The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Third Lecture

[ 1 ] I would like to begin today’s discussion with the concept of chance. We speak in the most varied ways about how certain events in the external world can be explained by the fact that they proceed according to laws, that we recognize certain laws—natural laws—in them, while regarding other events, people actually say: He recognizes no law as to why this or that happened at a particular moment; he can only acknowledge chance in a sequence of events such as the one before his eyes. In particular, our current science tends, wherever the thoroughly abstract and purely rational laws—which it alone recognizes and calls natural laws—are insufficient, to speak of mere chance, that is, of something in relation to which it is absolutely forbidden to assume any regularity whatsoever. Contemporary science, in fact, expressly forbids speaking of any regularity whatsoever precisely where it speaks of chance, where its laws do not apply. For, as is evident both in general and in particular, there is hardly anything in the entire course of human history more intolerant than precisely—not the facts of science, which cannot be intolerant, and in regard to the presentation of facts we also attribute the greatest merit to contemporary science—but rather that which is built upon the facts as a scientific mindset. The materialistic mindset of our time is among the most intolerant things that have ever befallen humanity in the course of history.

[ 2 ] If we now consider chance from an emotional perspective, in the sense of our Spiritual Science, we first ask ourselves: How does chance present itself to human beings? How does what we call chance present itself to human beings? — When it occurs, it presents itself as if human beings, based on their thoughts and ideas of whatever kind, could not presuppose that this chance possesses a meaning or an inner lawfulness. It appears as though human reason must, so to speak, simply let chance be as it presents itself, and cannot concern itself with whether there might be some regularity inherent in this chance. In particular, this is usually the case with those coincidences that, as such, seem to fall into human life inexplicably, so that people do not really want to approach these coincidences with their reason, with their intellect, in order to master them. Strangely enough, people behave differently with regard to feeling, and this is something that, although not taken into account in the present, is nevertheless deeply instructive: feeling cannot always be mastered in the way it acts by the prejudices of the intellect and reason, but rather it arises—as you can see from numerous public and specialized lectures—from hidden depths of the soul that are even wiser than human beings in their intellect and reason. Thus it happens that people are struck by what intellect and reason call a coincidence, yet through which a person finds themselves drawn to or repelled by something, feeling pleasantly or unpleasantly affected by it. Let us take just one very specific case, which you will not deny can occur very frequently in a similar way in your life, time and again. Let us take the case: a student sits sweating over some arithmetic problem; he sits there sweating terribly because he cannot find the solution to this problem. But after sitting and sweating for a long time, he has finally solved it and is now glad that he has arrived at an answer. But he tells himself: If I’m to be absolutely sure that I won’t fail the class and get a bad grade, I have to work through this problem one more time! — and he prepares himself to work through it again after he’s had his dinner. Then, quite by chance, through something completely unrelated, a classmate of the student walks in and asks: “What did you come up with?” — Both compare their results and they match, and in this way the student is spared what would otherwise have been in store for him. He is now free of it, doesn’t need to sit and sweat for another hour, and can go straight to bed. Now, if the father is an “enlightened” man, he will say: The other student didn’t rush in to spare my son an hour that might have been harmful to his health, but was sent by his mother to bring me this or that which I had forgotten. The father, then, calls it a coincidence. — But can you deny—and you certainly won’t deny—that the student feels quite a pleasant sensation, even if he doesn’t believe that an angel sent this classmate to him? He will be quite pleasantly moved by it in his heart, quite differently from what his intellect and reason might suggest. The father will certainly not be inclined to assume that an angel from heaven sent this classmate to his son, but he will nevertheless be touched by it in a sympathetic way.

[ 3 ] This is what I mean when I say that feeling can be wiser, when it arises from the hidden depths of the soul, than intellect and reason, which are only meant to develop independently over the course of our earthly mission, in such a way that they are left to their own devices, as if forsaken by God, and can therefore easily fall into the error of believing that what presents itself to them is not governed by any divine-spiritual law, but that in fact nothing at all lives within it. Thus we may say: What rises up from the depths of our soul, whereby we, as in this case, are wiser in feeling than in intellect and reason, points out to us quite clearly that the assertion of Spiritual Science is correct, namely that that which lies in the hidden depths of the soul below and rises up, as in feeling, from these hidden depths of the soul, originates precisely from that epoch in which human beings were not yet left to their own devices, and that what speaks within our feelings as sympathy and antipathy still stems from the ancient Lunar Age. So that in the course of Earth’s evolution, human beings need only become as intelligent in their intellect and reason as they have become in their feelings through the ancient lunar evolution. Now someone might say: I have wisely observed that feeling is not always entirely intelligent, that it can also be very foolish. — This stems from the fact that, as Earth beings, our feelings are already influenced by our intellect and reason, that these already work their way down into the feelings, so that when the feelings become foolish, they do so only because they are influenced by intellect and reason. If it were not already influenced by intellect and reason through the general conditions of incarnation and the general development of humanity, it would in fact be the wiser aspect within the human being compared to reason and intellect, which are the more foolish ones.

[ 4 ] When we look at the matter this way, something quite peculiar about chance emerges, which is extraordinarily instructive. We might even ask: Isn’t it reasonable that a person can view certain things in this way—if they so choose—and call them “chance”? Isn’t that perhaps reasonable? — The question could very well be raised, and it is not without merit when we consider that, in the course of Earth’s evolution, human beings are meant to develop intellect and reason—what we call our normal consciousness. By the end of Earth’s evolution, they are to have reached a stage where they recognize the laws governing those facts that they still regard as random today. Thus, they still appear to him today as random. He cannot yet read the law directly from them, as he can in necessary natural phenomena; they still conceal their regularity from him. But humanity will learn to recognize a deeper lawfulness precisely in that which, during the course of Earth’s development, conceals the lawfulness and thereby appears as chance—a lawfulness that, once Earth’s development has run its course, will indeed impose itself with the same necessity as the laws of nature do now, but only when the development of the Earth has run its course. If what we call chance events were to confront him now just as the laws of nature do, humanity would be unable to learn anything from them. He would be unable to resolve to say to himself: You can regard it as meaningful and also as chance! — So, because it is within the human being’s power and at the human being’s discretion to apply intellect and reason to what presents itself as chance, thereby he learns to find his way into earthly incarnations, learns to penetrate with intellect and reason what chance seemingly presents in a lawless manner, so that what cannot appear to him as such rigid, abstract laws must appear as spiritual laws.

[ 5 ] Here we glimpse a profoundly wise aspect of the world’s becoming, which, if we grasp it meaningfully, tells us: It is arranged with extraordinary ingenuity in the existence of the world that certain things appear to us as mere chance; therefore, we must first unravel them along the threads of a lawfulness that we must first discover within them. And so that we may engage ourselves in this process, throw ourselves into the balance, in order to advance in our development, it has been placed within our will to be either wise or foolish, either to recognize a regularity even in the coincidences or to accept only the rigid laws of nature. Thus, little by little, it will come to pass that, over time, those branches of knowledge will come into being that wish to make use only of the external, abstract, rational laws of nature and will dismiss everything else as chance. These external branches of knowledge will appear as activities of the soul life; yet if man, with his soul being, had looked up—in the sense of the conclusion of Goethe’s *Faust*—into a higher world and had come close to what is designated in all mysticism as “Eternal Feminine”—where the eternal laws of nature and the scientific disciplines are symbolically and mystically represented as feminine—would prove to be “foolish virgins” at the end of earthly existence. In contrast, within what today asserts itself as Spiritual Science, something will take shape that will bring lawfulness and wisdom to those areas where the foolish virgins—the external sciences—cannot introduce any lawfulness. This will give rise to a number of branches of knowledge, and these will be the “wise virgins” at the end of Earth’s evolution. And the beautiful parable in the Gospel already shows what will become of the foolish and the wise virgins when the times are fulfilled.

[ 6 ] These things are always well-suited to truly introduce us to the mysteries of the world’s evolution. But when we combine what we have directly absorbed from observing the external world with various insights we have gained through Spiritual Science, a very remarkable connection emerges, and I ask you to follow this connection with me in thought.

[ 7 ] You know that, during their time on Earth, human beings will increasingly assimilate the content, insights, achievements, and experiences of normal consciousness. But all development proceeds slowly and gradually. And therefore, what will in the future be normal for human beings will begin to permeate—and is already permeating—our purely abstract development of reason and intellect, as well as the natural sciences: what is permeating is not merely derived from normal consciousness, but has to do with higher forms of consciousness. This is, of course, something that must remain veiled from normal consciousness, but which points to the deeper backgrounds of existence. Therefore, it is natural that wherever anything intrudes that transcends normal consciousness, more will also come to light in a remarkable way than one can lightly call coincidence. Or, in other words: As long as people interact with one another solely through normal consciousness, one can easily speak of coincidence. Just consider life for a moment. If you interact with one another as human beings in such a way that you make not the slightest claim that anything other than what intellect and reason might bring into human speech and action plays a role in human interaction, then you will be able to speak lightly of chance. For then everything in human interaction and in external facts that does not present itself as subject to a certain lawfulness will appear as chance in such a way that it will be difficult to discern how there is a real, lawful connection even in what seems random. But let us suppose that something enters our earthly life that breaks through the entirely ordinary human interaction based solely on intellect and reason—something that is more in human coexistence than mere intellect and reason. And so that you may see what I mean, I would like to cite a specific case, which I ask you to regard simply as a case that actually occurred in life and from which we can learn many things through the means of Spiritual Science. Let us take a rather harsh, not very pleasant, indeed ugly case, from which we can, however, learn—as if through an experiment—what really happens.

[ 8 ] In a certain place, a pastor had seduced a husband’s wife. The pastor had developed a romantic relationship with this woman, and the husband was deeply distressed by this. In the same town there were two people who were friends and who were devoted to the pastor not only through their intellect and reason, but also through their feelings. They were under his spell because he exerted his influence not only through intellect and reason, but also through religious worship, through the spiritual aspect of religion. That this worship did not work particularly well in this case is not the point here; rather, the point is what means the two resorted to and that the pastor was precisely the spiritual guide of these two. And it came to the point where the two friends wanted to do the pastor a favor and discussed how to get the husband out of the way by any means necessary. In this respect, the case is ugly because the spiritual element is mixed with the selfish human one; it thus becomes, in a certain sense, a kind of black magic. So the two friends discussed murdering the husband, and they did so. The two had thus taken on such a heavy burden of guilt, not merely through a rational decision, but also through the presence of a psychic element that worked through the congregation. We thus have the curious case that in a human context we have not merely what is intellect and reason, but also what lies beyond intellect and reason; it is effective precisely because the pastor was a pastor and worked through the means of spiritual life. What can we now expect, given the premises of Spiritual Science we have already adopted? Since events are causes and, as such, have consequences, we can expect that something else will follow what has happened. In most cases where something happens that has to do solely with intellect and reason, you will find many so-called coincidences. These coincidences will manifest in life in such a way that, if you have not yet been touched by Spiritual Science, you will readily dismiss them as mere coincidences. But people will not be able to so readily dismiss as coincidences those effects in life that result from causes in which the spiritual and the psychic have played a part. It was two friends who, together, had brought about the murder. We must therefore expect that in this case karma was particularly at work and, given the manner in which it occurs, would compel us not to think merely of coincidence. So that something special must indeed have happened if, as in this case, such a thing is the cause: an influence, so to speak, that one might describe with terms like gray or black magic. And lo and behold, what actually happened? Curiously, the two murderers fell ill—with two different illnesses—and both died at the very same hour! Anyone who insists on speaking of coincidence will, of course, want to speak of coincidence here as well. But the person who does not wish to speak solely of coincidence will be tempted to think a little more deeply. And what has been cited for this striking example, you will find confirmed in many instances, wherever you are truly willing to examine, wherever you can suspect in life that something other than what belongs exclusively to the earthly mission and earthly consciousness is at play—where, in other words, something is at play that has its origins beyond the sphere of existence, that more or less, through its peculiar external course, already points to something abnormal, as the ordinary person would say. But anyone observing from the standpoint of Spiritual Science would say: It is as if one were pointing out with one’s fingers that, because there is a different meaning in the causes, the effects also reveal themselves in a particularly meaningful way in their karmic course.

[ 9 ] So we see that, in fact, when we consider the workings of the supersensible behind the sensible, we are already pointed to this by the very way in which phenomena and external facts present themselves to us: there is something different about these external facts than about those that do not proceed in such a way that the supersensible plays a part in them. — It would indeed be highly desirable if, for once, external science were to investigate something other than all manner of unnecessary things that are so frequently brought to light in science today, and which the in some respects witty aesthetician Friedrich Theodor Vischer once lambasted by saying: There was once a scholar who burrowed his way into Goethe’s house and examined all manner of dust that had settled there for years, and all the papers that had been sitting in the wastebaskets for ages, then went into all sorts of remote rooms, knocked over foul-smelling trash barrels, and then produced a treatise on the ‘connection between Mrs. Privy Councilor von Goethe’s chilblains and the symbolic allegorical figures in the second part of Faust.’ — That is a bit radical. But in the book catalogs published on the most erudite treatises, one can already find such things. It would be useful for the external sciences if, instead of what V-Vischer sought to characterize, they would once employ such things that strikingly demonstrate that in events one is inclined to regard as coincidence, there is indeed something at work which, in the very way it presents itself to us, shows that in such events, where the human being is immersed in the psychic, meaning also stands out strikingly. Of course, it also emerges in what is so lightly called chance; only it is not so clearly visible there, so spiritual observation must be added if one is to see the operation of the law that is, after all, present everywhere. And we then see in what confronts us as the very opposite of lawfulness—what confronts us as chance—even when we merely observe our own lives, the collision of two worlds, truly the collision of two worlds. — What is this, actually?

[ 10 ] Human beings have a mission to fulfill on Earth, which means they must develop what we now call normal consciousness. Through the wise order of the universe, they thus have the opportunity to view a very broad range of events as mere chance. It is thus, in a sense, up to their discretion to introduce regularity into these events. But there is never just one current at work; rather, there are always several currents. We see how spiritual forces are at play everywhere—that is, spiritual forces in which human beings also participate. There would also be a spiritual element in an external event of the kind described if the person in question had not been a pastor; but then he would not have been placed within this factual context. What I mean, then, is that human beings, through the development of their souls, participate in the spiritual realm themselves. This is what also clearly presents itself alongside the intellectual and rational currents in the world. Both currents always play a role in our lives. You must not believe, for example, that those who present themselves as monists—that is, as materialists—are always completely independent of the spiritual or believe in nothing at all, as they assume. Monism as a whole is nothing other than a belief; the point is simply that it is a belief that obscures the spiritual in relation to the essence of the human being. So that what is really at stake is seeing through maya in such matters. It is, of course, difficult to always see through maya in the face of human prejudice. When one is deeply entrenched in maya, one does not see through it so easily. Anyone today who takes a historical-materialist standpoint might say: The development of humanity proceeds in such a way that certain purely materialistic contradictions in human coexistence will lead to some kind of collapse, and from this collapse a new social order will then emerge. — We know that such an assumption is made within the current of historical materialism. It has been prophesied that development proceeds in such a way that the conflict between classes and social strata will bring about a collapse of the social order, and from this a kind of refoundation of society would then emerge. Such a historical materialist will certainly admit that he believes in nothing, but relies solely on historical facts, and out of a certain inner satisfaction, even bliss, he will say: What strange fellows they were, those who spoke of the Apocalypse, of a millennial kingdom and so on, who spoke of a different shape of the future emerging from the spiritual world! — He will dismiss them as backward prophets. But he has no idea that he is merely adopting a different belief, that he is substituting materialistic belief for spiritualistic belief. Yet such a thing must be seen through by the seeker of truth; he must increasingly transcend maya.

[ 11 ] Thus, in the manner indicated, two worlds collide within us: one that is connected solely with intellect and reason, as they arise from our earthly mission, and the other that is connected with spiritual events, which cluster in such a way that, even in their randomness, they speak strikingly for themselves, as was the case in the example given, which we could multiply with countless other instances.

[ 12 ] What, then, is it that can lead us to stop short of what is, after all, entirely in keeping with the purpose of our mission on Earth: introducing regularity into chance through our own arbitrariness, so that we truly build upon what a wise evolution of the world has given us—that we can view certain things as random, and then, when we become wiser, seek to impose regularity upon them? What is it that causes us to introduce regularity in this way? Let us, so to speak, take a hard look at what is before us, without sparing the present weaknesses.

[ 13 ] People today will throw themselves at the laws of nature with bold, scientific daring and enshrine natural facts in such laws. In this, people are bold. Why are they bold in this regard? It may be harsh, but it is true in a certain sense: people are bold because nothing else is required! Recognizing the laws of nature, assuming laws where external facts speak so clearly—this requires no particular courage. Today we would even be inclined to accord greater respect to those who deny the laws of nature than to those who acknowledge them. If someone were to say: People say there are laws of nature, but that could just as well be a coincidence—we might show this person more respect, because it would be a radically bold decision to assume mere coincidence even in the realm of regularity. Nietzsche came close to viewing everything as a coincidence. So someone might say: If the sun has risen every day so far, that too could be based on chance, and people would be no less justified in viewing this daily rising of the sun as a coincidence than other events. — That could be bold, could be courageous, only it would of course be wrong. But to acknowledge the laws of nature that operate in chemical and physical processes—that is a courage that does exist, that people possess, and it should not be denied them; but it is cheap. For the world cannot easily be regarded as mere chance, insofar as one is dealing with facts of nature. But courage evaporates in the face of things that are usually called random, where a person ought to be strong—namely, in the face of chance—and ought to say to themselves: In a certain sphere, I am confronted with events that seem to come together without meaning; I will seek a deeper meaning in them. — To bring meaning into external chance would mean to confront the external signs with a strong soul, so that courage would also endure in the face of seemingly random events. Thus, today’s fantasizing about chance stems from an inner weakness, because people do not dare to recognize a law in the things they today call chance. This is something that may be described as scientific cowardice, as the cowardice of science in the face of chance: to stand still and lack the courage to bring laws into what presents itself as mere chaotic confusion, because the law does not present itself and compel us to bring it in through inner courage. Therefore, the timid science that today seeks merely to extend itself to the laws of nature must be countered by the courageous, strong, bold science of the spirit, which so enlivens the inner soul that law and order are brought into the apparent chaos of chance. And this is the aspect of Spiritual Science of which one must say: Through it, human beings are to become strong, so as to recognize laws not merely where external circumstances compel strength and courage, but also where they must summon their inner being to speak, so to speak, as otherwise only natural phenomena speak to them through their compulsion. Nature is complete, it is there. Humanity stands before it. Alongside nature and everywhere within nature stands chance. Humanity is itself woven into this chance, and a large part of what it calls its fate lies in the laws of this chance. What must happen? What must happen—let that be answered today.

[ 14 ] Something must happen that, in fact, many people in today’s outer, exoteric world do not even suspect, and of which they have absolutely no mental image. For what could happen to actually happen, there needs to be a stimulation of the impulse that drives outward scientific inquiry—a stimulation that cannot come from this outward scientific inquiry alone, that is quite impossible for it to come from. What is needed is an influence on this external science from the realm of spiritual research. For external science, because it allows itself to be constrained by its own laws, will not be able to summon the courage necessary to look into the realm of apparent chance and discern spiritual law. This is connected to what has often been touched upon here: that Spiritual Science, if it is to be taken seriously, must heed a new impulse that simultaneously points to a kindling of the human soul’s courage, which must lead to something entirely new entering the world: even if this new thing is nothing other than a renewed grasp of the very same impulse that has indeed been given to humanity, but was given more or less unconsciously and must be brought to consciousness from our age onward. One sees everywhere how a new impulse must come. But the others notice it too, those who do not want this new impulse. They notice it quite clearly; but they sometimes account for it in a rather peculiar way. They do not say so directly. But the strange thing is that all those who lack the courage for what has now been described are still able, in a peculiar way, to come to terms with all manner of philosophical and other debates about the spiritual world—debates that still compromise a little with what prevails as a natural mindset. Here and there they will find a commendable tolerance for everything that points toward a spiritual world, yet which, in a certain sense, still allows itself to be lumped together with everything else that is otherwise popular and that can still be found among decent, scientifically minded people: but somewhere an exception is made. Those who truly believe they have the right to judge “absolutely” will say: Yes, with those who advocate an idealistic philosophy that makes a general, reason-based assumption of a spiritual world—with them one can talk, with them one can engage. — But people resort to strange tones and strange actions when they hear anything about Spiritual Science or anthroposophy. It makes them uncomfortable. They don’t fully realize it, but one thing is clear to them: they want nothing to do with it. They become unyielding, and they are not very forgiving; they rant and dismiss Spiritual Science as something fantastical, dreamt up, and arbitrary. And even those who, from a higher vantage point, occasionally show leniency toward other idealistic movements, behave toward Spiritual Science in such a way that Goethe’s saying is almost put to shame: “The little people never sense the devil, even if he had them by the collar!” because they perceive anthroposophy as if it were the devil incarnate. They often do not say so, but it is so; it is quite remarkable.

[ 15 ] One can point today to a case that occurred within our own ranks; one can point to it because it is already making the rounds in German newspapers. One of our own had submitted a dissertation at a Nordic university on “The Relationship of the Self to Thought.” Had he been in the fortunate position I myself was in before I began to advocate the worldview I now hold under the name “Theosophy”—when I wrote my *Philosophy of Freedom*—people would have no inkling, I say, no “false” inkling, that in this dissertation the relationship of the ego to thought bears any relation to Theosophy. For there is absolutely nothing in it about Theosophy, just as there is nothing about Theosophy in my *Truth and Science* or in *The Philosophy of Freedom*. In these two works, people had no inkling of what lay behind them, said nothing about it, and the works were at times met with a surprisingly favorable reception. I was able to verify this quite clearly. One day, on the basis of my writings on Goethe, I was asked to write the chapter on Goethe’s relationship to the natural sciences. The work did not appear for a long time; the manuscript lay with the editor for a long time. At the time, it was almost a matter of course that this chapter had been entrusted to me, and none of the people in question doubted that this chapter should be written by me specifically. But then something strange happened: I had begun to speak the word “Theosophy”—indeed, I had even officially appeared within the Theosophical Movement—and the essay was sent back to me as “unusable”!

[ 16 ] You can see what underlying reasons are at play here. One can identify the factors involved: if our friend were not a Theosophist, people would not have failed to recognize that this is a logical-dialectical treatise on the relationship between the self and thought. But now, the university town where this took place is not very large; people knew that the person in question was a Theosophist, and so his work was of no use to the scholars—who, moreover, are experimental psychologists—who say: We recognize laws only where external compulsion prevails. — But if someone recognizes laws where no external compulsion prevails—as indeed no external compulsion can prevail in the relationship of the self to thought—then the person in question is rejected from the outset. In short, our friend’s treatise was rejected. But something else was done as well. This treatise is, after all, written in a Nordic language that very few people know, and so they sent it to an elderly German scholar who “happens” to know this Nordic language—I say this deliberately. The old gentleman was, of course, expected to be well-versed in philosophy; but they could not assume what was advantageous in this case: that the person in question was not a Theosophist!

[ 17 ] So he delivered his verdict, delivered it objectively, and lo and behold: it was an exceptionally favorable verdict.

[ 18 ] Another such story was added to this treatise, and you will soon see what the point of it is. Recently, I was sent a clipping from the *Frankfurter Zeitung* in which this matter is reported in such an unbelievable way that one can no longer make out what it is actually about; for the matter—even though it has nothing to do with theosophy itself—is presented as if there were now a dispute over theosophy at a Nordic university! Not about theosophy, but about an entirely different matter! And that should not be obscured. Namely, whether it is still possible to make a breach somewhere against the intolerance we have spoken of. What really matters is not being discussed. Other motives are at play here, and so you will find the most curious distortions of such events.

[ 19 ] I mention this so that you may be aware of the matter and judge for yourselves, and because such things happen time and again, and even among theosophists there are people who take it seriously and say: “There is something spiritual here or there”—whereas you should be aware that what is to come as a truly new impulse is not to be sought here or there, but in spiritual science itself. For only through this does that which is to bring the world forward flourish when it grasps itself in its own power. And so the human being must grasp itself in its own power in order to nevertheless perceive the world, in its apparent randomness, as meaningful and permeated by God. This impulse must be given forth from Spiritual Science. How must it be given? In such a way that people will recognize that there was once, in the course of human development, a moment that is now to be recognized anew—the moment to which we are pointed so significantly, among other things, in the Gospel of Mark; the moment that occurred then but must now be conquered for human consciousness; the moment to which the Gospel of Mark alludes in the first chapter with the words: “The content of the old age is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of Heaven has come; recognize yourselves and look to that which flows from the new message!” And then, a few verses later, there is a remarkable passage about Christ Jesus. It is truly not a matter in our community of upholding an orthodox dogma, but of pointing out how, at a certain point in human development, the impulse has arisen that must now lead to the strengthening of inner forces—through which the human ego comes to know itself, but also learns to see itself in the world and to carry within itself what otherwise appears only as blind chance. Why does no coincidence speak to the human being from within natural phenomena? Why does he speak of regularity there? This is because, following the course of the Saturn, Sun, and Moon evolutions, the spirits of form, the Exusiai, have intervened. And when natural laws reveal themselves, these are not abstract laws, but in a spiritual sense they are the deeds of the Exusiai, the spirits of form. And as human beings look into the course of natural events, they see in the laws of nature the deeds of the Exusiai. But human courage has collapsed. And where the Exusiai do not speak, where they do not point tangibly to what they have placed within the facts of nature, there human beings no longer sense that the spiritual also speaks there as lawfulness. But it must come to pass that humanity learns to speak of the events it still casts into the realm of chance today in the same way that the Exusiai speak in the facts of nature. Humanity is cowering in its courage. How does he learn to speak of what passes through humanity as human destiny? Only like the “grammarians” who merely list the words and seek no connection, and often believe that there is no active and living force within them. But human beings must learn not only to see a connection in the facts of nature, in the deeds of the Exusiai, but they must also, through an inner impulse, learn to speak of the events in humanity as if the Exusiai were also speaking in what appears to them today as chance. But for this to happen, One had to come who does not speak like those who know nothing of the apparent coincidences. The One who had to come had to speak not like the grammarians, but as the Exusiai speak from the facts of nature. Thus did the Christ speak from Jesus. And the Gospel shows us this in a wonderful way, not merely by telling us in an abstract manner: “And they were astonished at his teaching,” but by immediately adding: “... for he taught as those who have authority teach,” ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, (ēn gar didaskōn autous hōs exousian echōn). Where do the Exusiai teach? In the facts of nature! Thus, with the same natural necessity, the Christ within Jesus spoke of what he had to say about the realms seemingly not governed by the laws of nature.

[ 20 ] This is the impulse that must take hold in people. Then they will find the courage to recognize the realm of spiritual law within today’s seemingly random events and, little by little, learn to speak of it in the same way that the Exusiai—the spirits of form—speak through the facts of nature. That was the great Easter impulse for humanity: that within Jesus of Nazareth lived something that spoke with the same inner necessity with which the laws of nature otherwise speak in the facts of nature, from the earthly mineral kingdom all the way up through the realm of the clouds into the realm of the stars. Thus did the Christ speak in Jesus of Nazareth! And when human beings find the means to stir their courage through this impulse, they will recognize the unified lawfulness in all facts of world events, in the facts of nature and also in the spiritual facts, where one believes chance plays a role. This is the new thing: that people, setting aside all prejudices, must learn to understand what constitutes the power of the Christ impulse and to what heights the Christ impulse can lift them. With such thoughts we move toward the festival that is designated as a commemoration of that event through which it was recognized in the course of human development that such an impulse has been bestowed upon humanity. Much of what has just been said in today’s lecture can be put to good use as a kind of Easter meditation, and you will then feel that what flows into the soul from a contemplation such as today’s can be useful for the mood with which people can approach the Easter festival, as has also been characterized in our Spiritual Calendar.