Chance, Necessity and Providence
GA 163
27 August 1915, Dornach
2. Consciousness in Sleeping and Waking States
In the preceding lectures, I have been calling attention to the fact that there will still be a great deal to say about a certain problem or question, even though it has already been the subject of discussion here from a great variety of viewpoints. That is the question of the alternating states of waking and sleeping in human beings. I have repeatedly spoken in public lectures of how this problem of sleep has occupied a more materialistically oriented science also, and how it is being handled. On several occasions I have referred to some of the various attempts that have been made to solve it. There is the so-called exhaustion theory, which is only one of the many that have been advanced in recent decades. This theory holds that we secrete substances resulting from the wear and tear of work and of our other activities during waking life, and that the sleeping state somehow eliminates these exhaustion products, which are then formed anew in the following period of waking consciousness.
Now we must always take the position that such a theory—I mean, what it describes—does not have to be wrong from the standpoint of spiritual science just because of its purely materialistic origin. The materialistic rightness of this particular theory need not now be gone into at any further length; other theories have been advanced in the same matter, as I have just mentioned. But from the standpoint of spiritual science no question will be raised as to whether such a process can take place, whether exhaustion products are really secreted during day-waking consciousness and destroyed again at night. This actual process will not be brought into question or further discussed. It must be a main concern of spiritual science to examine a problem, to study life's riddles, in a way that really relates the standpoint from which they are studied to the insights that can be gained in a particular age. That will provide the right basis for bringing the right light to bear on facts such as the secretion of exhaustion products. In most of life's problems—indeed, in all of them—the point is to know what questions to ask, to avoid pursuing a mistaken line of questioning.
In the case of the alternation between sleeping and waking the development of a viewpoint from which to study these two human states is all-important. And the proper light can be brought to bear upon certain phenomena of human life only if matters introduced in a very early phase of our spiritual scientific efforts are kept in mind. In the very early days I called attention to the fact that if we want to get an overview of world evolution we have mainly to consider seven stages of consciousness, seven life-conditions and seven form- states. Certain life-questions can be answered simply by considering changes in form; other questions can be illuminated by studying life-metamorphoses. But certain phenomena in life, certain facts of life cannot be illuminated any other way than by rising to a consideration of the various states of consciousness involved.
It is quite natural, in considering the problem of waking and sleeping, to concern ourselves with questions of the difference involved in the two states of consciousness. For we have certainly learned from a great variety of studies that we are here dealing with different states of consciousness, so that the question of consciousness is the all-important one here. We must realize that our most important concern in dealing with this question is to base it on the matter of consciousness. We will have to ask ourselves what the real difference is between the waking and the sleeping states.
And this is what we find: When we are awake—we need only to register what each one of us is conscious of—we look at the world around us and perceive it. And we will be able to say that when we are in the day- waking state, we cannot observe our own inner life as we do our surroundings. I have often called your attention to the fact of what a crude illusion it would be if we were to conceive of the study of anatomy as leading to observation of the inner man. Only what is external in us, though it lies beneath our skin, can be studied by material anatomy; our inner aspect cannot be studied during ordinary waking consciousness. Even what a person comes to know of himself while he is awake is the world's outer aspect, or, more exactly, that aspect of him that belongs to the external world.
But if we now observe the human being from the contrasting aspect of the sleeping state, its essential characteristic, as you can see from the various discussions that have previously taken place here, is that he is observing himself. While we are in that condition, the object of our attention is the human being; our consciousness is occupied with ourselves. If you examine some of the most commonplace phenomena from this standpoint, you will find them readily comprehensible.
Now if what materialistic science states on the subject of sleeping and waking were all that could be said about it, it would seem to contradict an observation I once made here, namely, that an independently wealthy person who hasn't made any particular effort is more often seen to fall asleep at lectures than someone who has been exerting himself at work. This observation would have to be wrong if tiredness were the real cause of sleep. What we have to consider here is that the coupon clipper who listens to a lecture is not focusing his day- waking interest on it, is perhaps not particularly interested in it, may even find it impossible to take an interest in it because he doesn't understand it and is therefore justified in his apathy. He is much more interested in himself. So he withdraws his attention from the lecture to concentrate upon himself. One could, of course, ask: why particularly upon himself? That too can easily be explained. There are certain reasons why the lecture doesn't interest him, and they are usually that he is more interested in other aspects of life than in those under discussion in the lecture, or, at least, in their relevance. But the lecture keeps him from occupying himself with what would otherwise be interesting him. A person who has no interest in hearing a lecture might conceivably prefer to spend the time eating oysters instead of attending the lecture. Perhaps he is more interested in the experience of eating oysters than in that provided by the lecture. But the lecture disturbs him; there is no way for him to eat oysters if he attends it. He behaves as though he wanted to hear it, but it keeps him from eating oysters. Since he can't be eating them, he settles for the only thing available besides the lecture that is disturbing him. The hour ahead is taken up with something that he can only hear, something without interest for him. So he turns his attention to the only other available interest: his own inner being, and enjoys himself! For his falling asleep is self-enjoyment.
You can gather from what we have studied that sleeping consciousness is still at the stage that prevailed in man during the ancient sun period. It is the same consciousness we share with plants. We know both these facts from previous lectures.
Now our sleeping man at the lecture is not in the same state of consciousness in which we would find him if he were enjoying the external world. He is working his way back into sub-consciousness as it were. But that doesn't matter; he enjoys himself anyhow. And his enjoyment comes from his interest in himself. So we must find it understandable that sleep takes over, not as a result of inner weariness but because his interest moves away from the outer scene, the lecture or the concert or whatever, to what does interest him. This is always the fact of the matter if one studies the alternation between sleeping and waking with thoroughness, and in its inner aspect.
When we are awake, we may look upon our condition as one in which we turn our attention outward, to the world around us. We withdraw our interest from our inner life.
The opposite is true of the sleeping state. Attention is directed inward to the self and withdrawn from what lies outside it. Since we have left our bodies during sleep, we actually see them from outside.
We can, as you see, trace the alternation between sleeping and waking to another cause, and say that we live in successive cycles, in one of which our interest is awake to the world outside us, and in the other to our inner world. This alternation between outer and inner is one that belongs every bit as much to our life as the fact that the sun shines on the earth and then goes down, leaving it in darkness, belongs to the earth's life. In the latter case the spatial constellation is the factor involved in the alternation between light and darkness, bringing about the cycle of daytime and nighttime.
Now you can easily see how mistaken it would be to say that the day is the cause of the night, and the night of the day. That would be what I have described to you in preceding lectures as a worm's philosophy. It is simply nonsense to call the day the cause of the night and vice versa; both result from the regular alternation in the spatial relationship between sun and earth. It makes just as little sense to say that sleep is the cause of waking, and waking the cause of sleep. Just as in the earth's case the only thing that makes sense is to say that it undergoes an alternation between day and night because of its position in space, so human life undergoes an alternation between interest for the inner and interest for the outer scene. These conditions have to succeed each other; anything else is out of the question. Life decrees that human beings must focus their attention on their surroundings for awhile, and then turn it inward, just as the sun, descending in the west, has no choice about what its further course will be.
But we enter a realm here where the following must always be kept in mind: The sun has to make a certain period of hours into daytime, and another period into night. But human beings are in a position to vary things and upset routines, like the coupon clipper who sleeps even though he isn't tired, voluntarily turning his attention inward, enjoying himself, really enjoying his body, or like a student cramming for examinations who, to some extent, overcomes his need for normal sleep. Many students sleep very little before examinations. But this brings up the big questions we will be concerning ourselves with, questions about necessity in outer nature, questions about the frequently discussed subject of chance, both in nature and in human life, questions about providence that apply to the entire universe.
As soon as we touch on the sphere of human life we come upon an element that belongs in the field of necessity, something necessary to man if he is to live and have his being in the world. There is much that we will be discussing in regard to this.
What I've been telling you has been said not only—and please note the “not only” as well as a “partly”—to call your attention to the fact that we must try to get a proper perspective on the alternation between sleeping and waking. This means asking what sort of consciousness we have when we are awake. The answer is that the outer world rather than the human being is its object, that we forget ourselves and turn our attention to the surrounding world. Conversely, consciousness in sleep is such that we forget the world outside us and observe ourselves. But we return first to the state of consciousness we had on the sun; the fact that we enjoy ourselves is of secondary importance.
But that is not the only reason why I have referred to this perspective; it was also to call attention to the importance of noting the ways consciousness is related to the world and to the fact that we can come to know the essential nature of certain things only by inquiring into the kind of consciousness involved. It is, for example, quite impossible to know anything of importance about the structure of the hierarchical order of higher spiritual beings unless we concern ourselves with their consciousness. If you go through the various lecture cycles, you will see what trouble was taken to characterize the consciousness of angels, archangels, and so on. For it is essential in any study to give careful thought to what constitutes the right approach. A person might say that he is quite familiar with the hierarchical order: first comes the human being, then the higher rank of angels, then the still higher archangels, then the archai, and so on. He writes them down in ascending order and claims to understand: each hierarchy is one step above the one before it. But if that were all one knew about these beings, one would know as little about the hierarchical order as one knows about the levels of a house from the fact that each higher story is superimposed upon the one below it; one could make a drawing that would fit both cases. What really matters is to note the salient facts in the case under study. We only know something about these higher beings if we are familiar with the state of consciousness in which the various hierarchies live and if we can describe it. This must form the basis of a study of them.
The same thing holds true in the study of human beings. We know very little indeed about our inner being if we can say nothing further on the subject of the sleeping state than that our ego and astral body are outside our physical and etheric bodies. Though that is true, it is a totally abstract pronouncement, since it conveys no more information about the difference between sleeping and waking than one possesses in the case of a full and an empty beer glass; in the one case there is beer in it, and in the other the beer is elsewhere. It is true enough that the ego and the astral body have left the physical and etheric bodies of a sleeping person, but we must be of a will to go on to ever further and more inclusive concrete insights. We try to do this, for example, when we describe the alternation of interest in the two states of consciousness.
I once made you a light red drawing of man, and then a blue one in illustration of my statements to the effect that, for the clairvoyant, the human being is in the hollow part shown in the drawings. If a person falls asleep and possesses a higher consciousness (it can be just the beginning of it; but even then we can really perceive, for we begin by observing ourselves), he sees this hollow part. At such moments we see clearly how mistaken the belief is that we are made of compact matter, that what seems to day-waking consciousness to be substantial is actually empty space. Of course, we must keep in mind that human beings are really outside their bodies during sleep. So they see the empty space surrounded by this aura. They are not in their bodies; they are looking on from outside them, so they see the empty space within the aura. It is a shaped yet hollow space. Looked at from outside, other kinds of spaces are of course filled with something. Therefore a person naturally appears in the shape he has when looked at with day-waking consciousness, but he is seen surrounded by what might be described as an auric cloud, an aura. We don't see him entirely clearly at first, but rather in an auric cloud that we must first penetrate: we see an auric cloud, outlining a shadowy form. It is as though we see the person in a more or less brilliant aura; viewed from outside, the space occupied by his physical form is left empty. I will resort to a trivial comparison to convey an adequate impression of this phenomenon, perceived when we become conscious during sleep. We have all had the experience of going about in a city when it is foggy or misty and have seen how the lights there appeared as though in a rainbow aura, without sharp outlines. This impression of lights like empty spaces in the surrounding fog is an experience everyone has had, and it is very similar to what I have been describing. The area imaginatively perceived is seen as though in a fog or mist, and the physical human beings are the empty dark spaces there inside it.
We may say, then, that we see human beings through an aura when we attain to clairvoyance in our sleep. We became materialists when we learned to look directly at our fellow human beings instead of seeing their auras. That was brought about as a result of luciferic developments that made it possible to begin to see ourselves with day-waking consciousness. And this helps us to understand an important passage in the Old Testament, the one that says that people went about naked prior to the seduction by Lucifer. This is not to be taken as meaning that their state of awareness in their nakedness at all resembled what yours would be if you were to do the same thing now; it means that they previously saw the surrounding aura. So they had no such awareness of the human being as we would have now if people were to run about in the nude, for they perceived human beings spiritually clothed; the aura was the clothing. And when that innocence was lost and human beings were condemned to a materialistic way of life, meaning that they could no longer perceive auras, they saw what they had not seen while the aura was still perceptible, and they began to replace auras with clothing. That is the origin of clothing; garments replaced auras.
And it is actually a good thing in our materialistic age to know that people clothed themselves for no other reason than to emulate their aura with what they wore. That is especially the case with rituals, for everything that is worn on such occasions represents some part of the aura. You can see for yourselves, too, that Mary and Joseph and Mary Magdalene wear quite different garments. One wears a rose-colored dress with a blue mantle, the other a blue robe with a red mantle. Mary Magdalene is often portrayed in a yellow garment by those who were still familiar with the old tradition or who still retained remnants of clairvoyance. An attempt was always made to reproduce the aura of the individual in question, for people were aware that the aura ought to be indicated, ought to find expression in the clothing worn.
An aberration typical of our materialistic age afflicts certain circles who see an ideal in doing away with clothing and who regard the so-called nudity cult as extremely wholesome; materialism can always be counted upon to draw the practical conclusions of its thinking. There is actually a magazine devoted to this cause that calls itself Beauty. A misunderstanding is at the root of this; the magazine believes itself to be serving something other than the crassest, coarsest materialism. But that is all that can be served when reality is seen exclusively in what external, sense-perceptible nature has brought forth.
The wearing of clothes originated as a means of preserving in ordinary life the state of consciousness that sees human beings surrounded by an aura. We should therefore find out where the contemporary tendency to do away with clothing comes from. It comes from a total absence of any imagination in clothing ourselves. No idealism is involved, but rather a lack of any imagination where beauty is concerned. For clothes are intended to beautify the wearer, and to see beauty only in unclothed human beings would, for our time, reveal an instinct for materialism. I intend at a later date to contrast this with the situation existing in Greek civilization. That civilization provides us with the best means of studying this matter in the light of what has just been said.
Now it becomes more and more important for people to learn how various conditions of consciousness provide insights for a study of life. Sleeping and waking are alternations in states of consciousness. But while sleeping and waking bring about sharply marked changes in our state of consciousness, smaller changes occur as well. Day-waking consciousness also has its nuances, some of which tend more toward sleep, others more toward the waking state. We are all aware that there are individuals given to spending a large part of their lives not actually asleep, but drowsing. We say of them that they are “asleep,” meaning that they go through life as though in a dream. You can tell them something, and in no time at all they have forgotten it. We can't call it real dreaming, but things flit by them as though in a dream and are instantly forgotten. This drowsiness is a nuance of consciousness bordering on sleep. But if somebody beats another up, that is a nuance that goes beyond the state of ordinary sleep and doesn't remain just a mental image. Life presents a variety of nuances of consciousness; we could set up a whole scale of them. But they all have their own rightness.
A lot depends on our developing a feeling for these nuances. A person occasionally has such a sense if he is born healthy and grows up in a healthy state. It is important to have a certain sensitivity for how seriously to take this or that in life, how much or how little attention to pay to it, what matters to take a stand on and what to keep to oneself. All this has to do with the asserting of consciousness, and such nuances do indeed exist. And it is very important to know, as we go through life, that life can develop in us the delicate sensitivity that tells us how much consciousness to focus on any particular matter, how strongly to stress something. We really make important progress both in leading a healthy life and in the possibility of contributing to orderly conditions in our environment if we pay attention to how strongly we should focus our consciousness on this or that. The state of consciousness we are in when we are among people and talking with them in an ordinary way about various matters is different from the state of consciousness in which a sense of delicacy forbids our discussing certain other subjects. These are two distinctly differing nuances of consciousness. But the presence of a sense of the fitness of things is simply another state of consciousness, and it is endlessly important in life to have an awareness of such considerations. I'd like to show you at hand of an example that there are indeed individuals who possess understanding for such nuances of consciousness.
Today is the 27th of August, Hegel's birthday, and tomorrow, the 28th, is Goethe's; they follow on one another's heels. Now Hegel wrote an Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences among other works, and a first edition of it was published.1:Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, 1770–1831, German philosopher. Published Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in 1817. This book is noteworthy in a certain respect. There would be absolutely no point in opening it at random and reading this or that page; you could make exactly as much sense out of it as out of Chinese. A statement taken at random from a page of Hegel would convey nothing whatsoever. In a lecture in Berlin last winter I explained how little sense it made to divorce one of Hegel's sentences from its context. For sentences in Hegel's encyclopedia make sense only when one has skipped over everything that poses riddles for the human mind and arrived at the place where Hegel says, “Considered in and of itself, being is the concept,” and so on. If one begins there and exposes oneself to all the rest of it, then and only then does every sentence make sense at the place where it stands; each sentence owes its meaning to its place in the whole.
Well, so Hegel had his encyclopedia published. In the preface to the first edition he explained why he arranged it as he did. When there had to be a second edition, Hegel wrote a preface to that. Now an author can sometimes have quite an experience of life between two editions of a book. For even if one has already become acquainted with one's fellow men, one feels oneself duty bound not to see them entirely in the light in which they sometimes reveal themselves; and besides, one can tell quite a bit about them from the reception the book is given. That was true in Hegel's case also. So then he wrote a preface to the second edition, and there are important passages in it. I am going to read you two such, one the very first sentence; the second, sentences from the second page. The preface to the second edition begins as follows: “The well-disposed reader will find that several sections have been revised and developed in sharper definition. I have taken pains therein to make my presentation a less formal one and to bring abstract concepts closer to the layman's understanding, making them more concrete by using more extensive exoteric annotations.” He was concerned, you see, to explain esoteric matters exoterically. The book continues:
The extreme brevity necessitated by a summarization of material quite sufficiently abstruse to begin with nevertheless leaves this second edition with the same goal as the first, namely, to serve as a preliminary text requiring further exegesis in the form of lectures. The title “encyclopedia” usually presupposes a less rigid adherence to scientific method and a more general structuring. But it lies in the nature of the subject matter that logical aspects must remain the basis of the presentation.
There were all too many occasions and provocations that seemed to require me to clarify my philosophical position with respect to the spiritual and the insipid concerns of contemporary culture, a thing to be undertaken only exoterically and only in a preface; for even if these concerns claim a relationship to philosophy, they do not do so scientifically, which means not at all; they approach it from without, and remain outside it. It is uncongenial and mistaken to involve oneself in a situation so alien to science. All the clarifying and explaining one might do fails to further that insight which can alone form the object of true knowledge. But it may be useful or necessary to comment on various phenomena.
This is proof that Hegel tried to shape the first edition in what was for him an esoteric manner, and that it was only in the second edition that he added what seemed to him exoteric aspects. Our time often possesses no understanding for these exoteric and esoteric elements; it doesn't so easily embark on the course Hegel travelled, who wanted to keep to himself everything originating in his own subjective view of a matter. And it was only after he had built up a complete organismic structure and freed it from any subjective aspects that he was willing to present this objective material in his book; he remained of the opinion that one's own path in achieving an insight was something that should be kept a private matter. In this, he evidenced sensitive feeling for the difference between two states of consciousness: that into which he wanted to enter when addressing the public, and that other developed for communing with himself. And then the world urged him, as the world so often does, in creating undesirable outcomes, to overcome this embarrassment of his for a certain period. For what lay at the bottom of his feeling was embarrassment, impelling him to silence about the way he had arrived at his concepts. As you know, embarrassment usually makes people blush. We would have to say, meaning something spiritual thereby, that Hegel blushed spiritually when he had to write a thing like his preface to the second edition. Here you see one of those nuances of consciousness over which embarrassment extends.
I wanted to demonstrate with an example how nuances of consciousness show up in life, including nuances in actions of the will and in what we do. We need to become ever more fully aware that life really must consist of such nuances, that we have to relate differences in states of consciousness to everything we do. Sleeping and waking involve very marked differences. But there can also be a nuance of consciousness in which we are aware that a matter concerns not just ourselves but the surrounding world as well; another, in which we confront the world with awareness that we must tread gently; and still another in which we know that what we do must be done with ourselves alone, or only in the most intimate circle.
The concepts and ideas we garner from spiritual science really make a difference in life. They teach us to recognize subtle subjective differences, provided we aren't disposed to know them only from the usual standpoint, realizing instead that a serious concern with spiritual science makes us a gift of this capacity for practical tact. But that serious concern with spiritual science must be present. It is of course absent if we project into spiritual science the sensations, desires, and instincts that ordinarily prevail. If that is the case, what is derived from spiritual science amounts to little more than can be garnered from any other indifferent source of learning. I've been speaking of nuances of consciousness and saying that there are nuances within the waking states very close to sleep. But it can happen that a person lacks the inclination to concern himself with certain details and subtleties, as in the case of the coupon clipper in yesterday's lecture. One may enjoy reading books or lecture cycles, but experience a dwindling consciousness at certain places in the text, and drowsiness sets in; the conscientiousness required to overcome such a condition is simply not there to call upon.
That is why I have continued to stress that things should not be made too easy for people desiring to involve themselves with spiritual science. We hear again and again that books should be written in a popular style, that Theosophy is not popular enough.2:Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy: An Introduction to the Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination of Man, (Hudson, N.Y.: Anthroposophic Press, 1986). I discern behind such comments a wish for books that people could drowse through in a way they can't with Theosophy. It is vitally necessary to have sufficient interest for objective facts to rid ourselves of certain feelings and sensations we have had in the past; if we allow ourselves to drowse as we confront this or that theme in spiritual science that ought to engage our interest, we would stay awake only in the case of those matters most easily absorbed. And such a lack of objective interest leads to an inevitable development. The coupon cutter feels obligated to listen to the lecture, for lecture-going is part of a proper lifestyle, but he suffers tortures because of his total lack of interest. But he is gradually relieved; he enjoys himself, and sometimes even falls soundly asleep, a condition he doesn't have to guard against unless he starts snoring. All of this is a perfectly natural development.
Now let us picture this process transferred to another kind of consciousness. Let us imagine a person who lacks the needed full interest in the concrete details of spiritual science. He feels that he is listening best when he is not paying attention to details. I have even heard the comment, “Oh, what he is saying isn't the important thing; it's the ‘vibrations,’ ‘the way it's said.’” The lecturer can often discern this type of drowsy listening in the listener's appearance. This is exactly the same situation on the soul level as that of the coupon clipper in external life. For if attention is being given to “vibrations” instead of to what spiritual science is offering, it turns the hearer's interest inward, as happens when the coupon clipper is enjoying himself. It may be that such a person describes himself between lectures as taking an interest in what the lecture offered, and claims interest in this or that theme. But he is really gossiping about his or someone else's previous incarnations. He has, in other words, shifted everything to an interest in himself in an identical internalizing process. We really see the same process here that goes on in the external life of the coupon clipper, who falls asleep at every lecture, in the case of those who feel that details are not important, but who claim an interest in spiritual science they really lack. So they fall asleep as to details, and their interest is transferred to their own personalities.
Things of this sort have to be made clear. If we were to see them clearly, much that happens would not occur.
I would like to see you make a study of the nuance levels of consciousness as I have tried to describe them. The last example given should perhaps not be taken amiss now or at any other time. There is no question that the movement of spiritual science is met with a good deal of sleepiness, while a strong tendency to self-enjoyment gets the upper hand, with the result that spiritual science is used only as a means of indulging in self-enjoyment. But we want to concentrate on nuances of consciousness, for unless we do so we will not be able to achieve an understanding of necessity, chance, and providence.
Zweiter Vortrag
In dem Verlauf der letzten Vorträge habe ich darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß über ein Problem, über eine Frage noch viel zu sagen sein wird, obwohl gerade dieses Problem schon von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten hier behandelt worden ist. Es ist die Frage nach dem Wechselzustande im Menschen von Wachen und Schlafen. Nun habe ich immer wieder, wenn ich über dieses Problem auch öffentlich gesprochen habe, darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie ja auch vom Standpunkte unserer mehr materialistischen Wissenschaft dieses Problem des Schlafes vorhanden ist und behandelt wird. Ich habe auch einige von den verschiedenen Lösungsversuchen bei der oder jener Gelegenheit angeführt. Ich habe die sogenannte Ermüdungstheorie angeführt. Es ist nur eine von den vielen Theorien, die im Laufe der letzten Jahrzehnte für die Wechselbeziehung von Schlaf und Wachen geltend gemacht worden sind, die Theorie, daß der Mensch durch seine Tagesarbeit, überhaupt durch sein Verhalten während des Wachbewußtseins-Zustandes, Ermüdungsstoffe absondert, und daß der Schlafzustand geeignet ist, diese Ermüdungsstoffe wiederum durch irgendwelche Prozesse fortzuschaffen, so daß der Mensch während eines folgenden Zyklus von Wachbewußtsein eben neue Ermüdungsstoffe bilden könne.
Nun müssen wir uns immer auf den Standpunkt stellen, daß gegenüber der Geisteswissenschaft eine solche Theorie, die rein materialistisch gebildet ist, nicht falsch zu sein braucht, ich meine das, was in der Theorie geschildert wird. Ich will jetzt die Berechtigung, die materialistische Berechtigung dieser Theorie nicht weiter erörtern. Wie gesagt, es sind auch andere Theorien für den Fall geltend gemacht worden. Aber es sollen von der Geisteswissenschaft zunächst nicht etwa Zweifel erhoben werden, daß solch ein Vorgang stattfinden kann, daß also wirklich während des Tagesbewußtseins sich Ermüdungsstoffe absondern und während der Nacht diese Ermüdungsstoffe wiederum aufgezehrt werden. Dieser tatsächliche Vorgang soll durchaus nicht in Abrede gestellt werden, es soll über ihn auch nicht weiter diskutiert werden. In der Geisteswissenschaft muß es sich vor allen Dingen darum handeln, die Probleme, die Rätselfragen des Lebens so anzufassen, daß der Gesichtspunkt, unter dem sie angefaßt werden, wirklich derjenige ist, zu dem man sich zunächst nach den Erkenntnissen, die eben der Mensch in irgendeinem Zeitalter gewinnen kann, zu erheben vermag. Dann werden auch solche Tatsachen, wie etwa die Absonderung von Ermüdungsstoffen oder dergleichen durch den richtigen Gesichtspunkt, den man findet, in das rechte Licht gestellt werden können. Es handelt sich bei den meisten Fragen des Lebens, ja, bei allen Fragen des Lebens darum, daß man in der richtigen Art zu fragen versteht, daß man nicht von vorneherein verkehrt frägt.
Nun, bei der Frage nach der Wechselbeziehung zwischen Schlafen und Wachen muß vor allen Dingen in Betracht gezogen werden, wie man den Gesichtspunkt zu gewinnen hat gegenüber diesen zwei Zuständen des Menschen: dem wachen Tagesbewußtsein und dem Schlafbewußtsein. Und da handelt es sich darum, daß sich gewisse Erscheinungen innerhalb unseres Lebens gar nicht anders ins rechte Licht setzen lassen, als wenn man berücksichtigt, was in einem sehr, sehr frühen Stadium unserer geisteswissenschaftlichen Bestrebungen geltend gemacht worden ist. Ich habe sehr früh darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß, wenn man die Weltenevolution überblicken wolle, man vor allen Dingen ins Auge zu fassen habe sieben Bewußtseinszustände — ich habe sie dazumal aufgezählt -, dann sieben Lebenszustände und sieben Formzustände. Nun gibt es Fragen des Lebens, die man beantworten kann, wenn man sich bloß an die Veränderung der Formen hält; es gibt solche Fragen, die man beantworten kann, wenn man sich an die Metamorphose des Lebens hält. Aber man kann gewisse Erscheinungen im Leben, gewisse Tatsachen des Lebens gar nicht anders beantworten, als wenn man sich dazu erhebt, die verschiedenen Bewußtseinszustände ins Auge zu fassen, die in Betracht kommen.
Nun liegt es ja schon sehr nahe, bei dem Problem von Wachen und Schlafen die Frage nach der Verschiedenheit der Bewußtseinszustände im Schlafen und im Wachen ins Auge zu fassen. Denn das ist uns aus den verschiedensten Betrachtungen schon klar geworden: Es handelt sich beim Schlafen und Wachen um verschiedene Bewußtseinszustände des Menschen. Also müssen wir die Frage vor allen Dingen von dem Gesichtspunkt des Bewußtseins ins Auge fassen. Wir müssen uns schon klar sein, daß dies das Allerwichtigste bei der Sache ist, die Frage von dem Gesichtspunkt des Bewußtseins aus ins Auge zu fassen. Wir werden uns zu fragen haben: Wie unterscheiden sich denn eigentlich die Bewußtseinszustände des Wachens und des Schlafens? Und da stellt sich nun das Folgende heraus.
Wenn wir wachen - wir brauchen uns zunächst nur die Dinge, die jeder sich einfach zum Bewußtsein bringen kann, zu registrieren -, so schauen wir die Welt um uns herum an; wir nehmen die Welt um uns herum wahr. Und jeder wird sich sagen können, er sei nicht imstande, sich selber oder das Menschliche, das innere Menschliche, während des Tagesbewußtseins so wahrzunehmen, wie die äußere Welt. Ich habe oft darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß es ja eine ganz grobklotzige Täuschung wäre, wenn man das anatomische Studium etwa ansehen würde als dazu führend, daß der Mensch im Inneren betrachtet wird; es wird nur das Äußere, das unter der Haut gelegene selbstverständlich, durch die materielle Anatomie betrachtet. Das Innere des Menschen kann während des gewöhnlichen Wachbewußtseins nicht betrachtet werden. Auch dasjenige, was der Mensch während des Wachzustandes an sich selber kennenlernt, ist das Äußere der Welt, oder besser gesagt, ist dasjenige an ihm, wodurch er der äußeren Welt angehört.
Wenn wir dagegen den Schlafzustand betrachten, so ist das Wesentliche des Schlafzustandes — das wird Ihnen aus den verschiedensten Auseinandersetzungen, die bisher gepflogen worden sind, hervorgehen können -, daß während des Schlafens der Mensch sich selber betrachtet. Das Objekt der Betrachtung während des Schlafes ist der Mensch. Das Bewußtsein ist zunächst auf den Menschen selber zurückgerichtet. Wenn Sie von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus die alleralltäglichsten Erscheinungen ins Auge fassen, so werden sie Ihnen begreiflich, verständlich werden.
Nicht wahr, wenn man allein so über Schlafen und Wachen sprechen müßte, wie die materialistische Wissenschaft spricht, so würde das in völligem Widerspruch damit stehen, daß, wie ich schon einmal gesagt habe, ein Rentier, der sich nicht sonderlich anstrengt, oftmals viel leichter bei einem Vortrage ins Schlafen kommt als einer, der sich angestrengt hat. Wenn also die Ermüdung die wirkliche Ursache des Schlafes wäre, so würde das mit dieser Erscheinung doch nicht stimmen. Der Gesichtspunkt, zu dem wir uns erheben müssen, ist der, daß der Rentier, der einen Vortrag anhört, das Interesse seines Tagesbewußtseins nicht sehr stark auf den Vortrag richtet, daß ihn der Vortrag nicht besonders interessiert, vielleicht auch nicht interessieren kann, weil er ihn vielleicht nicht versteht und aus diesem Grunde ein berechtigtes Nichtinteresse an dem Vortrage hat. Dasjenige, was ihn nun viel mehr interessiert, ist er selbst. Er schreitet daher fort von der Betrachtung dessen, was im Vortrag gesagt wird, zu der Betrachtung von sich selbst. Man könnte allerdings jetzt die Frage aufwerfen: Ja, warum denn just zu der Betrachtung von sich selbst? — Das ist auch sehr leicht erklärlich. Den Betreffenden interessiert der Vortrag nicht aus gewissen Gründen. Die Gründe liegen zumeist darin, daß er für andere Dinge des Lebens mehr Interesse hat als just für dasjenige, was in diesem Vortrage besprochen wird, oder wenigstens für die Art des Zusammenhanges in diesem Vortrage. Aber der Vortrag stört ihn, Interesse zu nehmen an dem, woran er sonst Interesse hat. Derjenige, der kein Interesse hat, einen Vortrag zu hören, der könnte ja ein großes Interesse haben, die Zeit, in der er den Vortrag hört, lieber dazu zu verwenden, Austern zu essen. Vielleicht hätte er ein stärkeres Interesse, statt der Wahrnehmung des Vortrages sich die Wahrnehmung zu verschaffen, die er bekommt, wenn er Austern ißt. Aber der Vortrag stört ihn. Er kann doch gerade nicht Austern essen, wenn er einen Vortrag hören will. Er tut so, als wenn er einen Vortrag hören möchte, aber das stört ihn am Austernessen. Er kann jetzt nicht Austern essen, also nimmt er dasjenige, was ihm einzig zugänglich ist außer dem Vortrage, der ihn da an allem stört. Die Stunde ist schon einmal ausgefüllt mit dem, was sich nur bören läßt, und das interessiert ihn nicht; also wendet er die Aufmerksamkeit dem zu, was ihm zugänglich ist: seinem eigenen Inneren, seiner eigenen Wesenheit! Er genießt sich! Denn dieses In-den-Schlaf-Treten ist ein SichGenießen.
Sie können aus dem, was wir betrachtet haben, entnehmen, daß das Schlafbewußtsein auch heute noch immer auf der Stufe des Bewußtseins steht, auf dem das menschliche Bewußtsein schon gestanden hat während der alten Sonnenzeit. Es ist ein Bewußtsein, wie es die Pflanzen auch haben. Beide Dinge, beide Tatsachen kennen wir ja sehr gut aus den Vorträgen. -— Gewiß, der gute Mann kommt dann nicht zu demselben Bewußtsein, zu dem er kommt, wenn er die Außenwelt genießt. Er schraubt sich gleichsam zurück auf das Sonnenbewußtsein. Aber das macht nichts, er genießt doch sich selber. Und das entspringt nun auch dem Interesse an sich. So müssen wir erklärlich finden, daß nicht aus innerer Ermüdung, sondern aus der Neigung des Interesses weg von dem, was gerade als Außenwelt da ist — der Vortrag oder das Musikstück oder was es immer ist —, zu dem, wozu dann das Interesse neigt, Schlaf eintritt. Dies aber ist überhaupt — wenn man gründlich und innerlich die Wechselzustände zwischen Schlafen und Wachen betrachtet — dasjenige, um was es sich handelt.
Wenn wir wachen, so können wir das so auffassen, daß wir gewissermaßen während des Tagesbewußtseins unsere Aufmerksamkeit auf die Außenwelt lenken, also auf dasjenige, was ich jetzt in unbestimmter Form mit diesen Strichen hier bezeichne (es wird gezeichnet), daß wir dagegen unser Interesse abwenden von dem, worin wir eben. Ich kann also, wenn ich symbolisch zeichnen will, das so zeichnen, daß der Mensch in der Richtung dieser Pfeile das Interesse von sich ablenkt und der Außenwelt zulenkt.
Während des Schlafzustandes ist das Umgekehrte der Fall. Der Mensch lenkt seine Aufmerksamkeit auf sich selbst in dieser Richtung und er lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit ab von dem, was um ihn herum ist. Da er nun aus sich selber heraustritt, so sieht er eigentlich während des Schlafes seinen eigenen Leib an. Der Mensch sieht also während des Schlafes zunächst seinen eigenen Leib an.
Nun können wir den Wechsel zwischen Schlafen und Wachen, wie Sie sehen, auf ein anderes zurückführen. Wir können ihn zurückführen darauf, daß wir sagen: der Mensch lebt in aufeinanderfolgenden Zyklen, und zwar so, daß in dem einen Zyklus das Interesse wach ist, die Außenwelt zu beobachten, in dem anderen Zyklus ist das Interesse wach, sein eigenes Inneres zu beobachten. Und dieser Wechsel in der Richtung des Interesses, einmal nach außen, einmal nach innen, das ist der Wechsel, der zum Leben gehört, geradeso wie es zum Leben der Erde gehört, daß die Erde einmal von der Sonne beschienen wird, und dann die Sonne hinuntergeht und sie nicht von der Sonne beschienen wird. Hier ist es rein die Raumkonstellation, die hervorruft, daß die Erde einmal beschienen wird und einmal nicht. Dadurch entstehen die beiden Zyklen Tag und Nacht.
Nun sehen Sie leicht ein, daß es sehr falsch wäre, wenn man sagen würde, der Tag sei die Ursache der Nacht, oder die Nacht sei die Ursache des Tages. Das wäre, wie ich Ihnen auseinandergesetzt habe, eine «Wurmphilosophie». Ich habe ja von dieser Wurmphilosophie in den verflossenen Vorträgen gesprochen, nicht wahr. Es hat einfach keinen Sinn, zu sagen, daß der Tag die Ursache der Nacht oder die Nacht die Ursache des Tages ist, sondern beide sind sie hervorgerufen durch den regelmäßigen Wechsel, durch die räumliche Stellung von Erde und Sonne. Ebensowenig hat es eigentlich einen Sinn, zu sagen, der Schlaf sei die Ursache des Wachens, oder das Wachen sei die Ursache des Schlafes. Einen Sinn hat es nur, zu sagen: Gerade so, wie extensiv räumlich die Erde in einen Wechselzustand von Tag und Nacht versetzt wird, also durch räumlich-extensive Verhältnisse in diesen Wechsel versetzt wird, so wird, intensiv, das Leben innerlich in einen Wechsel versetzt vom Interesse nach außen und vom Interesse nach innen. Diese Zustände müssen wechseln, müssen aufeinanderfolgen. Das geht gar nicht anders. Es ist einfach im Leben begründet, daß der Mensch eine Zeitlang sein Interesse nach außen richtet, und, nachdem er es nach außen gerichtet hat, muß er es nach innen richten, geradeso wie die Sonne es sich nicht überlegen kann, wenn sie im Westen untergeht, ob sie wieder zurückgehen will. Nur kommen wit jetzt in ein Gebiet hinein, in welchem wir, wenn wir es betreten wollen, immer das Folgende beachten müssen.
Die Sonne muß gewisse Stunden hindurch Tag bilden, gewisse Stunden hindurch Nacht bilden. Der Mensch kann aber ganz gut die Sache in der Weise durchbrechen, indem er entweder wie der Rentier, der einschläft, auch wenn er nicht gerade ermüdet ist, sondern das Gegenteil davon sein müßte, einfach willkürlich sein Interesse sich selber zuwendet, sich genießt, recht seinen Leib genießt, oder aber, indem er, wie der Student, wenn er unmittelbar vor dem Examen steht und sehr viel zu ochsen hat, wiederum aus seiner Willkür heraus mancherlei überwinden kann in bezug auf das Schlafen. Mancher Student schläft da manchmal vor dem Examen recht wenig. Aber das hängt überhaupt mit den großen Fragen zusammen, die uns jetzt immer wieder und wiederum beschäftigen werden, mit den Fragen nach Notwendigkeit, wie wir sie in der äußeren Natur finden, nach Zufall, wovon wir oftmals sprechen, sowohl in der äußeren Natur, wie auch im menschlichen Leben, und nach der Vorsehung, von der wir der ganzen Welt gegenüber zu sprechen haben. — Sobald wir ins menschliche Leben hereinkommen, sehen wir etwas in das Feld der Notwendigkeit hereintreten, etwas, das «notwendig» ist, wenn der Mensch überhaupt sein Wesen haben soll in der Welt. Davon werden wir jetzt mancherlei zu sprechen haben.
Nun habe ich Ihnen das, was ich Ihnen gesagt habe, nicht nur aus dem Grunde gesagt, um darauf hinzudeuten — nicht nur, sage ich, natürlich auch aus diesem Grunde -, daß man den richtigen Gesichtspunkt suchen muß gegenüber den Wechselzuständen zwischen Schlafen und Wachen. Dieser richtige Gesichtspunkt ist, daß man fragt: Wie ist das Bewußtsein geartet im Wachen? — und darauf antwortet: Das Bewußtsein ist so geartet, daß das Objekt zunächst nicht der Mensch selber ist, sondern die Außenwelt, daß der Mensch sich vergißt und die Außenwelt in sich aufnimmt; daß dagegen die Bewußtseinsartung während des Schlafes so ist, daß er die Außenwelt vergißt und sich betrachtet. Aber er ist im Schlaf mit seinem Bewußtseinszustand erst beim Sonnenbewußtsein angekommen. Es ist nur ein untergeotdneter Zustand, sich selbst zu genießen. — Aber nicht bloß aus diesem Grunde habe ich an diesen Gesichtspunkt angeknüpft, sondern um darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daß es etwas darauf ankommt, überhaupt die Aufmerksamkeit hinzulenken darauf, wie das Bewußtsein sich in verschiedener Art stellt zu der Welt, und wie man gewisse Dinge vor allem in ihrer Wesenhaftigkeit nur dadurch erkennen kann, daß man nach der Artung des Bewußtseins frägt. So wird es ganz unmöglich sein, irgend etwas Besonderes zu wissen über den Aufbau der hierarchischen Ordnung der höheren geistigen Wesenheiten, wenn man nicht auf das Bewußtsein dieser höheren geistigen Wesenheiten eingeht. Nehmen Sie die verschiedenen Vortragszyklen durch und Sie werden sehen, was da für Mühe genommen worden ist, um zu erklären, wie das Bewußtsein der Angeloi und Archangeloi und so weiter ist. Denn darauf kommt es an, bei einer Sache wirklich darauf zu achten, von welchem Ausgangspunkt diese Sache verstanden wird. Es könnte jemand kommen und sagen: Ich kann ganz gut verstehen, wie es mit den Hierarchien beschaffen ist: Da ist zuerst der Mensch, dann höher sind die Angeloi, noch höher die Archangeloi, noch höher die Archai und so weiter. Er kann das nacheinander aufschreiben: Archai, Archangeloi, Angeloi, und sagen: Ich verstehe das ganz gut, jedes von diesen ist immer höher. — Ja, wenn man nur weiß, daß jedes von dem hier Aufgezeichneten höher ist, so weiß man über die Stufenfolge der Hierarchie genau soviel, wie man auch über die Aufeinanderfolge der Stockwerke bei einem Haus weiß; denn von den übereinanderliegenden Stockwerken bei einem Haus weiß man auch, daß sie aufeinanderliegen. Man könnte genau dieselbe Zeichnung entwerfen. Es handelt sich wirklich darum, bei einer jeden Sache auf das zu achten, worauf es ankommt. Man weiß wirklich etwas über diese höheren Wesen, wenn man weiß, in welchem Bewußtseinszustand jedes dieser Wesen lebt, wenn man versucht, dieses zu schildern. Das ist das, was man ins Auge fassen muß.
Und so ist es auch beim Menschen selber. Man lernt auch den Menschen seinem Inneren nach wirklich noch recht wenig kennen, wenn man zum Beispiel über den Schlaf nichts weiter zu sagen weiß, als daß das Ich und der astralische Leib dann aus dem physischen und ätherischen Leib heraus sind. Gewiß ist das wahr, aber es ist die allerabstrakteste Aussage. Denn man weiß eigentlich nicht mehr über den Unterschied zwischen Schlafen und Wachen bei dem Menschen, als man auch weiß über ein volles und ein leeres Bierglas; bei dem einen ist das Bier darinnen und bei dem anderen ist das Bier draußen! Gewiß, es gilt das, daß beim schlafenden Menschen das Ich und der astralische Leib aus dem physischen und dem Ätherleib draußen sind, aber man muß den Willen haben, zu immer weiteren und weiteren konkreten Bestimmungen aufzusteigen. Und dieses Aufsteigen zu konkreten Begriffen, das versuchen wir, indem wir zum Beispiel jetzt wieder klargemacht haben, wie der Wechsel des Interesses ist in dem einen und in dem anderen Falle. Ich habe Ihnen das eine Mal rötlich hell den Menschen schematisch gezeichnet; das andere Mal bläulich. Das hängt damit zusammen, daß ich Ihnen gesagt habe: Der Mensch ist da im Hohlen. Und wenn man nun einschläft und ein höheres Bewußtsein sich erwirbt - das Bewußtsein kann sich andeuten zunächst; man sieht dann ja auch wirklich, denn man fängt an damit, daß man sich selbst betrachtet -, dann sieht man auch das Hohle, dann sieht man schon das Hohle. Dann sieht man schon die Unwahrheit des Urteils, daß wir aus kompakter Materie bestünden. Man sieht dann schon, daß das, was da als Materielles erscheint beim Tagesbewußtsein, eigentlich Hohlräume sind. Nur muß man beachten, daß ja der Mensch wirklich heraus ist während des Schlafes. Daher sieht er den Hohlraum umsäumt von der Aura. Nicht wahr, der Mensch ist nicht in sich, sondern er ist außen und sieht so hin. Er sieht also das, was in der Mitte mehr oder weniger hohl ist. Es ist natürlich konfiguriert, mehr oder weniger hohl. Es ist nicht einfach ein Hohlraum. Sonstige Hohlräume sind ja dann gerade ausgefüllt, wenn man sie von außen anschaut. So daß der Mensch natürlich so konfiguriert erscheint, wie er ist, wenn man ihn von außen anschaut, so wie es das Tagesbewußtsein gibt. Aber man sieht ihn außerdem umgeben von einem aurischen Nebel. Es erscheint einem der Mensch dann nicht so, wie wenn man sonst auf ihn hinschaut, sondern er ist umgeben von einer Art aurischem Nebel. Man sieht nicht ganz deutlich auf ihn hin, sondern so, daß man diesen aurischen Nebel erst durchdringen muß. Also man sieht hin auf einen aurischen Nebel, und in diesem aurischen Nebel schattiert sich dann etwas ab wie die Gestalt; über dieser lagert sich aber wiederum dieser Nebel. Es ist also wirklich so, wie wenn man den Menschen sehen würde in einer mehr oder weniger hellen Aura darinnen. Da darinnen ist er ausgespart, wenn man ihn so von außen anschaut. Ich will da den trivialen Vergleich gebrauchen, um das Phänomen, von dem wir hier sprechen, wenn während des Schlafes der Mensch bewußt wird, klarzumachen: Wer ist nicht schon einmal durch eine Stadt gegangen, die im Nebel war. Da hat er die Lichter nicht scharf begrenzt gesehen, sondern wie in einer Art Regenbogenaura darinnen. Das hat ja jeder Mensch schon gesehen. Da sieht man nicht die Lichter, sondern eigentlich die Lichter ausgespart in dem umliegenden Nebel. Es hat wirklich sehr viel Ähnlichkeit mit dem genannten Vorgange. Man sieht eigentlich das imaginative Sehfeld wie im Nebel, und darinnen sind ausgespart, wie Dunkelheiten, die Menschenwesen.
Wenn man dies ins Auge faßt, so kann man sagen: Sehend zu werden im Schlafe bedeutet, den Menschen durch eine Aura zu sehen. Und dadurch wurde der Mensch materialistisch, daß er lernte, die Aura nicht zu sehen, sondern sich direkt zu sehen. Das konnte nur bewirkt werden, indem durch kuziferische Vorgänge herbeigeführt war die Möglichkeit, daß der Mensch nun anfing, sich mit dem Tagesbewußtsein zu sehen. Und da berührt man verständnisvoll eine wichtige Stelle im Beginn des Alten 'Testamentes. Da wird im Alten Testament mitgeteilt, daß bis zu der luziferischen Verführung hin die Menschen nackt herumgegangen sind. Dieses Nacktherumgehen ist nicht in dem Sinne aufzufassen, daß sie so herumgingen für ihr Bewußtsein, wie Sie jetzt nackt herumgehen würden, sondern daß sie vorher die Aura ringsherum gesehen haben. Und dadurch haben sie das gar nicht gesehen, was man jetzt sehen würde am Menschen, wenn er nackt herumlaufen würde, sondern sie sahen den Menschen in einer spirituellen Kleidung. Die Aura war nämlich die Kleidung. Und als den Menschen der Unschuldszustand genommen war, als sie verurteilt waren zu einer materialistischen Lebensart, mit anderen Worten, als sie die Aura nicht mehr sehen konnten, da sahen sie das, was sie eben nicht gesehen hatten, solange die Aura da war; und da fingen sie an, die Aura zu ersetzen durch die Gewänder. Das ist der Ursprung der Bekleidung: Der Ersatz der Aura durch das Gewand. Und das ist tatsächlich in unserem materialistischen Zeitalter gut zu wissen, daß sich die Menschen zunächst nicht aus anderen Gründen, sondern aus dem Grunde angezogen haben, um in der Bekleidung die Aura nachzuahmen. Bei Kultusgebräuchen ist das ja in ausgesprochenem Sinne der Fall, denn da bedeutet jedes Kleidungsstück die Nachahmung irgendeines Teiles der Aura des Menschen. Und wie Sie noch selbst auf Raffaelschen Bildern sehen, haben die Maria, der Joseph, die Magdalena verschiedene Kleider; die eine Gestalt hat ein rotes Untergewand, blaues Übergewand; die andere blaues Untergewand, rotes Übergewand. Die Magdalena werden Sie sehr häufig bei denen, die die Tradition gut gekannt haben oder noch etwas Hellsehen gehabt haben, im gelben Gewand sehen und so weiter. Da ist immer versucht worden, zu entsprechen der Aura der betreffenden Individualität; denn das Bewußtsein war vorhanden, in der Kleidung die Aura nachzuahmen, in der Kleidung einen Ausdruck der Aura zu schaffen. Und es entspricht unserer materialistischen Zeit die Abirrung, daß in gewissen Kreisen ein Ideal darin gesehen wird, die Kleidung abzuschaffen — denn der Materialismus geht überall bis zu seinen Konsequenzen — und dasjenige, was man oft als «Nacktkultur» bezeichnet, als etwas außerordentlich Gesundes hinzustellen. Es gibt ja sogar eine Zeitschrift, die so etwas vertritt und sich «Die Schönheit» nennt. Diese geht von einem Mißverständnis aus. Sie glaubt nämlich, sich dadurch etwas anderem zu nähern als dem krassesten, dem gröbsten Materialismus. Nur diesem kann man sich nähern, wenn man das Wirkliche bloß in dem sehen will, was eben von der äußeren sinnenfälligen Natur als wirklich hingestellt wird. Aber die Kleidung ist ausgegangen davon, für das normale Leben gewissermaßen den Bewußtseinszustand beizubehalten, der den Menschen in seiner Aura sieht. Daher muß man sagen: Welches ist der Ursprung jener Tendenz, die in unserer Zeit nach der Beseitigung der Kleidung strebt? Mangel an jeglicher Phantasie, sich zu bekleiden! Nicht ein idealer Zweck ist darin zu verstehen, sondern der Mangel an Phantasie jedes Schönheitsprinzips. Denn die Kleidung geht eigentlich davon aus, den Menschen schön zu machen. Und in den unbekleideten Menschen nur ein Schönes zu sehen, würde für unsere Zeit bedeuten den Instinkt nach dem Materialismus hin. — Wie das zusammenhängt mit dem Griechentum, darüber werde ich noch zu sprechen haben. Aber gerade an dem Griechentum können Sie die Frage in dem Sinne, wie es heute gesagt worden ist, studieren.
Nun kommt es wirklich immer mehr und mehr darauf an, daß die Menschen lernen, wie verschiedene Bewußtseinszustände gewisse Gesichtspunkte in der Lebensanschauung abgeben. Bewußtseinszustandswechsel ist Schlafen und Wachen. Aber während Schlafen und Wachen sehr, sehr starke Änderungen in den Bewußtseinszuständen des Menschen bilden, kommen im Leben überhaupt auch kleinere Nuancen von Bewußtseinsänderungen vor. Ich möchte sagen: Auch das Tagesbewußtsein nuanciert sich so, daß der Mensch gewisse Bewußtseinsnuancen, die mehr gegen das Schlafen hinneigen, und wieder andere Bewußtseinsnuancen durchmacht, die mehr gegen das Wachen hinneigen. Wir wissen ja alle: es gibt Menschen, die es lieben, zwar nicht direkt zu schlafen, aber so duselig durch einen großen Teil des Lebens zu gehen. Man sagt dann auch, daß sie schlafen, wenn es auch kein richtiges Schlafen ist; man meint, sie verschlafen das Leben, sie gehen wie träumend durch das Leben; wenn man ihnen irgend etwas sagt, so haben sie es bald vergessen. Es ist ja kein Traum, aber so schnell wie ein Traum geht es an ihnen vorüber, und schon ist es vergessen. Nicht wahr, dieses Dösige, dieses Duselige, wie man es auch nennt, das ist mehr eine Nuance nahe dem Schlafe. -— Wenn einer den anderen ordentlich durchprügelt, so ist das eine Nuance, die mehr über den gewöhnlichen Schlafzustand hinausgeht, nicht bloße Vorstellung ist. Mehr als Vorstellungen sind es auch, wenn einer den anderen prügelt. Also es gibt solche Nuancen des Bewußtseins im Leben. Man könnte eine ganze Skala aufstellen für diese Zustände. Aber diese Zustände haben ihre gute Berechtigung. Es hängt sehr viel davon ab, daß der Mensch sich eine Art von Gefühl dafür erwirbt. Zuzeiten ist ihm dieses Gefühl schon eigen, wenn er überhaupt ein gesund geborener und gesund erzogener Mensch ist. Es ist wichtig, daß der Mensch ein gewisses Gefühl hat, wie stark er gewisse Dinge im Leben aufnehmen kann, wie stark er sie beachten soll, und wie wenig stark er sie beachten kann, und auch in welcher Weise er gewisse Dinge nach der Außenwelt vertritt, oder sie in seinem Inneren verbirgt. Das sind auch Nuancen in der Bewußtseinsgeltendmachung. Solche Nuancen in der Bewußtseinsgeltendmachung gibt es. Und es ist sehr wichtig zu wissen, daß, indem wir durch das menschliche Leben gehen, dieses Lebenstakt verleiht: Wie stark wende ich mein Bewußtsein auf irgendeine Sache? Oder: Wie stark betone ich aus meinem Bewußtsein heraus irgendeine Sache? — Und da können wir wirklich uns Wichtiges aneignen, sowohl in der Gesundung des Lebens, wie auch in der Möglichkeit, geordnete Zustände in unserer Umgebung hervorzurufen, wenn wir darauf achten, wie stark wir unser Bewußtsein mit dem oder mit jenem zu verbinden haben. Sehen Sie, wenn wir unterscheiden den möglichen Bewußtseinszustand, in dem wir unter Menschen herumgehen und über die Dinge des Lebens mit den Menschen reden, von dem Zustand, wo wir über gewisse Dinge nicht reden aus einem gewissen Schamgefühl heraus, so hat der Zustand, in dem wir sind im gewöhnlichen Leben, wo wir reden, eben doch eine andere Nuance im Bewußtsein, als wenn wir gewisse Dinge nicht berühren aus Schamgefühl, wie wir sagen. Aber dieses Vorhandensein des Schamgefühls ist eben nur ein anderer Bewußtseinszustand, und unendlich viel hängt davon ab, für solche Dinge im Leben Verständnis zu haben. Und ich will Ihnen an einem Beispiel zunächst etwas klarmachen, wie es doch immerhin Menschen gibt, die für solche Bewußtseinsnuancen im Leben ein gewisses Verständnis haben.
Wir haben heute den 27. August; das ist der Geburtstag Flegels. Morgen, am 28. August, ist der Geburtstag Goethes. Die beiden haben ihre Geburtstage unmittelbar hintereinander. Hegel hat unter anderem ein Werk geschrieben, das heißt «Enzyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse». Wenn man dieses Werk liest, hat es eine besondere Eigenschaft. Es hat nämlich nicht den geringsten Sinn bei diesem Werk, es irgendwo aufzuschlagen und zu lesen. Sie könnten ebensogut Chinesisch lesen. Eine Behauptung, die man mitten aus Hegels «Enzyklopädie» herausnehmen wollte, würde gar keinen Sinn ergeben. Bei einem Berliner Vortrag im Winter habe ich gerade hervorgehoben, wie sinnlos es wäre, bei Hegels «Enzyklopädie» einen Satz aus dem Zusammenhang herauszurupfen. Denn ein Satz aus Hegels Enzyklopädie hat nur Sinn, wenn man anfängt da zu lesen — nachdem man zuerst alles, was im Menschengemüte Rätsel um Rätsel aufwirft, zur Seite gelegt hat -, wo Hegel sagt: «Das Sein ist der Begriff nur an sich» und so weiter. Wenn man da anfängt und dann das Ganze auf sich wirken läßt, dann bekommt jeder Satz an der Stelle, wo er steht, erst seinen Sinn. Und daß er an der Stelle steht, das gehört zu dem Satz. Und so hat Hegel die erste Auflage der «Enzyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften» erscheinen lassen. In der Vorrede zur ersten Auflage sagt er nichts besonderes; er sagt nur, warum er diese Enzyklopädie äußerlich so eingerichtet hat. Als die zweite Auflage notwendig wurde, schrieb Hegel eine Vorrede zu dieser zweiten Auflage. Nun macht man manchmal Erfahrungen des Lebens zwischen der ersten und der zweiten Auflage eines Buches. Denn selbst wenn man die Menschen schon kennengelernt hat, so fühlt man sich ja innerlich verpflichtet, sie noch nicht für das zu halten, als was sie manchmal sich dann herausstellen; und man erfährt auch aus der Art, wie ein Buch aufgenommen wird, so mancherlei über die Menschen. Und das war auch bei Hegel der Fall. Da hat er dann auch eine Vorrede zur zweiten Auflage geschrieben, und diese hat wichtige Stellen. Ich will zwei von diesen wichtigen Stellen lesen, nämlich gleich den ersten Satz und einen Satz auf der zweiten Seite. Die Vorrede zur zweiten Auflage beginnt: «Der geneigte Leser wird in dieser neuen Ausgabe mehrere Teile umgearbeitet und in nähere Bestimmungen entwickelt finden; dabei bin ich bemüht gewesen, das Formelle des Vortrages zu mildern und zu mindern, auch durch weitläufigere exoterische Anmerkungen abstrakte Begriffe dem gewöhnlichen Verständnisse und den konkreteren Vorstellungen von denselben näher zu rücken.» Also er war bemüht, das Esoterische exoterisch zu erläutern. «Die gedrängte Kürze, welche ein Grundriß nötig macht in ohnehin abstrusen Materien, läßt aber dieser zweiten Auflage dieselbe Bestimmung, welche die erste hatte, zu einem Vorlesebuch zu dienen, das durch mündlichen Vortrag seine nötige Erläuterung zu erhalten hat. Der Titel einer Enzyclopädie sollte zwar anfänglich einer minderen Strenge der wissenschaftlichen Methode und einem äußerlichen Zusammenstellen Raum lassen; allein die Natur der Sache bringt es mit sich, daß der logische Zusammenhang die Grundlage bleiben müßte.
Es waren nur zu viele Veranlassungen und Anreizungen vorhanden, die es erforderlich zu machen schienen, mich über die äußere Stellung meines Philosophierens zu geistigen und geistlosen Betrieben der Zeitbildung zu erklären, was nur auf eine exoterische Weise, wie in einer Vorrede, geschehen kann; denn diese Betriebe, ob sie sich gleich ein Verhältnis zu der Philosophie geben, lassen sich nicht wissenschaftlich, somit überhaupt nicht in dieselbe ein, sondern führen von außen her und draußen ihr Gerede. Es ist mißliebig und selbst mißlich, sich auf solchen der Wissenschaft fremden Boden zu begeben; denn solches Erklären und Erörtern fördert dasjenige Verständnis nicht, um welches es allein zur wahrhaften Erkenntnis zu tun sein kann. Aber einige Erscheinungen zu besprechen mag nützlich oder von Nöten sein.»
Das beweist uns aber, daß Hegel versucht hat, in der für ihn esoterischen Weise die erste Auflage zu gestalten, und daß er das ihm exoterisch Erscheinende erst in der zweiten Auflage hinzugefügt hat, auch die Vorrede, die nur exoterisch ist. In unserer Zeit hat man oftmals kein Verständnis für dieses Exoterische und Esoterische. Denn in unserer Zeit verfährt man nicht so leicht so, wie Hegel verfahren ist, der zunächst alles, was sein eigenes subjektives Abmachen der Sache war, für sich behalten wollte, und erst als er den Organismus auferbaut hatte, als sich die Sache losgelöst hatte von seinem Subjektiven, da wollte er das, was losgelöst war von seinem Subjektiven, darstellen in seinem Buche, während er der Meinung war: Wie man selber zu der Sache kommt, darüber spricht man nicht! - Er hat damit einen gewissen Takt gezeigt für den Unterschied zweier Bewußtseinszustände: für das Bewußtsein, in das er sich versetzen wollte, wenn er sich vor Menschen hinstellt und zu ihnen spricht, und für das Bewußtsein, das er entfaltet, wenn er mit sich selber spricht. — Und nun nötigt ihn die Welt nachher - wie so oft die Welt die Ursache ist, daß eigentlich dies oder jenes geschieht, was nicht getan werden soll —, es nötigt ihn die Welt, dieses Schamgefühl zu besiegen für eine Zeit. Denn, was war es im Grunde genommen? Schamgefühl war es bei Hegel, nicht von der Art und Weise zu sprechen, wie er zu seinen Begriffen gekommen ist! Im gewöhnlichen menschlichen Schamgefühl erröten die Menschen. So möchte man sagen, wenn es auch geistig aufzufassen ist: Für Hegel war es ein gewisses geistiges Erröten, wenn er so etwas schreiben mußte wie die Vorrede zur zweiten Auflage. Da sehen Sie eine Bewußtseinsnuance, über die das Schamgefühl sich ausbreitet.
Ich wollte Ihnen an einem Beispiel zeigen, wie im Leben, auch in der Willensbetätigung, in dem, was man tut, diese Bewußtseinsnuancen zum Vorschein kommen. Und notwendig ist es, daß man sich nach und nach darüber klar wird, daß das Leben wirklich schon bestehen muß in solchen Bewußtseinsnuancen; daß man gewissermaßen verbinden muß mit allem, was man auslebt, Bewußtseinsunterschiede. Schlafen und Wachen sind nun gerade starke Bewußtseinsunterschiede. Aber es kann auch der Bewußtseinsunterschied ins Auge gefaßt werden, daß man weiß: Das ist eine Sache, die geht nicht nur dich alleinan, die geht dich und die Weltan; das andere ist eine Sache, da mußt du, wenn du der Welt gegenübertrittst, die Art und Weise etwas herabmindern, wie du es geltend machst; und noch anderes mußt du mit dir oder im allerintimsten Kreise mit dir selber ausmachen.
So greift das, was wir an Begriffen und Ideen aus der Geisteswissenschaft gewinnen können, wirklich in das Leben ein, lehrt uns, feine, subjektive Unterschiede im Leben erkennen, wenn man nur nicht auf die gewöhnliche Art wie sonst im Leben diese Unterschiede kennenlernen will, sondern wenn man sich klar ist darüber, daß die ernstliche Beschäftigung mit der Geisteswissenschaft uns gleichsam diesen Lebenstakt gibt. Aber es muß dann die ernstliche Beschäftigung mit dieser Geisteswissenschaft da sein. Die ist natürlich dann nicht vorhanden, wenn man die Empfindungen und Triebe und Instinkte, die man sonst draußen im Leben gehabt hat, auch in die Geisteswissenschaft hineinträgt. Dann passiert es einem, daß man, ich möchte sagen, aus der Geisteswissenschaft auch nicht viel mehr gewinnt als aus irgendeiner anderen gleichgültigen Erkenntnismitteilung. Und so kann es dann vorkommen - ich habe ja gesagt, daß es Nuancen des Bewußtseins gibt und daß innerhalb des Wachens dann Nuancen liegen, die sich dem Schlafe nähern -, daß man Geisteswissenschaft aufnimmt, aber keine rechte Neigung hat, auf gewisse Einzelheiten, Subtilitäten einzugehen, weil man daran ein solches Interesse nimmt, wie ich das vorhin vom Rentier in bezug auf den Vortrag gesagt habe. Man liest zwar gerne Zyklen oder Bücher, aber man liest doch so, daß an gewissen Stellen dieses Bewußtsein herabsinkt, daß es einduselt, eindöst. Man fühlt nicht recht die Selbstverpflichtung, über solche Dinge hinwegzukommen.
Das ist der Grund, warum ich immer wieder darauf gedrungen habe, daß man es den Leuten nicht allzu leicht macht, die an die Geisteswissenschaft herankommen wollen. Immer wieder tritt das auf, daß man sagt, man müßte doch populäre Bücher schreiben; die «Theosophie» zum Beispiel sei nicht populär genug! Ich höre nur immer durch: man müßte nur Bücher schreiben, bei denen man mehr dösen könne als bei der «Theosophie». Nun ist es wirklich notwendig, daß man gerade durch dieses Sich-Interessieren für das Objektive dasjenige vertreibt, was einem bleibt von gewissen Gefühlen und Empfindungen, die man vorher gehabt hat; sonst kann es einem nämlich passieren, daß, wenn man zuviel schläft gegenüber dem oder jenem in der Geisteswissenschaft, wofür man eigentlich Interesse haben soll, man nur gegenüber dem am leichtesten zu Behaltenden wach bleibt. Und dann kommt natürlich ein Vorgang, der gar nicht ausbleiben kann, wenn man nicht genügend objektives Interesse entwickelt: Nicht wahr, der Rentier, der hört sich den Vortrag an, er fühlt sich dazu verpflichtet: Man geht in einen Vortrag, das bringt so die gute Lebensart mit sich; aber es ist ihm eigentlich greulich, er hat nicht das geringste Interesse dafür. Nun wird sein zu geringes Interesse abgelenkter genießt sich und kommt manchmal auch bis zum wirklichen Einschlafen, das ja zunächst nicht beachtet zu werden braucht, wenn es nicht ins Schnarchen übergeht, nicht wahr, aber das ist ein ganz naturgemäßer Vorgang.
Nun denken Sie sich diesen Vorgang übertragen, ich möchte sagen, auf ein anderes Bewußtsein. Dann haben Sie das Folgende: Irgend jemand entwickelt nicht das nötige, volle Interesse für die einzelnen Konkretheiten der Geisteswissenschaft, sondern er findet, daß man eigentlich am besten zuhört, wenn man nicht so auf die Einzelheiten hört. Ich habe sogar schon vernommen, daß man gesagt hat: Ach, was er sagt, das ist nicht das Wichtige, sondern «die Vibrationen», die «Art und Weise»! - So ein dösiges, duseliges Zuhören, das ist etwas, was man manchem schon ansehen kann in der Art und Weise, wie er zuhört. Das ist aber dasselbe in bezug auf die Seele, wie es bezüglich des äußeren Lebens beim Rentier ist. Denn wendet sich die Aufmerksamkeit statt dem, was durch die Geisteswissenschaft geboten ist, den «Vibrationen» zu, so wendet sich das Interesse dem Inneren zu, geradeso wie wenn der Rentier sich selbst genießt. Und in der Zeit zwischen zwei Vorträgen gibt man vielleicht vor, Interesse zu haben für das, was in dem Vortrage gesagt wird, beteuert, sich zu interessieren für dieses oder jenes, aber in Wirklichkeit erzählt man: Der hat früher diese Inkarnation gehabt, ich selber habe diese Inkarnation gehabt. — Das heißt, man hat alles auf seine eigene Person abgelenkt. Das ist ganz genau derselbe Vorgang. So daß also wirklich dieser Vorgang, der mit Bezug auf das äußere Leben beim Rentier vorliegt, der bei jedem Vortrage einschläft, auch bei Menschen in Erscheinung tritt, die zwar vorgeben, sich für Geisteswissenschaft zu interessieren, die sich in Wirklichkeit aber nicht interessieren, sondern in einem gewissen Sinne immer finden: auf die Einzelheiten kommt es nicht an! Und dann schlafen sie ein für die Einzelheiten; und dann geht das Interesse auf die eigene Persönlichkeit über. - Man muß sich schon solche Dinge durchaus klarmachen! Würde man sie sich klarmachen, so würde manches nicht geschehen, was geschieht.
Ich möchte, daß Sie gewissermaßen die Nuancierung des Bewußtseins jetzt überhaupt ins Auge fassen, wie ich versuchte, sie darzustellen. Das letzte Beispiel, die letzte Erörterung, die ich gegeben habe, darf vielleicht in diesen Tagen nicht übelgenommen werden, dürfte vielleicht auch sonst nicht übelgenommen werden. Denn es ist ja zweifellos, daß viel geschlafen wird gegenüber der geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung, und daß ein starker Hang zum Selbstgenuß überhandnimmt, und daß dann eben Geisteswissenschaft nur angewendet wird, um diesem Selbstgenuß zu frönen. Aber die Nuance des Bewußtseins wollen wir ins Auge fassen. Denn ohne das Ins-AugeFassen der Nuance des Bewußtseins kann man nicht zu dem Verstehen der Begriffe Notwendigkeit, Zufall und Vorsehung kommen.
Second Lecture
In the course of the last lectures, I pointed out that there is still much to be said about a problem, about a question, even though this problem has already been dealt with here from a wide variety of perspectives. It is the question of the alternating states of wakefulness and sleep in human beings. Whenever I have spoken publicly about this problem, I have repeatedly pointed out that this problem of sleep also exists and is dealt with from the standpoint of our more materialistic science. I have also cited some of the various attempts at a solution on various occasions. I have cited the so-called fatigue theory. It is only one of the many theories that have been put forward in recent decades to explain the interrelationship between sleep and wakefulness, the theory that humans secrete fatigue substances through their daily work, indeed through their behavior during the waking state, and that the sleeping state is suitable for removing these fatigue substances through some process, so that humans can form new fatigue substances during the following cycle of waking consciousness.
Now, we must always take the position that, from the standpoint of spiritual science, such a theory, which is purely materialistic in nature, need not be false; I mean what is described in the theory. I do not wish to discuss further the validity, the materialistic validity, of this theory. As I have said, other theories have also been put forward to explain this phenomenon. But spiritual science should not raise any doubts that such a process can take place, that substances causing fatigue are actually secreted during daytime consciousness and are then consumed again during the night. This actual process should not be denied, nor should it be discussed further. In spiritual science, the primary concern must be to approach the problems and riddles of life in such a way that the point of view from which they are approached is truly the one to which one can initially rise according to the knowledge that human beings can gain in any age. Then even facts such as the secretion of fatigue substances or the like can be placed in the right light by finding the right point of view. Most questions in life, indeed all questions in life, are about knowing how to ask the right questions, not asking the wrong questions from the outset.
Now, when considering the question of the interrelationship between sleeping and waking, it is necessary above all to consider how to gain the right perspective on these two states of human existence: waking daytime consciousness and sleeping consciousness. And here it is important to note that certain phenomena within our lives cannot be understood in any other way than by taking into account what was asserted at a very, very early stage of our spiritual scientific endeavors. I pointed out very early on that if one wants to gain an overview of world evolution, one must first of all consider seven states of consciousness — I listed them at the time — then seven states of life and seven states of form. Now there are questions of life that can be answered if one merely considers the change of forms; there are questions that can be answered if one considers the metamorphosis of life. But certain phenomena in life, certain facts of life, cannot be answered in any other way than by rising to the level of considering the various states of consciousness that come into play.
Now, when considering the problem of waking and sleeping, it is very natural to consider the question of the difference between the states of consciousness in sleeping and waking. For it has already become clear to us from various considerations that sleeping and waking are different states of human consciousness. So we must approach the question primarily from the point of view of consciousness. We must be clear that this is the most important thing in the matter, to approach the question from the point of view of consciousness. We will have to ask ourselves: How do the states of consciousness of waking and sleeping actually differ? And this is what emerges.
When we are awake – we need only register the things that everyone can easily bring to consciousness – we look at the world around us; we perceive the world around us. And everyone will be able to say that they are incapable of perceiving themselves or the human, the inner human, during daytime consciousness in the same way as they perceive the external world. I have often pointed out that it would be a gross deception to regard the study of anatomy as leading to an understanding of the inner nature of the human being; material anatomy only examines the outer, the physical, which lies beneath the skin. The inner nature of the human being cannot be observed during ordinary waking consciousness. Even what human beings learn about themselves during the waking state is the outer world, or rather, it is that part of themselves through which they belong to the outer world.
If, on the other hand, we consider the state of sleep, the essential nature of the state of sleep—as will become clear to you from the various discussions that have taken place so far—is that during sleep, human beings observe themselves. The object of observation during sleep is the human being. Consciousness is initially directed back to the human being itself. If you look at the most everyday phenomena from this point of view, they will become comprehensible and understandable to you.
Wouldn't it be true that if we had to talk about sleeping and waking in the same way as materialistic science does, this would be in complete contradiction to the fact that, as I have already said, a reindeer, which does not exert itself particularly, often falls asleep much more easily during a lecture than someone who has exerted themselves? So if fatigue were the real cause of sleep, this would not be consistent with this phenomenon. The point of view we must take is that the reindeer listening to a lecture does not focus the interest of its daytime consciousness very strongly on the lecture, that the lecture does not particularly interest it, perhaps cannot interest it because it may not understand it and therefore has a justified lack of interest in the lecture. What interests him much more is himself. He therefore moves on from contemplating what is being said in the lecture to contemplating himself. One could, of course, now raise the question: Why, exactly, does he contemplate himself? This is also very easy to explain. The person concerned is not interested in the lecture for certain reasons. The reasons usually lie in the fact that he is more interested in other things in life than in what is being discussed in this lecture, or at least in the way the topics are presented in this lecture. But the lecture prevents him from taking an interest in what he is otherwise interested in. Someone who has no interest in listening to a lecture might be very interested in spending the time they would spend listening to the lecture eating oysters instead. Perhaps they would be more interested in the experience of eating oysters than in listening to the lecture. But the lecture disturbs him. He cannot eat oysters when he wants to listen to a lecture. He pretends to want to listen to a lecture, but it disturbs him from eating oysters. He cannot eat oysters now, so he takes what is uniquely accessible to him apart from the lecture, which disturbs him in everything. The hour is already filled with what can only be endured, and that does not interest him; so he turns his attention to what is accessible to him: his own inner self, his own being! He enjoys himself! For this falling asleep is a form of enjoyment.
From what we have considered, you can see that sleep consciousness even today still stands at the level of consciousness at which human consciousness already stood during the ancient Sun period. It is a consciousness like that of plants. We know both things, both facts, very well from the lectures. Certainly, the good man does not then come to the same consciousness as he does when he enjoys the outer world. He winds himself back, as it were, to solar consciousness. But that does not matter, for he enjoys himself. And that now springs from interest in himself. So we must find it understandable that sleep does not arise from inner fatigue, but from the tendency of interest away from what is currently present as the external world — the lecture or the piece of music or whatever it may be — toward that toward which interest then tends. But this is, in general — if one considers thoroughly and inwardly the alternating states between sleeping and waking — what is at issue.
When we are awake, we can understand this as meaning that during our daytime consciousness we direct our attention to the external world, that is, to what I am now indicating in an indefinite form with these lines here (it is being drawn), and that we turn our interest away from what we are doing at that moment. So if I want to draw symbolically, I can draw it in such a way that the human being diverts his interest away from himself in the direction of these arrows and turns it toward the external world.
During sleep, the opposite is true. The human being directs his attention toward himself in this direction and diverts his attention away from what is around him. Since he now steps out of himself, he actually sees his own body during sleep. So during sleep, the human being first sees his own body.
Now, as you can see, we can trace the change between sleeping and waking back to something else. We can trace it back to the fact that we say: human beings live in successive cycles, in such a way that in one cycle the interest is awake to observe the outside world, and in the other cycle the interest is awake to observe one's own inner world. And this change in the direction of interest, once outward, once inward, is the change that belongs to life, just as it belongs to the life of the earth that the earth is once illuminated by the sun and then the sun goes down and it is not illuminated by the sun. Here it is purely the spatial constellation that causes the earth to be illuminated once and not the other. This gives rise to the two cycles of day and night.
Now you can easily see that it would be very wrong to say that day is the cause of night, or night is the cause of day. As I have explained to you, that would be “worm philosophy.” I have spoken about this worm philosophy in previous lectures, haven't I? It simply makes no sense to say that day is the cause of night or night is the cause of day; rather, both are caused by the regular alternation, by the spatial position of the Earth and the Sun. Nor does it make sense to say that sleep is the cause of waking or that waking is the cause of sleep. It only makes sense to say: just as the earth is extensively spatially transformed into a changing state of day and night, that is, transformed into this change by spatially extensive conditions, so, intensively, life is internally transformed into a change from outward interest to inward interest. These states must change, must follow one another. It cannot be otherwise. It is simply inherent in life that human beings direct their interest outward for a time, and after they have directed it outward, they must direct it inward, just as the sun cannot decide when it sets in the west whether it wants to return. But now we are entering a realm in which, if we want to enter it, we must always bear in mind the following.
The sun must provide daylight for a certain number of hours and night for a certain number of hours. But human beings can easily break this rule by either doing as the reindeer does, which falls asleep even when it is not tired, but rather the opposite, simply turning its interest arbitrarily toward itself, enjoying itself, enjoying its body, or by doing as the student does when he is about to take an exam and has a lot to study, can overcome many things in relation to sleep out of his own free will. Some students sometimes sleep very little before exams. But that has to do with the big questions that will occupy us again and again, with questions about necessity, as we find it in external nature, about chance, which we often talk about, both in external nature and in human life, and about providence, which we have to talk about in relation to the whole world. As soon as we enter human life, we see something entering the field of necessity, something that is “necessary” if human beings are to have any existence at all in the world. We will now have much to say about this.
Now, I have not told you what I have told you merely to point out — not only, I say, for this reason, of course — that one must seek the right point of view with regard to the changing states between sleeping and waking. This right point of view is to ask: What is the nature of consciousness in waking? And the answer is: Consciousness is such that the object is not initially the human being himself, but the external world, that the human being forgets himself and takes in the external world; whereas during sleep, the nature of consciousness is such that he forgets the external world and contemplates himself. But in sleep, he has only reached the state of consciousness of the sun. It is only a subordinate state to enjoy oneself. — But it is not merely for this reason that I have taken up this point of view, but rather to draw attention to the fact that it is important to direct our attention to how consciousness relates to the world in different ways, and how certain things can only be recognized in their essence by inquiring into the nature of consciousness. Thus, it will be completely impossible to know anything special about the hierarchical order of higher spiritual beings if one does not enter into the consciousness of these higher spiritual beings. Go through the various lecture cycles and you will see what effort has been made to explain what the consciousness of the angeloi and archangeloi and so on is like. For it is essential, when dealing with a subject, to pay close attention to the starting point from which that subject is understood. Someone might come along and say: I understand very well how the hierarchies are arranged: first there is the human being, then higher up are the Angeloi, higher still the Archangeloi, higher still the Archai, and so on. He can write this down in sequence: Archai, Archangeloi, Angeloi, and say: I understand this very well, each of these is always higher. — Yes, if one only knows that each of those recorded here is higher, then one knows as much about the sequence of the hierarchy as one knows about the sequence of the floors in a house; for one also knows that the floors in a house are one above the other. One could draw exactly the same diagram. It is really a matter of paying attention to what is important in each case. One really knows something about these higher beings when one knows the state of consciousness in which each of these beings lives, when one tries to describe it. That is what one must keep in mind.
And so it is with human beings themselves. One really learns very little about a person's inner life if, for example, one has nothing more to say about sleep than that the ego and the astral body are then outside the physical and etheric bodies. This is certainly true, but it is the most abstract statement possible. For we know no more about the difference between sleeping and waking in human beings than we know about a full and an empty beer glass; in one the beer is inside and in the other the beer is outside! Certainly, it is true that in the sleeping human being the ego and the astral body are outside the physical and etheric bodies, but one must have the will to ascend to ever more concrete determinations. And we attempt this ascent to concrete concepts by, for example, clarifying once again how the change of interest occurs in one case and in the other. I once drew the human being schematically in a reddish light; another time in a bluish light. This has to do with what I told you: the human being is there in the hollow. And when one falls asleep and acquires a higher consciousness—the consciousness can initially indicate itself; one then actually sees it, because one begins by looking at oneself—then one also sees the hollow space, then one already sees the hollow space. Then one already sees the untruth of the judgment that we consist of compact matter. You then see that what appears as material in your daytime consciousness is actually hollow spaces. But you must bear in mind that the human being is actually outside during sleep. That is why he sees the hollow space surrounded by the aura. You see, the human being is not inside himself, but outside, looking in. So he sees what is more or less hollow in the middle. It is naturally configured to be more or less hollow. It is not simply a hollow space. Other hollow spaces are filled when viewed from the outside. So that human beings naturally appear as they are when viewed from the outside, as they are in daytime consciousness. But we also see them surrounded by an auric mist. The human being then does not appear as one would otherwise see them, but is surrounded by a kind of auric mist. One does not see them clearly, but rather in such a way that one must first penetrate this auric mist. So one looks at an auric mist, and in this auric mist something like a figure is shaded; but above this figure is another layer of mist. So it is really as if you were seeing the person in a more or less bright aura. They are recessed within it when you look at them from the outside. I want to use a trivial comparison to clarify the phenomenon we are talking about here, when a person becomes conscious during sleep: Who has not walked through a city that was shrouded in fog? You don't see the lights sharply defined, but rather as if they were inside a kind of rainbow aura. Everyone has seen this. You don't see the lights, but rather the lights are left out of the surrounding fog. It is really very similar to the process I mentioned. You actually see the imaginative field of vision as if in fog, and within it are hollowed out, like dark spaces, the human beings.
If you consider this, you can say that becoming able to see in sleep means seeing people through an aura. And it was through learning not to see the aura but to see themselves directly that people became materialistic. This could only be brought about by Luciferic processes, which made it possible for human beings to begin to see themselves with their daytime consciousness. And here we touch upon an important point in the beginning of the Old Testament. The Old Testament tells us that until the Luciferic seduction, human beings walked around naked. This nakedness is not to be understood in the sense that they walked around naked in their consciousness, as you would walk around naked now, but that they had previously seen the aura around themselves. And because of this, they did not see what you would now see in a person walking around naked, but they saw people in spiritual clothing. The aura was their clothing. And when people lost their innocence, when they were condemned to a materialistic way of life, in other words, when they could no longer see the aura, they saw what they had not seen as long as the aura was there; and then they began to replace the aura with garments. That is the origin of clothing: the replacement of the aura by clothing. And it is indeed good to know in our materialistic age that people did not initially dress for other reasons, but in order to imitate the aura in their clothing. This is particularly true of religious customs, because there every item of clothing imitates some part of the human aura. And as you can see for yourselves in Raphael's paintings, Mary, Joseph, and Magdalene have different clothes; one figure has a red undergarment and a blue overgarment; another has a blue undergarment and a red overgarment. You will very often see Magdalenas, in paintings by artists who knew the tradition well or who still had some clairvoyance, wearing yellow robes and so on. There has always been an attempt to correspond to the aura of the individual in question, because there was an awareness of imitating the aura in clothing, of creating an expression of the aura in clothing. And it corresponds to our materialistic age that in certain circles it is considered ideal to abolish clothing—for materialism goes everywhere to its conclusions—and to present what is often called “nudism” as something extraordinarily healthy. There is even a magazine that advocates this and calls itself “Die Schönheit” (Beauty). This is based on a misunderstanding. It believes that in doing so it is approaching something other than the crudest, most gross materialism. One can only approach this if one wants to see reality only in what is presented as real by the external, sense-perceptible nature. But clothing originated from the desire to maintain, for normal life, a state of consciousness that sees the human being in his aura. Therefore, we must ask: What is the origin of this tendency in our time to strive for the elimination of clothing? A lack of any imagination to clothe oneself! This is not to be understood as an ideal purpose, but rather as a lack of imagination of any principle of beauty. For clothing is actually based on the idea of making people beautiful. And to see only beauty in unclothed people would mean, in our time, an instinct toward materialism. — I will have more to say about how this is connected with Greek culture. But it is precisely in Greek culture that you can study the question in the sense in which it has been raised today.
Now it is becoming increasingly important that people learn how different states of consciousness give rise to certain points of view in their outlook on life. A change of consciousness is sleeping and waking. But while sleeping and waking constitute very, very strong changes in the human state of consciousness, there are also smaller nuances of consciousness changes in life. I would like to say that even daytime consciousness is nuanced in such a way that human beings experience certain nuances of consciousness that lean more toward sleep, and other nuances of consciousness that lean more toward wakefulness. We all know that there are people who love to sleep, not directly, but to go through a large part of their lives in a daze. We say that they are sleeping, even though it is not really sleeping; we think that they are sleeping through life, that they go through life as if dreaming; if you say something to them, they soon forget it. It is not a dream, but it passes them by as quickly as a dream, and then it is forgotten. Isn't it true that this drowsiness, this haziness, whatever you call it, is more of a nuance close to sleep? — When one person beats another up properly, that is a nuance that goes beyond the ordinary state of sleep and is not mere imagination. It is also more than imagination when one person beats another. So there are such nuances of consciousness in life. One could establish a whole scale for these states. But these states have their justification. It depends very much on whether a person acquires a kind of feeling for them. Sometimes this feeling is already inherent in them if they are born healthy and raised in a healthy environment. It is important that people have a certain sense of how strongly they can take certain things in life, how much attention they should pay to them, and how little attention they can pay to them, and also in what way they represent certain things to the outside world or hide them within themselves. These are also nuances in the assertion of consciousness. Such nuances in the assertion of consciousness do exist. And it is very important to know that as we go through human life, this life rhythm gives us: How strongly do I turn my consciousness to any one thing? Or: How strongly do I emphasize something from my consciousness? — And here we can really learn something important, both in terms of healing our lives and in terms of the possibility of creating orderly conditions in our environment, if we pay attention to how strongly we have to connect our consciousness with this or that. You see, if we distinguish between the possible state of consciousness in which we walk around among people and talk to them about the things of life, and the state in which we do not talk about certain things out of a certain sense of shame, then the state in which we find ourselves in ordinary life, where we talk, has a different nuance in consciousness than when we do not touch on certain things out of a sense of shame, as we say. But this feeling of shame is just another state of consciousness, and an infinite amount depends on understanding such things in life. And I would like to use an example to illustrate how there are people who do have a certain understanding of such nuances of consciousness in life.
Today is August 27, which is Hegel's birthday. Tomorrow, August 28, is Goethe's birthday. The two have birthdays right after each other. Among other things, Hegel wrote a work called “Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline.” When you read this work, it has a special quality. Namely, it makes no sense whatsoever to open it at any point and start reading. You might as well be reading Chinese. A statement taken out of the middle of Hegel's “Encyclopedia” would make no sense at all. During a lecture in Berlin last winter, I emphasized how pointless it would be to take a sentence out of context from Hegel's “Encyclopedia.” For a sentence from Hegel's Encyclopedia only makes sense if you start reading it—after first setting aside everything that poses riddles upon riddles in the human mind—where Hegel says: “Being is the concept only in itself,” and so on. If you start there and let the whole thing sink in, then every sentence takes on its meaning in the place where it stands. And the fact that it stands there is part of the sentence. And that is how Hegel published the first edition of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. In the preface to the first edition, he says nothing special; he only explains why he structured the encyclopedia in this way. When the second edition became necessary, Hegel wrote a preface to it. Now, one sometimes gains life experience between the first and second editions of a book. For even if one has already gotten to know people, one feels inwardly obliged not to regard them as what they sometimes turn out to be; and one also learns a great deal about people from the way a book is received. This was also the case with Hegel. He then wrote a preface to the second edition, and this preface contains important passages. I would like to read two of these important passages, namely the first sentence and a sentence on the second page. The preface to the second edition begins: “The reader will find in this new edition several parts that have been reworked and developed in more detail; in doing so, I have endeavored to soften and reduce the formal nature of the presentation, and also to bring abstract concepts closer to common understanding and more concrete ideas about them through more extensive exoteric comments.” So he endeavored to explain the esoteric in exoteric terms. “The concise brevity necessitated by an outline of such abstruse matters allows this second edition to serve the same purpose as the first, namely as a book to be read aloud, with the necessary explanations provided in oral lectures. The title of an encyclopedia should initially allow for a lesser degree of scientific rigor and an external compilation; however, the nature of the subject matter dictates that logical coherence must remain the foundation.”
There were only too many reasons and incentives that seemed to make it necessary for me to explain my philosophical position on the intellectual and mindless activities of the age, which can only be done in an exoteric manner, as in a preface; for these activities, even if they claim to have a relationship to philosophy, cannot be scientifically integrated into it, but conduct their discourse from outside and from afar. It is unseemly and even dangerous to venture onto such ground, which is foreign to science; for such explanations and discussions do not promote the understanding that is necessary for true knowledge. But it may be useful or necessary to discuss some phenomena."
This proves to us, however, that Hegel attempted to write the first edition in what was for him an esoteric manner, and that he only added what appeared to him to be exoteric in the second edition, including the preface, which is exclusively exoteric. In our time, people often have no understanding of this exoteric and esoteric distinction. For in our time, it is not so easy to proceed as Hegel did, who initially wanted to keep to himself everything that was his own subjective understanding of the matter, and only when he had built up the organism, when the matter had detached itself from his subjectivity, did he want to present in his book what had detached itself from his subjectivity, while he was of the opinion: One does not talk about how one comes to the matter oneself! In doing so, he showed a certain tact for the difference between two states of consciousness: for the consciousness into which he wanted to place himself when he stood before people and spoke to them, and for the consciousness he developed when he spoke to himself. — And now the world compels him — as so often the world is the cause of this or that happening which should not be done — the world compels him to overcome this sense of shame for a time. For what was it, after all? It was a sense of shame in Hegel not to speak of the way in which he arrived at his concepts! In ordinary human shame, people blush. So one might say, even if it is to be understood intellectually: for Hegel, it was a kind of intellectual blushing when he had to write something like the preface to the second edition. There you see a nuance of consciousness over which the feeling of shame spreads.
I wanted to show you with an example how these nuances of consciousness come to the fore in life, even in the exercise of the will, in what one does. And it is necessary to gradually realize that life really must consist of such nuances of consciousness; that one must, so to speak, connect differences in consciousness with everything one experiences. Sleeping and waking are precisely strong differences in consciousness. But one can also grasp the difference in consciousness that comes from knowing: This is one thing that does not only concern you alone, it concerns you and the world; the other thing is that when you face the world, you must tone down the way you assert yourself; and yet other things you must settle with yourself or in your most intimate circle.
In this way, what we can gain in terms of concepts and ideas from spiritual science really intervenes in life, teaching us to recognize subtle, subjective differences in life, provided that we do not want to learn about these differences in the usual way, as we do in everyday life, but are clear that serious engagement with spiritual science gives us, as it were, this rhythm of life. But then there must be serious engagement with this spiritual science. This is of course not the case if one carries the feelings, drives, and instincts that one has otherwise had in life into spiritual science. Then it happens that one gains, I would say, no more from spiritual science than from any other indifferent communication of knowledge. And so it can happen—I have said that there are nuances of consciousness and that within waking there are nuances that approach sleep—that one takes in spiritual science but has no real inclination to go into certain details, subtleties, because one takes an interest in them in the same way as I described earlier with regard to the reindeer in relation to the lecture. One enjoys reading cycles or books, but one reads in such a way that at certain points this consciousness sinks, becomes drowsy, dozes off. One does not really feel the obligation to get beyond such things.
That is why I have always insisted that we should not make it too easy for people who want to approach spiritual science. Time and again, people say that we should write popular books; that “Theosophy,” for example, is not popular enough! All I ever hear is that we should write books that are more conducive to dozing off than “Theosophy.” Now it is really necessary that, precisely through this interest in the objective, one dispels what remains of certain feelings and sensations that one had before; otherwise, if one sleeps too much in relation to this or that aspect of spiritual science in which one is supposed to be interested, one will remain awake only in relation to what is easiest to retain. And then, of course, a process occurs that is inevitable if one does not develop sufficient objective interest: Isn't it true that the rentier listens to the lecture because he feels obliged to do so? One goes to a lecture because it is part of the good life, but he actually finds it dreadful and has not the slightest interest in it. Now his lack of interest is distracted and he enjoys himself and sometimes even falls asleep, which doesn't need to be noticed at first, as long as it doesn't turn into snoring, right? But that's a completely natural process.
Now imagine this process transferred, I would say, to another consciousness. Then you have the following: Someone does not develop the necessary, full interest in the individual details of spiritual science, but finds that one actually listens best when one does not pay so much attention to the details. I have even heard people say: Oh, what he says is not important, it's the “vibrations,” the “way” he says it! Such drowsy, hazy listening is something you can already see in the way some people listen. But this is the same in relation to the soul as it is in relation to the external life of the reindeer. For if attention is turned away from what is offered by spiritual science and toward the “vibrations,” then interest turns inward, just as the reindeer enjoys itself. And in the time between two lectures, one may pretend to be interested in what is said in the lecture, assert that one is interested in this or that, but in reality one is saying: He had this incarnation in the past, I myself had this incarnation. — That is, one has diverted everything to one's own person. It is exactly the same process. So this process, which is evident in the external life of the reindeer, which falls asleep during every lecture, also appears in people who pretend to be interested in spiritual science, but who in reality are not interested, but always find, in a certain sense, that the details are not important! And then they fall asleep when it comes to the details; and then their interest shifts to their own personality. One must make such things absolutely clear to oneself! If one did, many things that happen would not happen.
I would like you to consider, as it were, the nuance of consciousness in general, as I have tried to describe it. The last example, the last discussion I gave, should perhaps not be taken amiss these days, nor should it be taken amiss at other times. For it is undoubtedly true that there is a great deal of slumbering in relation to the spiritual scientific movement, and that a strong tendency toward self-indulgence is gaining the upper hand, and that spiritual science is then only applied to indulge this self-indulgence. But let us consider the nuances of consciousness. For without considering the nuances of consciousness, it is impossible to understand the concepts of necessity, chance, and providence.