The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] Since we are gathering again here in this branch after a long summer break, perhaps a few words may be said at least about what concerns anthroposophical life during such a summer break, and in particular about what anthroposophical life has brought us during this last summer break, which was by no means insignificant for our immediate Central European spiritual life. You know that from the time we last gathered here before the summer break began, preparations started for the Munich event. This usually begins with a dramatic performance in the spirit of our spiritual movement. And in recent years we have been able to expand these dramatic performances! We initially preceded a Munich lecture series with one such dramatic mental image, were then able to precede it with two such mental images last year, and this year we were able to attempt three. Of course, there is always a certain risk involved in these performances in many different ways. But thanks to the—one might say—universal willingness to make sacrifices on the part of those who are able to participate in these artistic anthroposophical events, we have succeeded in making a start in this very direction, for we cannot yet describe the matter as anything other than a beginning—the beginning of something that will surely find its continuation as an important aspect of anthroposophical life, even when we are no longer able to be present in these physical bodies of ours. But for such things, which are already conceived beyond the narrowest circle of personal activity, a beginning must always be made. And those who participate in them at first need—for the sake of the necessary modesty as well as the necessary strength—to be aware that they are dealing with a beginning. We always combine these performances with a lecture series that brings together not only all manner of members of our Society, but also all manner of friends of our Spiritual Science movement, who—it is safe to say—gather at the Munich event from all sorts of European countries. What may be particularly striking this year will be two things for those who strive to look at these matters from both an external and internal perspective. One is precisely the way in which we think of first carrying anthroposophical life into art. For it is so very close to our hearts that spiritual life be carried into all branches of life and expressions of existence. The reason it seems so important to us to carry it into art is that Spiritual Science does not wish to be a mere abstract theory and doctrine, but is meant to be carried into immediate life so that it can, so to speak, have a practical effect. It is particularly striking, especially at the Munich lectures, that Spiritual Science does not seek to achieve this in an external way through all manner of conceptualizing and elaboration, but rather that something of life can flow from its immediate life back into artistic activity. This is evident in the way the anthroposophists participating in Munich engage with the subject matter with heartfelt devotion and growing understanding. It is also evident in the fact that we were able to prepare one lecture in 1909, two last year, and this year, despite great difficulties, even three lectures. If you examine the matters themselves, you will be able to see from a work such as *The Examination of the Soul* how occult observation can very well be utilized in artistic representations in the same way as the external observations of life. In short, I could speak at great length if the inner essence of the matter is to be discussed.

[ 2 ] What is particularly striking in Munich is the ever-increasing demand for our events. As a result, we are acutely feeling the lack of space, both for our artistic endeavors—but especially for our Spiritual Science lecture series. In the case of the lecture series, this lack of space is also evident externally, in that the participants feel quite uncomfortable due to the heat in the hall. Now, of course, a simple objection might be that we should simply use a larger hall. But using a larger hall also presents its own difficulties. As you all know, Spiritual Science does require a certain intimacy. And just as it is impossible to truly stage an ancient Greek playwright in a circus—according to reliable reports, this is said to have happened even in the present day, but only a complete lack of any understanding of art could lead to it finding approval or even popularity in wider circles; one must wonder at this; but on the other hand, it is not surprising, when one considers how little artistry there is in our time, that such a thing is deemed possible—just as it is not possible to stage an ancient Greek playwright in a circus, in a space as large as a circus, but not in a “circus”; nor is it possible with Spiritual Science: it can certainly be practiced in an ancient Greek theater, but not in a hall stretched endlessly to the point of resembling a circus. And I must frankly admit that instead of moving now in Berlin from the Architektenhaus hall—which seems to me the maximum in size—to a hall that is larger, I would much rather give such a lecture twice in the Architektenhaus than once in a larger hall. These are matters so closely connected to the inner, intimate essence of the Spiritual Science that they may not yet be understood today, but which will surely be understood once everything contained in the Spiritual Science has spread into the various branches of life.

[ 3 ] As for our activities in Munich, if we are to achieve anything of an anthroposophical nature through everything that can be done in a small hall, there is no other way than for our anthroposophical life to lead us to create our own inner space. This has led to the idea of erecting a large building in Munich that will allow us to truly have our own home to meet the needs of the Munich Cycle. How fortunate we will be with this, the coming times will show. For it is quite certain that if we are to be in a position to erect the Munich building, we must do so soon, because otherwise we will miss out on the finest fruits of our work, for the simple reason that it will then be possible to work in the appropriate manner precisely in the coming years, provided we have the space for it. That something can be achieved if we are able to build the space ourselves, we have seen not only in our small beginnings, but now again, as the Stuttgart branch has built the first Central European Anthroposophical House. And those who were present at the opening will have been sufficiently convinced of what a sacred interior space in the anthroposophical sense truly means, and how entering such a space is something entirely different from entering an ordinary hall, quite apart from the individual subtleties I discussed when I spoke in Stuttgart about the significance of color, spatial boundaries, and so on for the cultivation of occult knowledge in such a space. We have seen, after all, that this deepening we strive for in the field of anthroposophy does indeed, in a certain sense, already find numerous ears, numerous hearts, and souls in Central Europe and will likely find more and more beyond as well. We have seen, however, how easily in our time—as we have had to observe time and again—a longing can take hold, so to speak, to acquire convictions and insights about the spiritual worlds in a convenient manner. I believe that as one lecture series has followed another, and as ever greater demands have been placed on thinking, on emotional immersion, and on the expansion of knowledge in the various spheres of life—including the occult life—then a large number of those who have striven with us have sometimes already sensed that here, precisely within the current of spiritual life that we call our own, we do not make things all too easy for people. And when we consider everything that, over the course of time—if I may use the trivial expression—has been stored up—and there is, sometimes truly to my horror, a great deal has been accumulated on our bookshelf here in the form of cycles and writings—all that has come together over the years, and which, when we consider it, anyone who truly wishes to get to know the stream we call our own in an intimate way must indeed look at a little—then we will be able to say to ourselves: We make it easy for no one who wishes to enter the spiritual world. — Yet, over the years, it has become increasingly clear that we are already able to find the ear, the heart, and the soul of people, insofar as we reach them. Even though, in a peculiar way that need not be discussed further here—for example, the Congress of the European Sections in Genoa did not take place—it did not turn out that we, for our part, could celebrate, so to speak, simply because this Congress did not take place. One might have thought that, since the congress had been canceled—this was announced at the last minute; more on the causes and reasons for this later—we could have celebrated. But it immediately became clear how necessary it was to use this time differently, so that lectures were held during the time of the Genoa Congress in Lugano, Locarno, Milan, Neuchâtel, and Bern. Thus, we were at least in a position, during this time, to work on a ground where it might otherwise have become difficult to work in the near future. And when I consider, for example, that a lodge has just been formed in Neuchâtel that felt the need to name itself after a great spiritual individuality—namely, Christian Rosenkreutz—and felt the need to hear intimate things about him —which I will also present here in the near future—, when I consider that, in order to speak about Christian Rosenkreutz, everything we have gathered over the years in terms of occult truths was necessary to understand this unique individual, and that nevertheless there was a deep need to hear something more intimate about this individual, it must be said: We have succeeded in deepening our understanding through Spiritual Science, even though we have not exactly made it easy for those who work with us. — And yet how easy we make it for those who truly wish to delve deeper, how easy we make it! We may say, without being presumptuous, that we make it easy.

[ 4 ] Consider this fact, for example! I have emphasized time and again that within our Spiritual Science movement we must regard the occult ideal as the foundation of our entire anthroposophical life: In reality, there is only one occultism, only one occult truth. There cannot truly be an Eastern and a Western occultism. That would be just as sensible as distinguishing between Eastern and Western mathematics. But depending on the particular characteristics of the people, one or the other problem, one or the other question, may be better addressed through occult research in the East or in the West. Therefore, we must say: What relates to that great phenomenon which we have now for years referred to here as the Christ-appearance is a result of the occult research of the past centuries within the European esoteric schools, the European centers of occultism. Everything that has been said over the years about the individuality we call Jesus of Nazareth, what has been said about the two Jesus boys, about the indwelling of the Christ in the body of Jesus of Nazareth at the moment marked by the baptism of John in the Jordan, what has been said about the Mystery of Golgotha, and what has now been said again in Karlsruhe about the Mystery of the Resurrection, all of these are truths that could not be proclaimed today at all if the occult research of the West had not been cultivated from the middle of the 12th century down to the present day. And yet, one cannot understand Christianity without these truths. For example, one really cannot understand Christianity without an understanding of the Resurrection, no matter how great a theologian one may be. Anyone who speaks today like modern theologians cannot understand Christianity. For what could they make of, for example, Paul’s words: “But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain”? In short, without an understanding of the Resurrection, there is no understanding of Christianity! But on the other hand, one must also consider that external reason—whether applied to Spiritual Science or to natural science—has the peculiarity that it simply cannot grasp such matters as the Resurrection. The modern thinker says: I must draw a line through my entire system of thought if I am to truly believe in the Resurrection and in what is described in the Gospel of John! — Many people have said this from the depths of their consciousness. Therefore, it is necessary for occultism to shed light on these facts in the West. It is precisely these facts, which relate to the mysteries of the West and of Christianity, that the Orientalizing branch of occultism—insofar as it can be known externally—does not possess. Why is that? People over in Asia, with the exception of the regions around Asia Minor, are not interested in Christ; they have never been interested in him. They have no need to inquire into his nature; they have not had such a need throughout the centuries and millennia. Thus, in India and Tibet there are wonderful occult teachings regarding the nature of, for example, the Buddha or the Bodhisattva; but no one has been particularly interested in reflecting on the nature of Christ or even in conducting occult research into it. Therefore, one cannot possibly expect the Eastern branches of Theosophy to know anything about Christ.

[ 5 ] As you all know, when the Theosophical Movement came into being, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky played an immense role in it. How did she play such an immense role? Was it perhaps by establishing the “three principles” of the Theosophical Society, which still appear on membership cards today? Certainly not by saying: There must be a society that cultivates “universal love for humanity”! — For there are many such societies, and every normal-thinking person will regard the cultivation of universal brotherly love as something that should be promoted. What made H.P. Blavatsky’s influence so powerful is that through her, such a vast amount of occult truths entered the world. And anyone who picks up *Isis Unveiled* and *The Secret Doctrine*, which appeared years later, will say to themselves: Despite all that can be objected to, these works contain a vast amount of truths of which, until then, no one in spiritual life—except those who had undergone initiation—had the slightest inkling. And even if Madame Blavatsky had an illogical, disorderly mind and concocted things that stand alongside the communications of high masters and should not be there—to discuss that would go too far now—even if she was a passionate nature and often spoke in ways that are not appropriate—for in occultism it is not appropriate to speak so passionately and so unsystematically —, even if one could say that it would be good to take *Isis Unveiled* and arrange it systematically and logically, or to remove five-sixths of *The Secret Doctrine* and edit the remaining sixth in an orderly manner, one must nevertheless focus on the positive in theosophical life and say: Something mighty has entered into occult life.

[ 6 ] But what is the truth of the matter? The truth is that H.P. Blavatsky, at the time she was writing *Isis Unveiled*, was under a kind of Rosicrucian inspiration. In *Isis Unveiled*—apart from the errors of Rosicrucianism—there are very great Rosicrucian truths, and what is significant in it is actually all Rosicrucian. I said, apart from the errors of Rosicrucianism! For ancient Rosicrucianism, for example, did not have the capacity to grasp the truths of reincarnation and karma; for the Rosicrucianism of the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries did not possess the truths regarding reincarnation and karma. That was something the West could only come to understand later. In *Isis Unveiled*, Madame Blavatsky does not present a sufficiently adequate doctrine of reincarnation and karma either; in fact, she has even adopted all the errors of Rosicrucianism. Then it came to pass that Madame Blavatsky, through circumstances that would take us too far afield to discuss here, had strayed from the influences stemming from Rosicrucianism and was captivated by an Orientalizing “Theosophy.” From this emerged the “Esoteric Doctrine,” which contains great truths regarding everything that is not Christian, but utter nonsense regarding everything that is Christian. Thus, with regard to all the world’s religions and worldview systems, except for Judaism and Christianity, Blavatsky’s Esoteric Doctrine is very useful; but what is found therein regarding Judaism and Christianity is of no use at all, because H.P. Blavatsky entered a field where these truths were not cultivated. The entire direction that the Theosophical Movement later took is connected to this. This Theosophical Movement became inadequate for understanding Christianity. And using one example—our important example—let me make clear what is inadequate in the Theosophical Movement for understanding Christianity.

[ 7 ] For Oriental occultism, the highest form of individuality—apart from the highest initiates, who speak no differently from us even in Orientalism—is the individuality of the Bodhisattva. Such a Bodhisattva was that individual who, about five centuries before our era, ascended to the next rank, which is now once again understood in Orientalism. Thus, we are dealing with the fact that that Bodhisattva, who was the son of King Suddhodana, became the Buddha at the age of twenty-nine. For anyone who understands the essence of the Buddhist creed, becoming a Buddha entails that the being in question can no longer reappear on Earth after the physical life in which he became the Buddha. Thus, the Bodhisattva becomes a Buddha. Then he no longer returns to Earth in an ordinary body according to the laws of reincarnation. But he has a successor. At the very moment the Bodhisattva attained enlightenment and ascended to Buddhahood, he had, as it were, appointed a successor as Bodhisattva. This next Bodhisattva will now always appear as a human being, as an outstanding human being, until he himself ascends to Buddhahood. Now, every adherent of Orientalism will regard it as a truth that exactly five thousand years after the enlightenment of Gautama Buddha under the Bodhi tree, the succeeding Bodhisattva will ascend to Buddhahood and appear as the Maitreya Buddha. That is three thousand years from our time. So that until then, in the various incarnations that will come, a Bodhisattva will live who will appear on Earth again and again, but who will only ascend to Buddhahood three thousand years from our time, and will then be a great teacher on Earth.

[ 8 ] This is the highest form of individuality to which the Orientalizing occult teaching aspires. Because Madame Blavatsky was, in a sense, ensnared by the Orientalizing trend, the understanding one could gain of these matters was limited by Oriental concepts. Now, however, there was also a desire to give Europeans a certain understanding of Christianity. But one was unable to truly understand Christianity using Orientalizing concepts. One could only reach as far as the Bodhisattva and Buddha individualities. The consequence of this was that even the clairvoyants could only reach as far as a Bodhisattva individuality. Such an individuality, however, existed in Jeshu ben Pandira, who lived one hundred and five years before our era, who had a special relationship with the Essenes, and who had disciples, including the one who later prepared the Gospel of Matthew. Such a Bodhisattva individuality, who was the successor to Gautama Buddha, was embodied in that Jeshu ben Pandira. Orientalizing Theosophy now speaks of him. And to the clairvoyant gaze, it is now as if nothing special had happened in the world one hundred and five years after Jeshu ben Pandira. Take H.P. Blavatsky. She directed her occult gaze toward the point where Jeshu ben Pandira lived; she saw that a great Bodhisattva individuality was embodied there, but because her occult eye was limited by her entanglement in an Orientalizing theosophy, she could not see that Christ was there one hundred and five years later. In short, she knew about the Christ only what was said about him in the West, and from this arose the idea that no Christ had ever lived at all—that it was all a hoax—but that only a hundred and five years before our era had a Jeshu ben Pandira lived, who was stoned and then hung from a tree, and thus was not crucified. This Jeshu ben Pandira is now described as if he were the Jesus of Nazareth. But this is a complete confusion. And nothing at all is said about the real Jesus of Nazareth, who was the bearer of the Christ; he is usurped, and the one who was there one hundred and five years earlier is called the “Christ.” Because they want to give him a European name, they call him Christ.

[ 9 ] But we must say: In that movement, people simply fail to see what the Christ-essence is. The moment one has to draw attention to such a thing, one is naturally in an awkward position; there is no denying that. Why? Well, I have to say: For anyone familiar with one science or another, there are things that are open to debate. — But there are certainly things that are not open to debate, where, if the other person thinks differently, one has to say to oneself: Then he simply doesn’t know what it’s all about. — But one can be regarded as an extraordinarily arrogant person if one says: “You don’t understand that!” — We find ourselves in this awkward position where we cannot agree with those who speak of Yeshu ben Pandira as if he were the Christ. They simply are not ready to understand it. It is unpleasant to have to say this, but it is so. Therefore, one cannot blame them if they speak of that Being—whom they do indeed acknowledge—as though it could incarnate in the flesh again and again. For they have no concept of that Being who, as the Christ Being, could appear in the flesh only once. And now pick up Annie Besant’s *Esoteric Christianity*, read it more closely than is customary in Theosophical circles: it describes an individuality who lived one hundred and five years before our era; the only mistake made is that she is referred to as “Christ.” Now let us suppose that some personality, for example the one who wrote the aforementioned book, were to say: In the 20th century, the one she described back then in *Esoteric Christianity* appears in the flesh in some human being—then there would be nothing at all to object to except, from our standpoint, what someone would hear if they went to India and said there: The Buddha is reincarnated. — For there they would be told: You are simply an utterly uneducated European. We all know that the Buddha cannot appear again in the flesh; you understand nothing of Buddhism. — But we must also claim the same for ourselves as Europeans if someone were to say that Christ will be incarnated a second time. We would have to answer: You do not understand this, for the true knowledge of the Christ-being shows us that this being is one who can appear in a physical body only once! — These are understandings of a matter, let us say, at different levels. There is then no misunderstanding.

[ 10 ] I ask: To what extent is what might separate us from any Orientalizing theosophical movement limited? Do we deny that 105 years before our era there lived a man who was stoned to death for blasphemy and then hung from a tree? No, we do not deny it. Or do we deny that a great individuality was hidden within that being? We do not deny that. Nor do we deny that this being could incarnate again in the 20th century. We acknowledge it. Is there, then, any real point at which we would deny what is characterized in the other current? Only this: that we must say, “The one whom we call the Christ, you do not know; you call another by that name.”—But we must reserve the right to set the record straight. Otherwise, it is merely a matter of nomenclature. The only thing that is missing is that you explicitly say that nothing of what we speak of—as having occurred at the starting point of our calendar—ever took place. For there we place our two Jesus boys, the baptism of John in the Jordan, the Mystery of Golgotha. You say nothing of this! Surely we are entitled to know something that you do not know. For otherwise one would decree: What we do not know, no one else may know; for everything we do not know is false. — In this regard, we stand on the ground that we do not deny anything at all, and if anything is denied, it is done so from the other side.

[ 11 ] In this way, any misunderstanding that might arise could be easily dispelled. Therefore, it is essentially impossible for a misunderstanding to arise on our soil, and indeed, there is none. We must simply have the right to bring occult research—which simply does not exist in that environment because nothing is known about it, and which only serves to infinitely deepen the West’s problems—into theosophic life. Thus we see that, on an important point, if good will is present, it is not at all necessary for any disharmony to arise within the theosophical movement. For this, however, good will is necessary—good will not in the sense of denying any truth that can be recognized as correct. That would not be good will, but a denial of truth. But good will must be present insofar as one is reasonable. For, how do different opinions arise? Is it perhaps because a matter is viewed from different standpoints, or perhaps because it is viewed from different levels? If that is the case, then the other person will not be able to state the reason either. And then it is a matter of understanding the matter and showing forbearance.

[ 12 ] This is precisely what I must point out today, as we gather together again for the first time, as something that must at least be clear to us and that has been cited as proof of how easy it is, especially within our movement, to see clearly if one is willing to do so. That is why we can say: We have no need whatsoever to oppose anyone; we can calmly wait until opposition is directed at us. — We can calmly continue our work and would not have emphasized this matter, nor would we have spoken of it here today, if our friends were not being misled by the claim that “the Theosophists are completely divided among themselves.” — As soon as one delves into these matters, one may come upon the highly uncomfortable fact that one must admit: On the other hand, there are certain things one does not know. — This can brand one as arrogant, and one will have to accept that from time to time, provided one is otherwise conscious of the fact that one can be genuinely humble and modest. That was also what needed to be worked out last year as the real progress that has been made in occult work since the mid-13th century, as is described, for example, in the book *The Spiritual Guidance of Man and Humanity*. These results, which have been available since that time, are hardly ever mentioned by any other movement besides our own. Therefore, we may say that we are already imposing upon our occult movement the inconvenience of addressing the most advanced occult findings. And we may regard it as a positive outcome of our summer work that, for example, when establishing the branch in Neuchâtel, there was a need to get to know the greatest teacher of Christianity, Christian Rosenkreutz, more closely in his various incarnations and in his particular nature.

[ 13 ] I myself have raised the points that have been raised today so that each of you has the opportunity to clarify the actual state of affairs when someone from the other side says: Here it is claimed that Christ will incarnate again in the 20th century; there it is claimed that Christ will come only as a spiritual being. These are two different points of view. — No, one must not stop at the fact that these are two different points of view, but one must emphasize—even on the other side—that they are speaking there of that Being who was stoned to death one hundred and five years before our era. But when, for example, in Annie Besant’s latest book, *A Change of the World*, everything is blurred and no attention is drawn to the fact that the name Christ is merely usurped—so that there is a glaring contradiction between *Esoteric Christianity* and *A Change of the World*—then these are matters that must be pointed out, lest anyone believe that Annie Besant’s new book is speaking of the Christ. For otherwise, Annie Besant would have to say that she is drawing a line under “Esoteric Christianity” and that its content is no longer correct. For if the content were correct, it would speak of a being who lived one hundred and five years before our era and not, in a certain sense, at the beginning of our era, as we speak of Christ Jesus.

[ 14 ] Thus, the defining feature of our movement is that, up until very recently, we have been sharing the results of our occult research. Therefore, in a certain sense—albeit unconsciously—it is a kind of slander when we are called “Rosicrucians”—not by ourselves, but by outsiders. In a certain sense, it is a kind of slander; at the very least, when outsiders call us “Rosicrucians,” it brings to mind a charming incident that took place in a market square in a Central German town, where it was said that everyone knew that so-and-so was a phlegmatic. “What?” someone there said, “he’s supposed to be a phlegmatic? I know full well that he is a butcher and not a phlegmatic! — But the same logic—that if one is a butcher, one cannot be a phlegmatic—underlies the statement that the current in which we live is not a theosophical one, but a “Rosicrucian” one. Why do we cultivate Rosicrucian principles? Because there have been Rosicrucian centers of occultism, and because we must incorporate Rosicrucian findings—those that exist and have been cultivated—into our theosophical movement, just as we have spoken impartially about Brahmanism, Orientalism, and older and newer forms of Christianity. I do not believe that in many other theosophical branches, as has happened with us, there has been discussion, for example, of the Mexican deities Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca. Thus, alongside all other matters, Rosicrucian occult findings are also incorporated. This is quite natural if one does not disdain the incorporation of occult matters. And if we have a good number of symbols taken from Rosicrucianism, this stems from the fact that such things have the greatest effect on the mind and heart of modern people. We are modern Theosophists precisely because we do not spurn the most modern research findings. Or has anyone perhaps ever heard me use the salutation: “My dear ‘Rosicrucian’ friends”? — It is precisely because we stand on the common ground of Theosophy that such things happen. Therefore, it is an unconscious slander when our movement is labeled “Rosicrucian.” One must be lenient with these matters.

[ 15 ] Our task this winter will be, in particular, to delve even more deeply into the teachings and truths we have received in the past. In particular, in order to prepare the ground and to be able to speak here soon about Christian Rosenkreutz, I would like to discuss the threefold structure of the human being and its true foundations, insofar as the human being is one who can receive intellectual, aesthetic, and moral impulses. We will have to search for these things very deeply in the occult depths and deepen the teachings we have received, for example, regarding the Saturn, Sun, and Moon evolutions, precisely by considering the intellectual, aesthetic, and moral human being.