a tree from one side, no one can claim that this photograph is a true representation of what the tree presents to the eye; if, on the other hand, you were to photograph the tree from four sides, and even if you obtained four different pictures that bore little resemblance to each other, you would still be able to obtain a complete view of the tree by looking at these four pictures together. If this is already the case in such an external way for every single thing, how could one not assume that an event which encompasses the greatest abundance of happenings, the greatest abundance of the essence of all existence for us humans, could not be comprehended at all if it were described from only one side? Therefore, it is not contradictions that we find in the four Gospels. Rather, it is the underlying fact that the writers were aware that each of them could only describe this tremendous event from one side, and that humanity can gradually gain a complete picture by looking at these different descriptions together. And so we too want to be patient and try to gradually approach this greatest fact of the earth's becoming by relying on these four accounts and developing what we can know ourselves, based on these documents, which we call the New Testament.
From some of what has been said earlier, you can already gauge how the four different starting points or perspectives of the Gospels can be presented. But before I give even a superficial characterization of these four perspectives, I would like to point out that I do not intend to begin this series of lectures in the way in which the presentation of the Gospels or of one of the Gospels is usually begun today. One usually begins by describing their historical origins. This will be clearer to us if we wait until the end of our series to say what can be said about the history of the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, for example. For it is only natural, and can be demonstrated by examples from other sciences, that one can only understand the history of something once one has understood the thing itself. For example, no one who knows nothing about arithmetic will be able to approach a history of arithmetic with any benefit. Everywhere else, the historical account is placed at the end, and where this is not done, the division contradicts the natural needs of human cognition. And so we will also meet these needs of human cognition and try to examine the content of the Gospel we want to discuss and then go into a presentation of the historical development of this particular Gospel.
When you let the Gospels work on you from the outside, you can already feel a certain difference in the way these Gospels present themselves, in the way they speak. If you let what has been said in my lectures on the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Luke work on you, then you will have an even more precise feeling of this difference, especially in relation to these two Gospels. When you engage with the Gospel of John, you have to say that wherever you try to penetrate the powerful messages, you are overcome by a feeling of spiritual greatness, which you look up to with a sense of awe, and that in the Gospel of John you can find what reveals to us the highest to which human wisdom can aspire, the highest to which human knowledge can gradually become accessible. Man stands there, as it were, below, looking up at a summit of world existence and saying to himself: However small you may be as a human being, the Gospel of John lets you sense that something is diving into your soul with which you are related and which overwhelms you with a feeling of infinity. Thus, it is primarily the spiritual greatness of the world beings, which is related to human beings, that plunges into our soul when we speak of the Gospel of John.
Let us now recall the feeling that could overcome us in the presentation of the Gospel of Luke. Everything that this presentation of the Gospel of Luke had to permeate at that time was different. In the Gospel of John, it is primarily the spiritual greatness to which we look up with a sense of anticipation, which permeates our soul like a magical breath, when we surrender ourselves to the messages of this Gospel, in the Gospel of Luke it is the intimacy, the soulfulness itself that confronts us, one might say, the intensity of all that the forces of love in the world are capable of, of all that the forces of sacrifice in the world can accomplish when we are able to participate in them. If the Gospel of John describes the essence of Christ Jesus in its spiritual greatness, the Gospel of Luke shows us this essence in its immeasurable capacity for sacrifice, and it gives us a glimpse of what has happened in the overall evolution of the world and humanity through such a sacrifice of love, which, like other forces, pulsates and interweaves the world. Thus, it is primarily the element of feeling in which we live and breathe when we allow the Gospel of Luke to work upon us, and it is the element of knowledge that tells us something about the ultimate reasons and ultimate goals of this knowledge that confronts us in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John speaks more to our knowledge, the Gospel of Luke more to our hearts. You can feel this in the individual Gospels themselves; but it was also our aim to let this fundamental mood permeate what we added to these two documents as spiritual-scientific interpretations. Those who only wanted to hear words in the cycle on the Gospel of John or on the Gospel of Luke have truly not heard everything. The manner of speaking in the lecture cycles was fundamentally different. Everything will have to be completely different again when we approach the Gospel of Matthew.
In the Gospel of Luke, we saw everything we call human love, as it once existed in human evolution, flowing into the being who lived as Christ Jesus at the beginning of our New Testament era. If one allows the Gospel of Matthew to work on oneself only externally, then one must say that it is first of all a document which is actually more versatile than the other two, and in a certain respect even more versatile than all the other three Gospels.
And when we come to describe the Gospel of Mark, we will see that this too is one-sided in a certain way. If the Gospel of John shows us the wisdom of Christ Jesus, and the Gospel of Luke shows us the power of love, then in the Gospel of Mark we encounter what above all passes through all the realms of the world as power, as creative forces, one might say as the glory of the world. But in the Gospel of Mark there is something overwhelming in the intensity with which the power of the world is lived out. It is as if the power of the world were rushing toward us from all sides of space when we really bring the Gospel of Mark to our understanding!
Thus, what we encounter in Luke's Gospel is something that penetrates deeply into our souls, something that gives us hope for the soul, something that overwhelms us in John's Gospel; and there is something like a shudder before the power and glory of the forces of the world, before which we could almost collapse when we allow the Gospel of Mark to work on us.
The Gospel of Matthew is different. All three elements—the hopeful, promising element of knowledge, the warm element of feeling and love, and also the majestic greatness of the world—are, one might say, contained in the Gospel of Matthew. But they are in a certain way so attenuated that in their attenuation they appear to us much more human than in the three other Gospels. When we allow the three other Gospels to work on us, we feel as if we are sinking beneath the greatness of knowledge, love, and glory. All of this is contained in the Gospel of Matthew, but it is contained in such a way that we are able to maintain ourselves upright in relation to it. Everything is more humanly familiar to us, so that we can place ourselves not beneath it, but in a certain sense alongside it. Nowhere are we crushed by the Gospel of Matthew, although it also brings something that can have a crushing effect in the other three Gospels. Therefore, the Gospel of Matthew is the most universal of these four documents. It depicts Christ Jesus most as a human being, so that when we allow him to work on us as the Christ Jesus of Matthew, he is close to us in all his limbs, in all his deeds. In a certain sense, the Gospel of Matthew is something like a commentary on the other three Gospels. What sometimes seems too great for us to comprehend in the other three Gospels becomes clear to us on a smaller scale through the Gospel of Matthew. And when we understand this, a meaningful light can be shed on the other three Gospels. This is easy to understand from the details.
Let us first take what is about to be said purely stylistically. In order to describe in the Gospel of Luke how the highest degree of love and self-sacrifice flows out from this being whom we call Christ Jesus into humanity and into the world, a human stream is used that descends from the most ancient times of the earth's becoming. And Luke himself describes this stream for us right back to the beginning of humanity. In order to show us where human beings can start with their knowledge and wisdom and begin to move toward the goal that this knowledge can achieve, the Gospel of John shows us right at the beginning how the description of Christ Jesus is based on the creative Logos itself. The most spiritual thing we can achieve with our knowledge is stated right at the beginning of the Gospel of John. We are immediately led to the highest point of the quest for knowledge, to a highest point that can be realized in the human breast. It is different in the Gospel of Matthew. It begins by showing us the hereditary relationships of the man Jesus of Nazareth in their origin, so to speak, from a historical moment. It shows us the hereditary relationships within a single people: how, as it were, all the characteristics that we find united in Jesus of Nazareth have been summed up through inheritance since Abraham, as if a people, through three times fourteen generations, had allowed the best it had to offer to flow into the blood in order to represent the highest human powers in a perfect way in a human individuality. The Gospel of John leads us into the infinity of the Logos. The Gospel of Luke rises up into the immeasurability of human evolution back to the beginning. The Gospel of Matthew shows us a small people, passing on its characteristics from the patriarch Abraham through three times fourteen generations, and thus shows us the man Jesus of Nazareth.
It can only be hinted at here that for those who really want to understand the Gospel of Mark, it is necessary to have some knowledge of the cosmological forces that flow through our entire world. For just as Christ Jesus is portrayed in the Gospel of Mark, we are shown how human activity contains an extract, an essence from the cosmos, an essence of what otherwise lives in the immeasurable vastness of the worlds as world forces. We are shown how the deeds of Christ Jesus are, as it were, extracts of cosmic activities. The Gospel of Mark wants to show us how the human god Christ Jesus, as he stands on earth, stands before us as an extract of the sun's activity with all its immensity. So Mark describes how the activity of the stars works through human power.
The Gospel of Matthew also ties in with the activity of the stars in a certain way. Therefore, right where it describes the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, it leads us to a point from which we should view the great world event in such a way that cosmic facts stand in a certain connection with the becoming of humanity, by showing the star that leads the three magi to the birthplace of Jesus. But it does not describe a cosmic effect, as the Gospel of Mark does; it does not demand that we raise our gaze to this cosmic effect: it shows us three people, three magi, and the effect that the cosmic sphere has on these three people. And we can turn to the three people to feel what they feel. So we are directed toward human beings even when we are supposed to rise up to the cosmic. The reflection of the cosmic in the human heart is shown. The gaze is not carried out into immeasurable expanses, but rather the effect of the cosmic in the human heart is shown to us.
I ask you once again to take these hints as stylistic devices only. For it is the basic character of the Gospels that they describe things from different sides. The way they describe things is entirely characteristic of what they want to tell us about the greatest event in the evolution of humanity and the earth.
This is also the most significant thing at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, that we are pointed to the closest blood relationship of Jesus of Nazareth. It answers the question: What was the physical personality of this Jesus of Nazareth like? How did all the characteristics of a people since their forefather Abraham come together in this one personality so that the being we call the Christ being could reveal itself in him? This question is answered for us. We are told that in order for the Christ being to incarnate in a physical body, this physical body had to have qualities that it could only have if all the qualities of the blood of the people descended from Abraham were summed up in an extract represented in one personality: Jesus of Nazareth. It will therefore be shown that this blood in Jesus of Nazareth really does lead back through generations to the progenitor of the Hebrew people. Therefore, the essence of this people, what this people is especially for world history, for the development of humanity and the earth, is concentrated in the physical personality of Jesus of Nazareth. So what must one know first if one wants to understand the intention of the author of the Gospel of Matthew with regard to this introduction? One must know the essence of the Hebrew people! One must be able to answer the question: What could be the contribution that the Hebrew people had to make to humanity precisely because of their uniqueness?
Our external history, the external materialistic accounts of history, take little account of what is being said here. In external history, external facts are described. And there, one people stands pretty much next to another, because the description is entirely abstract. In the process, the fact that is fundamental for anyone who wants to understand human development is completely overlooked: namely, that no people in human development has the same task as another, but that each people has its own special mission and its own special tasks. Each people has a part to contribute to the total treasure that is to be delivered to the earth through human evolution. And each of these parts is different, completely specific. Each people has its own specific mission. Now, however, every people is constituted in such a way, down to the details of its physical conditions, that it can properly fulfill the part it has to contribute to the whole of humanity. In other words, the bodies of the people belonging to a nation show us such a configuration of the physical body, the etheric body, and the astral body, and such a combination of these bodies, that they can become the right instruments for bringing about the contribution that each nation has to make to the whole of humanity. What contribution did the Hebrew people in particular have to make, and how did the essence of this contribution of the Hebrew people then form the body of Jesus of Nazareth?
If one wants to understand the mission of the Hebrew people, one must look a little deeper into the overall development of humanity. It will be necessary to characterize in more detail some of what you can find outlined in my “Outline of Secret Science” and in lectures. We can best understand the contribution of the Hebrew people to the overall development of humanity if we begin with at least a few brief characteristic strokes of the starting point of that great catastrophe in human development which we call the Atlantean catastrophe.
When the Atlantean catastrophe gradually descended upon the Earth, the people who lived on the ancient Atlantean continent at that time migrated from the west to the east. Essentially, there were two currents in this migration: one that moved more to the north and another that took a more southerly route. This resulted in a large human migration of the Atlantean population, which passed through Europe and on to Asia; and if one considers the area around the Caspian Sea, one has a rough idea of how this migration of the Atlantean population gradually spread. Another stream, however, passed through what is now Africa. And in Asia, a kind of confluence of these two streams arose, as if two streams were meeting and forming a whirlpool.
What should now be of particular interest to us is what the worldview, the entire soul form, of these peoples, or at least of their main masses, was like, who were thrown over from ancient Atlantis to the east. It was indeed the case that in the first post-Atlantean period, the entire soul constitution was different from what it later became, and especially from what it is today. All these masses of people still had a more clairvoyant perception of their surroundings. At that time, people could still see the spiritual world, so to speak, and even what is seen physically today was seen in a more spiritual way. So a more clairvoyant form of life and soul existed at that time. It is particularly important, however, that this clairvoyance of the original post-Atlantean population was again different in a certain respect from, for example, the clairvoyance of the Atlantean population itself in the actual heyday of Atlantean development. During the heyday of Atlantean development, people's clairvoyant abilities were so highly developed that they could look into the spiritual world in a pure way, and the revelations of the spiritual world gave rise to impulses for good in the human soul. And one could even say that those who were more capable of seeing into the spiritual world received a greater impulse toward good during this heyday of Atlantean development, while those who were less able to see received a lesser impulse toward good.
The changes that then took place on Earth were, however, of such a nature that by the last third of the Atlantean period, and especially in the post-Atlantean period, the good aspects of the old clairvoyance had gradually disappeared. Only those who underwent special training in the initiation centers retained the good aspects of Atlantean clairvoyance. What remained of the Atlantean clairvoyance in its natural form took on such a character over time that one can say: What people saw there very easily led them to see precisely the evil, seductive, and tempting forces of existence. Gradually, the clairvoyant human gaze was no longer strong enough to see the good forces. On the other hand, humanity was left with seeing evil, that which could be a temptation or seduction for human beings. And over certain areas of the post-Atlantean population, a very bad form of clairvoyance spread, a clairvoyance that was actually itself a kind of tempter.
This decline in the old clairvoyant power was accompanied by a blossoming, a gradual development of the sensory perception that we recognize as normal for humanity today. The things that people saw with their eyes in the first post-Atlantean period and that people see today with their ordinary eyes were not at all tempting at that time, because the tempting soul forces did not yet exist. Through an external appearance that today can make people so pleasure-seeking, and even if such a sight would be the most tempting for people today, post-Atlantean people did not feel particularly tempted. On the contrary, it provoked them when they developed the inherited powers of clairvoyance. They hardly saw the good side of the spiritual world anymore, but the Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces had a powerful effect on them, so that they saw the forces and powers that could be tempters and deceivers. Human beings perceived the Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces with their old, inherited powers of clairvoyance. What was important now was that the leaders and guides of human evolution, who received their wisdom for guiding humanity from the mysteries, took steps to ensure that, despite this state of affairs, human beings would nevertheless come more and more to the good and to clarity.
Now, the people who had spread out toward the east after the Atlantean catastrophe were at very different stages of development. One can say that the further east one went, the more moral and spiritually advanced the stage of development of the people was. In a certain sense, what appeared as a new world in external perception had an ever clearer effect; it increasingly caused the greatness and glory of the external sensory world to have an effect on people. This was the case the further east one went. People who lived in the regions north of present-day India, for example, as far as the Caspian Sea, the Oxus, and the Jaxartes, had a strong inclination in this direction. In this central region of Asia, a mixture of peoples settled who could truly provide the material for various ethnic currents that then spread in different directions, including to that people whom we have often characterized in relation to their spiritual worldview, the ancient Indian people.
In the midst of Asia, among this mixture of peoples, soon after the Atlantean catastrophe, and partly even during this period, the sense of external reality was already very strongly developed. However, the people who were incarnated in this area still had a living memory, a kind of remembrance of what they had experienced in the Atlantean world. This was most strongly the case among the masses of people who then migrated to India. Although they had a great understanding of the glory of the outer world and were most advanced in observing the outer sense perceptions, they also had the most strongly developed memory of the ancient spiritual perceptions of the Atlantean era. This is why these people developed a strong urge to ascend to the spiritual world they remembered, and an ease in looking back into the spiritual world—but alongside this, a feeling that what the outer senses presented was maya or illusion. This is why this people also felt the urge not to look particularly at the outer sensory world, but to do everything possible so that the soul — now through artificial development, through yoga — could rise up to what human beings could have had directly from the spiritual world during the ancient Atlantean era.
This tendency to underestimate the external world and regard it as Maya or illusion, developing only those impulses that strive toward the spiritual, was less strongly developed among the people who remained in northern India. But this was a mixture of peoples who were in the most tragic situation. It was inherent in the nature of the ancient Indian people that they were able to undergo a certain development of yoga with a certain ease, through which they were able to ascend again to the regions in which they had lived in the Atlantean era. It was easy for them to overcome what they had to regard as illusion. They overcame it through knowledge. For them, the highest knowledge was this: the sensory world is an illusion, it is Maya; but if you develop your soul, if you make an effort, then you will reach the world that lies behind the sensory world! Thus, through an inner process, the Indians overcame what they regarded as Maya or illusion, and what they also wanted to overcome.
It was different with the northern peoples, who in history came to be called the Aryans in the narrower sense: the Persians, Medes, Bactrians, and so on. There, the sense for external perception, for the external intellect, was also strongly developed. But the inner urge, the impulse to achieve the same thing through inner development, through a kind of yoga, which the Atlantean human being had in a natural way, was not particularly strong. The living memory was not so present among the northern peoples that they translated it into a striving to overcome the illusion of the outer world in their knowledge. The soul constitution of the Indians was not present in these northern peoples. They had a soul constitution in which every member of the Iranian, Persian, or Median peoples felt something which, if we wanted to express it in our present-day words, would sound like this: When we as human beings were once in the spiritual world and experienced and saw spiritual things, and are now transferred into the physical world and stand before a world which we see with our eyes and comprehend with our intellect, which is bound to the brain, then we are confronted with a world which we have never seen before and which is completely foreign to us. and now we have been transferred to the physical world and stand before a world that we see with our eyes and comprehend with our intellect, which is bound to the brain, then the reason for this does not lie solely in human beings, and what needs to be overcome cannot be overcome solely within human beings; nothing special is achieved by doing so! The Iranian would have said: It is not only human beings who must have undergone a change; nature and everything on earth must have changed when human beings descended. Therefore, it is not enough for us human beings to leave what is around us as it is and simply say: It is all illusion, Maya, and we ourselves ascend into the spiritual world! Then we would change ourselves, but not what has changed in the whole surrounding world. That is why he did not say: Maya is spreading outside, I myself will transcend this Maya, achieve the overcoming of Maya within myself and thus reach the spiritual world! No, he said: Man belongs to the rest of the surrounding world, he is only a member of it. So if what is divine in man and what has descended from divine-spiritual heights is to be transformed, then not only must what is in man be transformed back, but also what is in our environment must be transformed back. This gave these peoples a special impulse to intervene energetically in the transformation and recreation of the world.
While in India it was said: The world has descended; what it now offers is Maya — north of there it was said: Certainly, the world has descended; but we must transform it so that it becomes spiritual again! — Sensation, the sense of knowledge, was the basic character of the Indian people. This people came to terms with the world by calling sensory perception illusion or Maya. Energy, external energy, the will to transform what is in external nature, that was the basic character of the Iranian people and the other northern peoples. They said: What is around us has descended from the divine; but man is called upon to lead it back to the divine! What was basically already present in the character of the Iranians was raised to the highest level and imbued with the greatest energy by the spiritual leaders who emerged from the mysteries.
One can only fully understand, even outwardly, what took place east and south of the Caspian Sea by comparing it with what happened further north, in regions bordering on present-day Siberia and Russia, even extending into Europe. There were people who had preserved the ancient clairvoyance to a high degree, and in whom the possibility of ancient spiritual perception and that of sensory perception, of the new intellectual thinking, were in a certain balance. Among them, in the widest circles, there was still a way of looking into the spiritual world. If we consider the character of this insight into the spiritual world, which had already descended to a lower level and was essentially, as we would say today, a lower astral clairvoyance among these peoples, a certain consequence arises for the overall development of humanity. Those who are gifted with this kind of clairvoyance become very specific individuals. They acquire a certain character disposition. This is particularly evident in those masses of people who possessed this lower clairvoyance in their national character. Such individuals essentially feel the urge to demand from their natural environment what they need for their livelihood and to do as little as possible to wrest it from nature. After all, they know as surely as today's sensory human beings know that there are plants, animals, and so on, that there are divine-spiritual beings within all of these things, for they see them. They also know that these are the powerful beings behind the physical entities. But he also knows them so well that he demands that they should, without much work on his part, provide him with the existence into which they have placed him. Much could be cited as outward expression of the mood and attitude of these astral clairvoyant people. Only one example will be given here.
In the period that is now important for us to consider, all these peoples who were gifted with clairvoyance in a state of decline, were nomadic peoples who, without settling down or establishing permanent homes, roamed around as shepherds, had no particular attachment to any place, did not particularly care for what the earth offered them, and were also willing to destroy what was around them if they needed something for their livelihood. But these peoples were not inclined to achieve anything to raise the level of culture or to transform the earth.
Thus arose the great and important contrast that is perhaps one of the most important aspects of post-Atlantean development: the contrast between these more northern peoples and the Iranian peoples. The Iranians developed a longing to intervene in the events around them, to settle down, to achieve what one has as a human being and as humanity through work, that is, to transform nature through the human powers of the spirit. This was the greatest urge of the people in this corner of the world. And immediately to the north, they encountered a people who looked into the spiritual world, who were, so to speak, on familiar terms with the spiritual beings, but who did not like to work, who were not settled, and who had no interest in advancing cultural work in the physical world.
This is perhaps the greatest contrast that has formed outwardly in the history of the post-Atlantean times, and it is purely a consequence of the different types of soul development. It is the contrast that is also known in outward history: the great contrast between Iran and Turan. But the causes are not known. Here we now have the reasons.
In the north, extending into Siberia: Turan, that mixture of peoples who were highly gifted with the legacy of a lower astral clairvoyance, who, as a result of this life in the spiritual world, had no inclination or sense of to establish an external culture, but—because these people were more passive in nature and even had low magicians and sorcerers as their priests in many cases—engaged in low sorcery, and in some cases even black magic, especially where spiritual matters were concerned. To the south of this: Iran, those regions where the urge arose early on to use the most primitive means to transform what is given to us in the sensory world through human mental power, so that external cultures could arise in this way.
This is the great contrast between Iran and Turan. In a beautiful way, myth and legend suggest how the most advanced part of humanity, according to this cultural aspect, migrated from the north to the region we have referred to as Iran. And when the legend of Jamshed, the king who led his people down from the north to Iran, tells us that he received from the god who would gradually be recognized, whom he called Ahura Mazdao, a golden dagger with which he was to fulfill his mission on earth, then we must be clear that with the golden dagger of King Jamshed, who developed his people out of the sluggish mass of the Turanians, was given that which is the striving for wisdom bound to the outer human forces, that striving for wisdom which develops the forces that had previously fallen into decadence and permeates and interweaves them with what man can achieve on the physical plane in terms of spiritual power. This golden dagger plowed the earth, turned it into farmland, and brought about the first primitive inventions of humanity. It has continued to work and continues to work today in everything that humans are proud of as their cultural achievements. It is significant that King Jamshid, who descended from Turan to the Iranian territories, received this golden dagger from Ahura Mazdao, which gives people the power to develop the outer sensory world.
The same entity from which this golden dagger originates is also the great inspirer of that leader of the Iranian people whom we know as Zarathustra or Zoroaster, Zerdutsch. And it was Zarathustra who, in ancient times — soon after the Atlantean catastrophe — with the treasures he was able to carry out of the sacred mysteries, permeated that people who had the urge to interweave the outer culture with human spiritual power. To this end, Zarathustra was to give these peoples, who no longer had the ancient Atlantean ability to see into the spiritual world, new perspectives and new hopes for the spiritual world. Thus Zarathustra opened the path we have often discussed, on which the peoples were to realize that the outer body of a high spiritual being is only given in the outer body of sunlight, which he called the “Great Aura,” Ahura Mazdao, in contrast to the small human aura. He wanted to imply that this being, though still far away, would one day descend to Earth in order to unite substantially with the Earth within human history and continue to work in the evolution of humanity. Zarathustra thus pointed these people to the same being who later lived in history as the Christ. Zarathustra or Zoroaster had accomplished something great, something powerful. He had brought the new post-Atlantean humanity, the de-deified humanity, back to a spiritual level and given them the hope that, with the forces that had descended to the physical plane, they could still attain the spiritual. The ancient Indians regained the old spirituality in a certain way through yoga training. But a new path was to be opened up to humanity through what Zarathustra brought.
Zarathustra now had an important protector. I would like to emphasize that I am speaking of Zarathustra as a being whom the Greeks placed in the time five thousand years before the Trojan War, who therefore has nothing to do with what external history calls Zarathustra, nor with what is mentioned as Zarathustra in the time of Darius. The Zarathustra of ancient times had a protector who can be referred to by the name Guschtasb, which later became common. So in Zarathustra we have a powerful priestly nature that points to the great sun spirit, Ahura Mazdao, to that being who is supposed to be the guide for humans from the outer physical realm back to the spiritual realm. And in Guschtasb we have the royal nature of one who was inclined to do everything in the outer realm that could spread Zarathustra's great inspirations throughout the world. Therefore, it was inevitable that these inspirations and intentions, which asserted themselves in ancient Iran through Zarathustra and Guschtasb, would clash with what was immediately north of this area. And this clash actually developed into one of the greatest wars the world has ever seen, about which external history does not tell us much because it took place in ancient times. It was a violent clash between Iran and Turan. And out of this war, which lasted not decades but centuries, a certain mood developed that persisted for a long time in the interior of Asia, a mood that must be expressed in words in the following way. The Iranian, the Zarathustra man, said something like this to himself: Everywhere we look, there is a world that has descended from the divine-spiritual, but now presents itself as a decline from its former height. We must assume that everything around us, such as the world of animals, plants, and minerals, was once higher, and that all of this has fallen into decadence. But man has the hope of raising it up again. Let us take an animal as an example. Let us speak in such a way that we translate into our language what lived in the feelings of an Iranian, and let us speak as a teacher in school would speak to his pupils if he wanted to characterize a similar state of mind. Then we could say: Look at what you have around you. That used to be more spiritual; now it has descended, it has fallen into decadence. Let us take the wolf, for example. The animal that is in the wolf, which you see as a sensual being, has descended, has fallen into decadence. In the past, it did not show its bad qualities. But you, when good qualities germinate within you, when you gather your good qualities and spiritual powers, you can tame the animal. You can weave your own qualities into it. Then you can turn the wolf into a tame dog that serves you! Here you have two beings, the wolf and the dog, which characterize two world currents, as it were. The people who used their spiritual powers to work on their environment were able to tame the animals and raise them to a higher level, while the others, who did not use their powers for this purpose, left the animals as they were, so that they had to sink deeper and deeper. These are two different forces. One emerges in the mood: if I leave nature as it is, it will sink deeper and deeper, and everything will become wild. The other: but I can direct my spiritual eyes to a good power, to which I profess my faith, and then it will help me, and with its help I can raise up again what wants to sink down. This power, to which I can look up, can give me hope for further development! For the Iranian, this power was identified with Ahura Mazdao, and he said to himself: Everything that man can do to refine the forces of nature, to raise them up, can happen when man connects himself with Ahura Mazdao, with the power of Ormuzd. Ormuzd is an upward current. But if man leaves nature as it is, then one can see how everything drifts into wildness. That comes from Ahriman! And now the following mood developed in the Iranian region: To the north of us, many people are wandering around. They are in the service of Ahriman. These are the Ahriman people, who only roam around in the world and take only what nature offers them, who do not want to lend a hand to spiritualize nature. But we want to ally ourselves with Ormuzd, with Ahura Mazdao!
This is how people felt the duality that was emerging in the world. This is how the Iranian people, the followers of Zarathustra, felt, and they expressed what they felt in their laws. They wanted to organize their lives in such a way that the urge to rise upward would be expressed in their external laws. This was the external consequence of Zarathustrianism. Thus, we must address the contrast between Iran and Turan. And that war, about which occult history reports so much and so accurately, the war between Arjasb and Gushtasb, one of whom was the king of the Turanians and the other the protector of Zarathustra, this war as a contrast between north and south, we must see as continuing as a mood in the two areas of Iran and Turan. When we understand this, we will see a certain soul current flowing from Zarathustra to all of humanity, upon whom he had an effect.
First, we had to characterize the whole milieu, the whole environment into which Zarathustra was placed. For we know that the individuality that incarnated itself in the blood that flowed down through Abraham for three times fourteen generations and appears in the Gospel of Matthew as Jesus of Nazareth was the Zarathustra individuality. We had to look for it first where it first appeared to us in the post-Atlantean era. And now the question arises for us: Why was it precisely the blood that flowed down through the generations from Abraham in the Near East that was best suited for the later physical body of Zarathustra? For one of the subsequent incarnations of Zarathustra is Jesus of Nazareth.
In order to raise this second question, it was necessary to first raise and answer the question of the center, the center that expresses itself in this blood. In the Zarathustra individuality, we have this center incarnated in the blood of the Hebrew people. Tomorrow we will discuss why it had to be precisely this blood, this ethnicity, from which Zarathustra took his outer physicality.