Memory and Habit
GA 170
28 August 1916, Dornach
Lecture III
In these lectures I have said many things which may, with some justification, be deemed strange and unfamiliar, in view of the materialism of our time. But it is the case that the knowledge which is gained from spheres beyond the Threshold has to do with a region of the universe other than that of the sense-perceptible facts to which science, so called, is alone willing to pay attention.
Let us remind ourselves at this point of the way in which the outer form and figure of man indicates his connection with the cosmos. The head, in its whole shape and form, is a structure which could not have come into being within Earth-existence as such, but is a product of the Moon-forces, and its individual form, in every case, is the outcome of a man's former incarnations. We have also heard that the human body (other than the head) is preparing to become head in the next incarnation. In the form of the human head, therefore, we have an indication of the previous incarnation; in the processes of the human body, we have indications of the next incarnation. In this way the human form is directly connected with the preceding and the following incarnations.
Study of the being of man in this light leads us to a knowledge of great cosmic connections.
It is well known to you that knowledge which is a remnant of the wisdom of ancient times relates the outer form of man to the twelve constellations of the Zodiac.1See also Cosmic Forces in Man. Christiania, Nov.–Dec., 1921 Anthroposophical Publishing Co. Without speaking the superficial language that is characteristic of most modern astrological lore, it is right to call attention to the fact that behind the connections which are said to exist between the human form and the universe, deeply significant mysteries lie hidden.
Astrology, as you know, relates the human head to Aries; the throat and larynx to Taurus; the shoulders, together with all that comes to expression in the arms and hands, to Gemini; the breast to Cancer, the heart to Leo; the lower part of the trunk to Virgo; the region of the loins to Libra; the sexual organs to Scorpio; the thigh to Sagittarius; the knee to Capricorn; the shank to Aquarius; the feet to Pisces.
There we have the relation of the body, with all its parts, including the head, to the forces reigning in the cosmos and which in a certain way can be pictured or symbolised in the fixed constellations of the Zodiac.
We have spoken of the head as being a transformation of the whole body, the body as it was in the previous incarnation. The organs of sight again are of a twelve-fold constitution.
The whole human body is related, as we have seen, to the twelve constellations but each part of it must also, in turn, be related to all these twelve constellations.
I must point out, too, a certain characteristic of all the great laws of the universe.—Whenever we have a “twelve-hood,” then one member of the twelve-hood, while it belongs to the whole, is at the same time an independent member. The head, for instance, is related to one constellation but is, in turn, derived from all the twelve. Hence in the next incarnation, what to-day is the whole head, will be represented by one sense-organ; what to-day is the larynx (including the neighbouring organs of speech) will be transformed, will undergo a metamorphosis, and in the next incarnation will serve another part of the organism; the arms, another, and so on.
As we stand in the world we may say that our whole body is transformed, metamorphosed to become head in the next incarnation, and in so orderly a way that the twelve-fold constitution of our present body appears again in the next incarnation in the twelve-fold constitution of the head.
It may be asked: where is there any indication that the head is really twelve-fold in its constitution? Most of you will know that twelve main nerves go out from the human head. If these twelve nerves were rightly explained—not in the miserably confused way in which they are mentioned by modern cerebral physiology—we should be able to recognise in them that which, in the previous incarnation, was contained in the whole body. It is not necessary to be puzzled by the strange dictum that, for example, the hands will be transformed into some part of the head. Even in a crude sense we may understand what is meant. Can we not observe in the hands something that points, in germ, to organs of speech? Do not the gestures of hands and arms speak an eloquent language in themselves? Is it then so impossible to imagine them changed into something different, some thing which, at another stage of existence, will appear as a sense-organ of the head? And the idea that what is physically expressed in the knee is preparing (when spread over the whole body) to become the sense of touch, will only be laughed to scorn by those who have no conception of the phenomenon of metamorphosis in life. It is not difficult to conceive that the marvellous structure of the human knee with its knee-cap and peculiar sensitiveness (a sensitiveness different from that of the organ of touch which is spread over the whole body) is preparing to become the organ for the sense of touch in the next incarnation.
The whole of our being undergoes metamorphosis and a study of this metamorphosis opens up deep mysteries before us. But if we are to penetrate these mysteries in the right way, we must not adopt the attitude of the science of to-day which is often that of cynicism. We must have true reverence for existence if we are ever to read its mysteries.
The physical organism of man and technical discoveries.
For some long time now, modern man has brought his dreadful pride and presumption into all his conceptions of the universe. When these qualities are expressed in an extreme form in individual characters, this is not a matter of surprise to those who realise that it is precisely in the intellectual and scientific life of humanity that pride and presumption are the ruling factors, albeit this is unobserved by the majority of men.
In the course of our studies in Spiritual Science it has often been necessary for me to draw attention to this canker that has made its appearance in the more modern phase of evolution. Think of the way in which men write and of what they write about the achievements of the human race. Think of what can be read in school-books or in other works about the genius of discovery, about the invention, let us say, of paper. Paper is something that may well be a cause of regret when we think of the kind of stuff that is printed on it nowadays! Much has been said in praise of that capacity in man which has reached such a zenith of achievement! But as I have said before, a wasp's nest is composed of a substance that is the same as paper. Millions of years ago, the elemental Beings who stand behind the preparation of a wasp's nest, had already forestalled man in this discovery. And the same could be said in a thousand other instances. Take the telescope which can be turned in two directions, upwards-downwards, backwards-forwards. Schmieg, a man who tried in many ways to draw attention to such things, pointed to this very example of the telescope. Just think what it is that man has really achieved here. The twofold movement of the telescope—upwards-downwards, backwards-forwards—is made possible by a double apparatus for rotation: an upper apparatus known in mechanics as a hinge-joint, and a lower apparatus known as a pivot-joint. In this way, provision is made for the double rotatory movement. Now it would be absurd, as can easily be proved in the case of the telescope, to construct it the other way round, putting the pivot in place of the hinge or the hinge below the pivot. This would be quite useless. That such an adjustment of movement has been achieved may be lauded as a deeply significant discovery on the part of man. But in a much more ingenious way—and I use the word ‘ingenious’ in the objective and not in the subjective sense—you all possess this apparatus in your own bodies at the place where the head is poised upon the cervical vertebrae: above—a hinge joint; below—a pivot joint. And because of this you are able to move your heads upwards and downwards and from side to side. You see, therefore, that in the human organism itself we have exactly the same thing.
In the human organism there is to be found everything that man, through his discoveries, has made, or will yet make in the way of mechanical appliances, everything, that is to say, that can really contribute to human evolution. Only such things as can contribute nothing to human evolution are not to be found in man, or are only to be found there inasmuch as they have been inserted into his being by forces quite outside the natural course of his evolution. If, therefore, we look back to very early times, we shall say that there must have been a time when these peculiar joint-mechanisms and a great deal more as well, came into being. They are now in actual existence. We can go further and further back in human evolution (that is to say to phases of evolution when man already possessed the form that is his to-day), and we shall never find these organic arrangements absent. If, moreover, they are said to be the outcome of purely mechanical forces, how can this possibly be explained? Just think how wonderfully suitable for its purpose this particular apparatus is—so much so, indeed that it is possible even to use it on a telescope. No other arrangement would be anything like so suitable. According to a well-known principle of superficial Darwinism (I say ‘superficial’ expressly) it is the fittest who survive. But in this case, of what is the less fit supposed to consist? The less fit would make it impossible for man as he now is, to live at all. He simply would not be able to exist in the way he now exists; it is quite unthinkable that this is a case of transition from the less fit to the fit. Those who know the real truth as opposed to the dicta of superficial students of Darwinism, have always called attention to these things.
How will man in the future gain enlightenment on the subject of his connection with the cosmos? On this matter too, I have already said things that will have seemed puzzling and strange. I spoke of the modern belief that the Heavens are to be explained by the Heavens, and said that this was a mere catchword. The truth is that the secrets of the Heavens which can be investigated—and which by the Copernican school are considered to yield their own explanation—these secrets can explain what exists on the Earth; the mysteries of the Earth in their turn, can explain the mysteries of the Heavens.
Strange as it may appear, in times to come, in order to understand the Heavens, men will study the embryo (as it develops out of the cell) and its environment, up to the point of the existence of man as a complete and finished being. And the observations made will serve to reveal the mysteries of the great universe. The revelations of the Heavens will be explanatory of processes which, on the Earth, take their course in animal, plant and man—above all in embryonic life. The truth is that the Heavens explain the Earth, and the Earth the Heavens. This still seems a paradox to the modern age but it is a principle of real knowledge for the future and one that must be amplified and developed in many directions.
Aberrations in Occultism
Let me now speak again of problems connected with Lucifer and Ahriman. With some justification we look for the manifestations and revelations of Lucifer in human emotions and in the passions and feelings of men. We regard the Luciferic influence as operating more from the inner being. That Eve could set about making herself fair to look upon, could become a being who realised her own beauty and through her beauty proceed to bring about the temptation—this necessitated the help of Lucifer. When the other influence was destined to appear in the course of earthly evolution, namely, that the Sons of the Gods should find the daughters of men fair, i.e., should find the objective world beautiful, the intervention of Ahriman was required. It was necessary for Lucifer to work through Eve in order that she might realise her beauty and through her beauty bring about the temptation. That the objective world should work as beauty and influence the human soul, Ahriman was needed.
The first event fell in the Lemurian epoch, the second in the age of Atlantis.
It behoves us to increase our knowledge and understanding of the Luciferic and Ahrimanic influences. I can, of course, only describe certain details, but these details must then be put together in order to build up a knowledge of the nature of the Ahrimanic and Luciferic influences as a whole.
Some of you are possibly familiar with strange things that are apt to take place in circles where occultism, pseudo-occultism, occult charlatanism and the like, are cultivated. These strange things happen again and again. Suppose, for example, that a Society which likes to call itself an ‘Occult Society,’ numbers among its adherents, certain celebrities. In these so-called ‘Occult Societies’ there are always celebrities whose word is taken for law. Something said or done by these celebrities is immediately laid down as dogma. Suppose it becomes a dogma that one or another of these persons is the reincarnation of some great individuality, has achieved something quite out of the common, has uttered sublime truths, thousands of printed copies of which are sent out into the world. The utterances are considered to be of a lofty order although they may be commonplace in the extreme. That, however, makes no difference! It happens again and again that the most superficial nonsense, if delivered with the necessary veneer of sentimentality, is accepted by thousands of people as the most profound truth.
When something of the kind happens—and I am not now speaking of a particular instance but of typical occurrences—a good many people will be roused, protesting vigorously that they will submit to no dogma that it is all nonsense, that they do not want it, and they will never believe in it. Opposition will immediately be set on foot against them. But then some celebrity comes along and meets one of these rebels. What happens? In a few hours the rebel is converted into the most rabid supporter! Sometimes, indeed, the conversion is effected in less than an hour. Such things happen again and again. People are puzzled, very naturally. They say ‘Yes, but he or she (and it is not by any means always a ‘she’ but quite often a ‘he’)—he or she used to think so clearly about these things. How could one short conversation suffice so completely to change them over that they now believe anything and everything?’
There are people sitting here who know that such things have actually happened. But can it really be said in such a case that true conviction has been brought about? No, indeed! There can be no question of what is known as conviction in ordinary waking life. The occurrence must be regarded in quite a different light and in order to understand it we must consider the character of Ahriman.
One of the main characteristics of Ahriman is that he absolutely ignores the unbiased relationship to truth which is a determining factor in the life of man on Earth. This unbiased relationship to truth, where we strive for truth as the accordance of idea with objective reality, is beyond Ahriman's ken. He neither knows nor is concerned with it. Ahriman's position in the universe makes it entirely a matter of indifference to him whether, in the forming of a concept, this concept agrees with reality. In everything which Ahriman conceives as truth (in the human sense, of course, one would not call it ‘truth’) he is concerned only with effects. What is said, is said not because it fits the facts, but in order to produce an effect. This or that is said in order that some particular effect may be produced. It would therefore be ‘Ahrimanic’ if I were to speak to someone about our Building, let us say, with entire indifference as to its truth, but merely for the sake of inducing the person in question to undertake this or that, knowing that he will acquiesce if I ask him to do so.
I am sure you realise that these things actually happen: that a man may think out some scheme, be utterly indifferent as to whether his ideas are in accordance with objective reality or not, and then make use of them in such a way that they will have a certain effect upon those who listen to him. On a small scale this happens every day and one can think of many examples. Just think of all the things match-making ladies say when they want to bring two young people together, of all they say of the doings of the future couple! The match-makers are quite unconcerned as to the truth of what they say. Their only aim is to bring off the match under the influence of what is said.
That, of course, is a very trivial example and Ahriman himself is above such trivialities. What I mean to convey is that in human life we can find analogies for everything. The point with Ahriman is always the effect that will be produced by what is said and he formulates his utterances in such a way that when it comes to the point of communicating them he can step in to help.
Now it would serve Ahriman's purposes well if there were to arise on Earth a number of human beings who hold such a definite belief as that of which I spoke just now. If a man has been initiated into the mysteries of corrupt occultism and as a result of the initiation he has received has no inclination to place himself in the ranks of true occultism, then he can enter into a pact with Ahriman and declare a truth which in the human sense, of course, is not truth at all but which will produce certain definite effects. There is always some element of this kind at work in events such as I have described: where in an incredibly short time an out-and-out rebel succumbs to suggestion practised by means of Ahrimanic arts. In league with Ahriman a man can easily induce another to believe that some personality is an incarnation of a great individuality. It is merely a question of knowing the art of sowing the seeds where they will find responsive soil—in this case the soil of humanity itself—in such a way that the effects alone, and not the fact of agreement with objective reality, are of importance.
Such things go on in many circles which like to consider themselves ‘Occult.’ In many such circles it is not a question of ideas which accord with reality but of saying things to serve a definite aim and produce definite effects in one direction or another. Certainly, there are people who are so dull-witted and simple-minded that they immediately respond to Ahrimanic impulses quite unconsciously and without any direct application of Ahrimanic arts. But it does actually happen that Ahrimanic arts, that is to say, arts practised in direct association with Ahriman, are applied in human life. In our times, things that are done as an outcome of alliance with Ahriman play a part of great significance. For much of what has been going on for a long time now in human affairs is only to be understood in the light of a knowledge of secrets which have been lightly touched upon here.
We find, therefore, that Ahriman is never concerned as to whether an idea fits the facts but only with the effects produced.
With Lucifer it is not quite the same. Lucifer has other characteristics of which we have often spoken. But one characteristic in particular shall be mentioned here in order to further our knowledge. Like Ahriman, Lucifer is never concerned with the agreement of an idea with actuality. Lucifer is out to cultivate such ideas as will generate in man the highest possible degree of consciousness. Understand me well: I mean by that, cultivation of the most enhanced consciousness, of the widest possible expansion of consciousness. This expanded consciousness in which Lucifer is interested is associated with a certain inner voluptuousness in man. This again is Lucifer’s sphere. You remember perhaps that in speaking of At1antean times I once said that all sexuality was then an unconscious process. Beautiful myths of the different people point to this unconsciousness of the sexual process in ancient times. Only in the course of time was it raised to the realm of consciousness. Lucifer plays an essential part in raising this unconsciousness greater and greater consciousness.Prematurely to induce consciousness in man, that is to say, to call forth consciousness whereas under proper conditions this particular degree of consciousness should unfold at another period of time—this is the aim of Lucifer. Lucifer does not want the attention of men to be directed altogether to externalities. He would like everything that works into the consciousness to work from within. Hence all visionary life—which is, as it were, an exudation of forces in the inner organs—is of a Luciferic nature.
When Lucifer is known—and he must be known because it is a question of keeping him in his rightful sphere and we are here concerned with spiritual forces in the universe—we realise with horror that he has not the very least understanding pf any harmless delight or amusement which a man may take in things of the outer world. Lucifer has not the remotest sympathy for harmless, amused delight aroused by something outside. What he does understand is any emotion that is kindled by the inner being of man. Lucifer well understands when a desire in man awakens voluptuousness and when some process that would otherwise remain unconscious is called in this way into the region of consciousness. But in spite of his wisdom—and Lucifer has, of course, sublime wisdom—he simply cannot understand a harmless joke occasioned by some outer event. This lies outside his province. And one can protect oneself against the attacks which Lucifer is so prone to make, precisely by taking innocent joy and delight in the world outside. Lucifer cannot bear this; it vexes him terribly, for instance, if we take delight in a good caricature.
Such are the connections which are disclosed when we pass from the world of sense to the region lying beyond the Threshold, the region where things are not as they are in the world of sense but where all is Being, living Being. Even in the world of the Elements everything is living.
It is therefore correct to say that both Ahriman and Lucifer are equally unconcerned as to whether ideas agree with actuality. Ahriman is concerned with the effects of what is said; Lucifer's aim is to bring about an enhanced consciousness in man of what, in a particular situation, should really not become conscious.
In these two ways it is possible to achieve ends which could not be achieved if care were taken to ensure absolute agreement between idea and objective reality. And just as an alliance with Ahriman is the aim of corrupt occult circles, for reasons already indicated, so too, attempts are made to enter into a pact with Lucifer, that is to say, efforts are made to influence human beings in such a way that vision is induced as the outcome of inner voluptuousness—vision that is kindled from the inner being.
What is consciously achieved in these corrupt occult circles, namely, a pact with Ahriman on the one side and with Lucifer on the other, enables Ahriman and Lucifer to work into the unconscious regions of man's being. And much of the criticism which must be directed against the character of the fifth Post-Atlantean epoch in the way it is expressing itself in the world, is to be traced to Ahrimanic and Luciferic impulses. That there is so much lying, direct and indirect, that so much is said with utter indifference as to whether it agrees with the objective reality or not but simply for the sake of satisfying some feeling or passion—all these things are directly traceable to the fact that Ahrimanic and Luciferic influences have gripped the world to-day and are causing chaos in human affairs. For at our present stage of evolution we should not be capable of making statements as the outcome of passion without any attempt to discover whether they are really in accordance with reality or not, if we only lent ourselves to the Powers of Good! During the Atlantean epoch and even afterwards—at any rate up to the middle of the fourth post-Atlantean period—the forces in man's own inner being enabled him to ensure agreement between his ideas and the corresponding objective realities. This faculty, as we know, has been lost. And our present phase of evolution is there precisely in order that men may learn to observe the outer world, to investigate it—not to make statements which are merely instigated by their own passions! To-day, when conclusions well up from the inner life and no attempt is made to ensure their agreement with objective reality, a Luciferic influence is mingling with an Ahrimanic influence, the one inducing misplaced consciousness, and the other, lying and untruthfulness. These things are very widespread at the present time. Many souls to-day ignore the necessity of ensuring that an idea shall absolutely accord with objective reality. Moreover, few enough efforts are made in this direction. When they are made they are not understood and cause, to say the least, a considerable amount of surprise! Least of all does one find understanding when one tries to give such characterisations of reality as are supported by what actually exists, simply taking the things of the world as they are and reproducing them in ideas. People do not understand that this is something radically different from things that are done and said as the outcome either of personal or national passion. Here lies the radical difference which is unobserved to-day. Statements are made and conclusions are formed by men in accordance with their own lines of thought and without regard as to whether such statements and conclusions agree with the facts or not. That statements should agree with objective facts—upon this the fate of our age depends. For only so can we hope to pass onwards to an epoch wherein the spiritual world can be perceived in its true nature. Unless we acquire the faculty for the perception of truth in this physical world we shall never be able to unfold it in regard to the spiritual world. The capacity to find our true bearings in the spiritual world must be developed here in the physical world. It is for this purpose that we are placed in the physical world, where it behoves us to seek agreement between idea and objective reality, in such a way that this may become natural to us, may become a habit and a faculty which we then carry with us into the spiritual world.
But in these days there are so many who make statements with utter disregard of their conformity with objective fact, simply out of their feelings and emotions! This tendency is the very reverse of what is needed for the onward progress of humanity. Thinking in accordance with reality has become terribly foreign to our materialistic age under the influences which have here been described. Thinking in accordance with reality is rare in the extreme and when it is honestly striven for it comes into clash with whole world of unreal thinking. A terrible example of this is afforded by the conflicts that arise between our Anthroposophical Movement and unreal thinking;—conflicts which must be spoken of, however unwelcome this may be, because the facts are there and because one cannot be silent about them if one is sincere in regard to the Movement.
These conflicts of thinking that is in accordance with reality with thinking that is inimical to reality (inimical in the sense explained above) are an example of what is at stake when efforts are made really to serve the interests of truth.
In every age the fight with the opposing powers has had to be waged but the particular form this fight assumes in every age and the metamorphosis it undergoes must be recognised and understood. The influence of the Scribes and Pharisees has not died out! It is still working to-day, in a different form. And we shall only make progress with the clarity that is essential when we really understand this difference between thinking that is in accordance with reality and thinking that is inimical to reality.
Dreizehnter Vortrag
Ich mußte in den Vorträgen, die ich gehalten habe, mancherlei sagen, was paradox genannt werden könnte, was mit Recht auch gegenüber dem Materialismus der Gegenwart paradox klingen mag. Aber so ist es ja: Erkenntnisse aus dem Gebiete von jenseits der Schwelle beziehen sich auf ein anderes Gebiet der Welt, vielleicht sagen wir besser auf eine andere Form der Welt, als dasjenige ist, in welchem die sinnenfälligen Tatsachen liegen, die heute von dem, was sich Wissenschaft nennt, allein betrachtet werden wollen. Erinnern wir uns an einzelne Dinge, von denen gesprochen werden mußte. Erinnern wir uns daran, daß wir ausführen konnten, in welcher Art auf den Weltzusammenhang des Menschen das Äußere der menschlichen Gestalt hinweist: Wie das Haupt des Menschen in seiner Formung, in seiner ganzen Gestaltung — also der Kopf, so wie er ist — erstens ein Gebilde ist, das innerhalb desErdenlebens gar nicht veranlagt werden und entstehen konnte, das ein Ergebnis der Mondenkräfte ist, das aber auch so, wie es im Speziellen, im Individuellen geformt ist, bei jedem einzelnen Menschen ein Ergebnis seiner vorhergehenden Inkarnation ist, und daß hinwiederum das, was außer dem Kopf menschlicher Leib ist, gewissermaßen in der Vorbereitung ist, Kopf zu werden in der nächsten Inkarnation. So daß wir in der Form des menschlichen Hauptes einen Hinweis haben auf eine vorhergehende Inkarnation; in demjenigen, was wird aus dem menschlichen Leib, einen Hinweis haben auf die nächste Inkarnation des Menschen. Es schließt sich wirklich so die menschliche Gestalt unmittelbar an die vorhergehende und die nächstfolgende Inkarnation an. Wenn man so den Menschen betrachtet, so weist er also auf einen großen Weltenzusammenhang hin.
Sie wissen, daß jene Rudimente, die geblieben sind aus älteren, weisheitsvolleren Zeiten, den Menschen in bezug auf seine äußere Gestalt in Beziehung setzen zu den zwölf Tierkreisbildern. Ohne daß selbstverständlich hier das Wort geredet werden soll dem dilettantischen Charakter, den gerade heute vielfach das astrologische Forschen hat, darf doch aufmerksam darauf gemacht werden, daß hinter dieser Zuteilung der menschlichen Gesamtgestalt zum Weltenall tiefe, bedeutsame Geheimnisse stecken.
Sie wissen, daß die Astrologie zuteilt das Haupt des Menschen dem Widder, den Halsteil mit dem Kehlkopf dem Stier, den Teil mit den Armansätzen und mit dem, was sich in den Armen und Händen zum Ausdruck bringt, den Zwillingen, den Umkreis des Brustkorbes dem Krebs, alles das, was mit dem Herzen zusammenhängt, dem Löwen, das, was sich abspielt im Unterleib, der Jungfrau, Lendengegend der Waage, Sexualgegend dem Skorpion, Oberschenkel dem Schützen, Knie dem Steinbock, Unterschenkel dem Wassermann, Füße den Fischen.
Da haben wir die Zuteilung des Gesamtleibes des Menschen, einschließlich des Kopfes, an die Kräfte, die im Weltenall walten, und die in einer gewissen Weise zum Ausdruck gebracht werden können, indem man sie symbolisiert durch die Fixsterne des Tierkreises.
Nun haben wir aber davon gesprochen, daß der Kopf selber eigentlich eine Umformung des ganzen Leibes ist, nämlich des Leibes, wie er in der vorhergehenden Inkarnation war, und daß wir in den Sinnesorganen, die doch ihre repräsentative Vertretung zueinander im Kopfe haben, wiederum eine Zwölfheit zu sehen haben, eine richtige Zwölfheit. So daß wir etwa ein Schema zeichnen können in der folgenden Art:

Lassen wir das einmal schematisch den Gesamtleib des Menschen sein (siehe Zeichnung), und würden jetzt zuteilen den Kopf dem Widder, den Hals dem Stier und so weiter, so daß wir den zwölf Sternbildern den Gesamtmenschen zuteilen. Nach dem, was wir nun über den Zusammenhang des gesamten Sinnesorganismus gesagt haben, müssen wir nun das, was hier nur dem einen Sternbild zugeteilt ist, wiederum selber allen zwölf Sternbildern zuteilen. Wir müssen also hier dasselbe wiederholen. Und ich mache Sie aufmerksam auf diese Eigentümlichkeit, die sich geradezu bei allen großen Gesetzen des Universums wiederholt. Wenn man so etwas hat wie eine Zwölfzahl, so gehört immer ein Glied der Zwölfzahl mit zum Ganzen und ist doch wiederum ein selbständiges Glied. Das eine Glied, der Kopf, ist zugeteilt einem Sternbilde und doch wiederum - als Besonderes, Spezielles herausgehoben — allen zwölf Sternbildern. Man müßte, wenn das richtig ist, was so gesagt worden ist, voraussetzen, daß wenn dies der Leib in einer Inkarnation ist, der zum Haupt in der nächsten Inkarnation wird, so müßte also gewissermaßen, was heute der ganze Kopf ist, in der nächsten Inkarnation einem Sinnesorgan dienen. Das, was heute der Kehlkopf ist, das Sprachorgan, mit allem, was sich in seiner Nachbarschaft befindet, das müßte in der nächsten Inkarnation, umgewandelt, metamorphosiert, einem zweiten Sinnesleben dienen; dasjenige, was in den Armen sich ausdrückt, einem dritten Sinnesleben und so weiter. Wie wir stehen in der Welt, würden wir sagen: Umgewandelt, metamorphosiert ist unser ganzer Leib zu einem Haupte in der nächsten Inkarnation, und zwar so regelmäßig, daß die Zwölfheit, die heute in unserem Leibe ist, in der nächsten Inkarnation wiederum in der Zwölfheit des Hauptes erscheinen könnte.
Man könnte sogar fragen: Gibt es eine Andeutung, daß diese Zwölfheit im Haupte wirklich enthalten ist? - Nun, die meisten von Ihnen werden wissen, daß zwölf Hauptnervenansätze vom menschlichen Haupte ausgehen. Wenn man diese einmal richtig deuten wird — nicht so jämmerlich verworren wie die heutigen Gehirnphysiologen -, so wird man in diesen zwölf Nervenausgängen des Hauptes wiederum erkennen das, was zugeteilt ist dem ganzen Leib in der vorigen Inkarnation. Und man braucht sich nicht aufzuhalten über das Paradoxe, daß zum Beispiel dasjenige, was heute in den Händen ist, einmal erscheinen wird als etwas am Haupte. Man kann sogar im groben solche Sachen vielleicht ganz leicht begreifen. Denn ist nicht dasjenige, was wir in den Händen und Armen haben, wenn wir sie physiognomisch ordentlich betrachten, wahrhaft etwas, das uns jetzt schon gleichsam die Anlage zu den Sprachorganen zeigt? Führen wir mit den Händen und Armen nicht eine beredte Sprache? Warum sollte man denn nicht glauben können, daß das einmal etwas ganz anderes wird, etwas, das sinngemäß auf einer ganz anderen Stufe des Daseins als ein Sinnesorgan des Hauptes sich kundgibt? Und darüber lachen, daß etwa das, was heute in bezug auf unseren Leib sich in den Knien ausdrückt, sich vorbereitet, in seiner Ausbreitung über den ganzen Leib etwa zum Tastsinn zu werden, zum Tastorgan, darüber lachen könnte nur derjenige, der eben keine Ahnung hat von dem, was eigentlich Metamorphose des Daseins ist. Diese Eigentümlichkeit namentlich unserer menschlichen Knie mit diesem wunderbaren Bau der aufgesetzten Kniescheibe, die in einer gewissen Beziehung so empfindlich ist, aber in einer anderen Art als das Tastorgan des ganzen Leibes, dies bereitet sich eben vor, Tastsinn in einer nächsten Inkarnation zu werden. So metamorphosiert sich dasjenige, was an uns ist, und wir sehen durch so etwas in tiefe Geheimnisse des Daseins hinein. Es ist aber schon nötig, um in solche tiefen Geheimnisse des Daseins richtig hineinzusehen, mit Ehrfurcht hineinzusehen, daß wir nicht die Stimmung entwickeln, die heute in der gewöhnlichen Wissenschaft entwickelt wird, die gegenüber dem, was sie sein sollte, eigentlich eine zynische Stimmung ist. Ehrfurcht brauchen wir gegenüber dem Dasein, wenn wir seine Geheimnisse erlauschen wollen. Der heutige Mensch hat seit längerer Zeit schon hereingetragen in alle seine Weltanschauungen seinen furchtbaren Hochmut und Größenwahn. Wenn dieser Größenwahn in einzelnen Charakteren besonders zum Ausdruck kommt, so wundert das denjenigen nicht, der sieht, wie gerade im intellektualistischen und wissenschaftlichen Leben der Menschheit ein heute in der Breite gar nicht bemerkter Größenwahn und Hochmut herrscht.
In der Geisteswissenschaft habe ich ja schon öfter die Notwendigkeit gehabt, auf diesen Hochmut, der besonders in der neueren Entwickelung der Menschheit sein Unwesen treibt, aufmerksam zu machen. Ofter habe ich davon gesprochen, wie die Menschen schreiben, wenn sie über Menschentaten schreiben. Man lese das, was in den Schulbüchern oder sonst in Werken, die von dem Erfindergeist der Menschheit sprechen, über die Erfindung, sagen wir, des Papieres steht, dieses Papieres, über das man so traurig sein möchte, wenn man sieht, wie vieles darauf gedruckt wird in der neueren Zeit. Aber was reden alles die Menschen über die menschliche Kapazität, die es zu solchen Dingen gebracht hat! Ich habe aufmerksam darauf gemacht, daß das Wespennest aus demselben Stoff besteht, aus richtigem Papier; daß da vor Jahrmillionen elementarische Wesenheiten, die der Wespennestbereitung zugrunde liegen, wahrhaftig vor dem Menschen diese Erfindung schon hatten. Und solches könnte man in tausendfältiger Beziehung sagen. Sehen Sie sich einmal ein Fernrohr an, das in zweifacher Weise drehbar ist, so daß es auf und ab geht, und dann auch gedreht werden kann. Schmick, der sich in mancherlei Weise bemüht hat, auf solche Dinge aufmerksam zu machen, hat schon gerade auf dieses Fernrohr-Beispiel hingewiesen. Sehen Sie sich an, was da der Mensch zustandegebracht hat! Diese Bewegung beim Fernrohr, die zweifach ist: hin und her und auf und ab, die wird hervorgebracht dadurch, daß eine Doppelvorrichtung für die Drehung da ist, eine obere Vorrichtung, die man in der Mechanik als ein Scharniergelenk bezeichnet, und eine untere, die man in der Mechanik als ein Zapfengelenk bezeichnet. Dadurch kann in der richtigen Weise diese doppelte Drehung hervorgerufen werden. Nun würde die Sache töricht sein — was man ja beim Fernrohr leicht ausprobieren kann -, wenn man das umgekehrt machen würde: wenn man das Zapfengelenk an die Stelle des Scharniergelenks und unter das Zapfengelenk das Scharniergelenk setzen würde. Das wäre unvorteilhaft. Man kann das nun preisen als eine tiefbedeutsame Erfindung des Menschen, daß er solch eine Bewegungsvorrichtung erfunden hat. Aber in viel genialerer Weise — wenn ich jetzt das Wort «genial» objektiv gebrauche, nicht subjektiv zunächst tragen Sie alle diese Vorrichtung da hinten, wo der Kopf aufsitzt auf Ihrem Halswirbel: oben ein Scharniergelenk, unten ein Zapfengelenk. Und dadurch sind Sie imstande, den Kopf auf und ab zu bewegen und nach den Seiten hin zu wenden. Sehen Sie, da haben wir genau dasselbe, was Gegenstand des menschlichen Denkens heute ist, im menschlichen Organismus.
Es gibt überhaupt nichts, was der Mensch erfindet, jemals erfinden wird, was nicht am menschlichen Organismus irgendwie zu finden wäre. Alles ist am menschlichen Organismus zu finden, was der Mensch an mechanischen Einrichtungen ausfindig gemacht hat und noch ausfindig machen wird, alles das, was wirklich beitragen kann zur menschlichen Evolution. Nur das, was zur menschlichen Evolution nichts beitragen kann, findet sich nicht am Menschen, oder es findet sich am Menschen in einer solchen Art, daß es ganz anders eingegliedert ist, als es vom Menschen in seine Evolution eingegliedert wird. Wir können also sagen: Blicken wir zurück in frühe, frühe Zeiten, da mußte einmal die Zeit da sein — es liegt das im Charakter und im ganzen Geist der Evolution -, daß dieser eigentümliche Gelenkmechanismus und eben vieles andere entstand. Und jetzt ist es vorhanden. Und wir werden in der Menschheitsentwickelung — was man so Menschheitsentwickelung nennt, nämlich Menschheitsentwickelung, in welcher der Mensch schon die Gestalt hat, die er jetzt besitzt — zurückgehen und weiter zurückgehen können: wir werden niemals finden, daß diese Anordnung nicht da war. Und wenn sie auf bloß mechanischem Wege hätte entstehen sollen, wie hätte denn das geschehen sollen? Denken Sie einmal, daß dies eine besonders zweckmäßige Einrichtung ist, so zweckmäßig, daß man sie am Fernrohr gut gebrauchen kann. Jede andere Einrichtung wäre unzweckmäßig. Nun soll sich nach einem bekannten Grundsatze des oberflächlichen Darwinismus — des oberflächlichen, sage ich — aus dem weniger Zweckmäßigen das Zweckmäßige herausgebildet haben. Aber worin soll denn das weniger Zweckmäßige zum Beispiel in diesem Fall bestehen? Das weniger Zweckmäßige würde unmöglich machen, daß überhaupt der Mensch, so wie er jetzt ist, lebt. Er würde also nicht in der Weise leben können wie jetzt, und es ist undenkbar, daß man hier von einem Übergang des weniger Zweckmäßigen zum Zweckmäßigen sprechen kann. Auf solche Dinge haben ja immer diejenigen aufmerksam gemacht, welche die notwendigen Gegenwahrheiten entwickelt haben zu den landläufigen, oberflächlich aufgefaßten darwinistischen Wahrheiten.
Wie wird man sich nun in einer zukünftigen Zeit aufklären über den Zusammenhang des Menschen mit dem Universum? Auch darüber mußte ich schon etwas Paradoxes sagen. Sie erinnern sich, wie ich ausgeführt habe, daß der heutige Glaube, daß der Himmel über sich selber aufklären würde, eine Phrase ist, und daß in Wahrheit die Geheimnisse des Himmels, die man erforschen wird und die der Kopernikanismus so nimmt, als ob der Himmel über sich selber aufklären könnte, daß diese Geheimnisse des Himmels über das Aufklärung geben können, was auf der Erde lebt, und umgekehrt die Geheimnisse der Erde über die Geheimnisse des Himmels.
So paradox das heute klingt: Man wird in der Zukunft studieren die Entwickelung des Embryo, wie er sich aus der Zelle und seiner Umgebung entwickelt und so weiter, bis zum vollen Menschen. Das, was man da beobachten wird, wird man hinnehmen als eine Enthüllung der großen kosmischen, der universellen Geheimnisse. Und das, was man am Himmel beobachten wird, wird man als Erklärungsprinzip zu betrachten haben für das, was sich hier auf der Erde in Tieren, Pflanzen und Menschen, insbesondere im Embryonalen, abspielt. Der Himmel erklärt die Erde, die Erde den Himmel. Das habe ich auch schon ausgeführt. Es ist ein Paradoxon der heutigen Zeit noch - ein wirkliches, ernstes Erkenntnisprinzip der Zukunft, das erweitert werden muß.
Heute möchte ich noch sprechen über etwas Ähnliches, ich möchte sagen, ein drittes Paradoxon, das zusammenhängt mit den Betrachtungen, die wir gerade im Anschluß an Goethes «Faust» über Ahriman und Luzifer gepflogen haben. Wir suchen mit einem gewissen Rechte die Manifestationen, die Offenbarungen Luzifers in alledem, was ausgedrückt ist in den menschlichen Emotionen, was in den menschlichen Leidenschaften, Empfindungen und so weiter sich darlebt. Als mehr aus dem Innern heraus wirksam betrachten wir das Luziferische, Als Eva daranzugehen hatte, sich selber schön zu machen, um selber schön zu scheinen, um das Wesen zu sein, das als solches sich selber schön finder und durch seine Schönheit die Versuchung bewirken kann, da mußte eben Luzifer mitwirken. Als das andere eintreten sollte im Laufe der Erdenentwickelung, daß die Söhne der Götter die Töchter der Menschen schön finden sollten, also das Objekt schön finden sollten, da mußte Ahriman wirken. - Um Eva so zu durchdringen, daß sie sich schön fühlte und durch ihre Verführung schön wirken konnte: Luzifer. Damit das Objekt schön befunden werden und wirken konnte von außen als Schönes, dazu war Ahriman notwendig. Das erstere fällt in die lemurische Zeit, das zweite in die atlantische Zeit.
Nun muß man aber das Ahrimanische und das Luziferische immer genauer und genauer kennenlernen. Ich kann natürlich immer nur einzelnes aus dem Ahrimanischen und Luziferischen charakterisieren. Es muß dann zusammengesucht werden der ahrimanische und luziferische Charakter in ihrer Totalität aus den einzelnen Charakteristiken, die ich Ihnen dazu gegeben habe.
Vielleicht werden einige von Ihnen ein, man könnte schon sagen, paradoxes Ereignis kennen, das typisch auftritt für diejenigen, die sich so ein wenig bewegen in den Kreisen, wo Okkultismus, Quasi-Okkultismus, okkultistischer Schwindel — nun, und alles das, was eben mit diesen Dingen zusammenhängt, betrieben wird. Da kann eine Erfahrung immer wieder und wiederum gemacht werden. Nehmen wir also an, es gäbe eine okkultistisch sich nennende Gesellschaft mit einigen hervorragenden Zelebritäten. Es sind ja immer in solchen okkultistischen Gesellschaften Zelebritäten, denen geglaubt wird, auf die geschworen wird. Es taucht nun da irgend etwas auf, was verbreitet wird als ein Dogma. Nun, nehmen wir an, es taucht auf als Dogma, diese oder jene Persönlichkeit wäre da, wäre die Verkörperung einer mächtigen überragenden Individualität, hätte etwas geleistet, was sonst Menschen nicht leisten, auf irgendeinem besonderen Wege, sagen wir, große Wahrheiten geschrieben, die in Tausenden und Tausenden von Exemplaren in die Welt hinauswandern und als etwas Großes angesehen werden, obwohl sie vielleicht manchmal nur allgemeine Phraseologie enthalten; aber das macht nichts. Das geschieht ja immer wieder, daß gerade das Oberflächlichste, wenn es mit der nötigen sentimentalen Gemütssauce vorgetragen wird, als das «Allertiefste» von Tausenden und aber Tausenden von Menschen hingenommen wird.
Wenn so etwas geschieht, kann man oftmals - ich will jetzt nicht einen einzelnen Fall treffen, sondern etwas Typisches meine ich — die Erfahrung machen, daß da verschiedene Leute sind, die sich zunächst dagegen schrecklich aufbäumen, die sagen: Dogmatik wollen wir nicht haben, so etwas ist Unsinn, so etwas wollen wir nicht; niemals glauben wir daran. - Eine Art Feldzug dagegen beginnen sie. Dann kommt irgendeine Zelebrität, welche die Sache vertritt, und trifft mit einem solchen Rebellen zusammen. Man kann nun die Erfahrung machen: in wenigen Stunden ist der Rebell bekehrt, unmittelbar in wenigen Stunden bekehrt, und wird der wütigste Anhänger. Manchmal dauert es überhaupt nicht einmal Stunden, sondern vielleicht nicht einmal eine ganze Stunde. Diese Dinge können immer wieder erlebt werden. Und erlebt werden kann es, daß dann die Menschen kommen und fragen: Ja, wie kommt es denn? Die oder der - es sind wirklich nicht bloß «die’s», sondern es sind tatsächlich auch oftmals «der’s», wahrhaftig — waren doch eben noch ganz klar denkend über diesen Fall, und kaum sind sie in kurzem Gespräch gewesen mit dieser okkultistischen Zelebrität, so sind sie wie umgewandelt, sie glauben jetzt an alles.
Es sitzen hier schon Menschen, die wissen, daß diese Dinge vorgekommen sind. Ist es in einem solchen Falle geschehen, daß wirklich Überzeugung bewirkt worden ist? Nein, von dem, was man im gewöhnlichen Leben hier für das Wachbewußtsein Überzeugung nennt, kann in einem solchen Fall gar nicht die Rede sein. Die Sache muß vielmehr ganz anders verstanden werden. Und um sie zu verstehen, betrachten wir für einen Augenblick den Charakter Ahrimans.
Sehen Sie, eine der Haupteigentümlichkeiten des Ahriman ist diese, daß er eigentlich jenes unbefangene Verhältnis, das der Mensch, wie er hier auf der Erde lebt, zur Wahrheit hat, gar nicht kennt. Ahriman kennt dieses unbefangene Verhältnis zur Wahrheit nicht, wo man anstrebt, Wahrheit einfach als Übereinstimmung einer Vorstellung mit einer Objektivität zu haben. Das kennt Ahriman nicht. Darum ist es ihm gar nicht zu tun. Durch die ganze Stellung, die ich ja schon öfter charakterisiert habe, die Ahriman hat im Weltenall, ist es ihm wirklich höchst gleichgültig beim Bilden einer Vorstellung, ob diese übereinstimmt mit der Wirklichkeit. Ihm, Ahriman, handelt es sich bei alledem, was er für sich als Wahrheit - wir würden es im menschlichen Zusammenhang nicht Wahrheit nennen -, aber was er für sich als Wahrheit ausbildet, immer um Wirkungen. Es wird nicht etwas gesagt, um mit etwas anderem übereinzustimmen, sondern um zu wirken. Dies oder jenes wird gesagt, damit es diese oder jene Wirkungen hervorbringt.
Also, ahrimanisch wäre es, wenn ich jemandem dies oder jenes sagen wir in bezug auf den Bau — sagen würde, wobei es mir ganz gleichgültig wäre, ob es wahr ist oder nicht, wenn ich dadurch nur bewirken wollte, daß der Betreffende dies oder jenes unternimmt, wenn ich weiß: wenn ich ihm dies sage, so unternimmt er dieses oder jenes.
Ich glaube, Sie werden sich vorstellen können, daß es dieses geben kann, daß man ausdenkt irgend etwas, wobei es gleichgültig ist, ob es mit der Objektivität übereinstimmt oder nicht, aber was man so behandelt, daß es eine bestimmte Wirkung hat beim Menschen, der es hört. - Im Kleinen gibt es ja allerlei dergleichen unter Menschen. Man könnte da an mancherlei erinnern, aber denken Sie doch nur einmal, was alles die Tanten sagen, die sich den Kuppelpelz einmal bei irgendeinem verdienen wollen, wo sie zwei Leute zusammenkuppeln wollen und nun über die beiden Leute sagen, daß es die Braut, daß es der Bräutigam tue! Es kommt ihnen wirklich nicht darauf an, daß die Dinge stimmen, sondern, daß unter dem Einflusse dessen, was sie sagen, eben der Kuppelpelz verdient wird. Das ist nur ein ganz kleines exemplarisches Beispiel! Selbstverständlich gibt sich Ahriman nicht mit solchen kleinen Beispielen ab. Aber ich meine, wir haben natürlich für alles ein Analogon im menschlichen Leben.
Also bei Ahriman handelt es sich bei allen seinen Aussagen um Wirkungen. Und er formt seine Aussagen so, daß er mithelfen kann, wenn es sich um die Mitteilung solcher Dinge handelt. Nun denken Sie sich, daß es für Ahriman günstig wäre, auf der Erde eine Anzahl von Menschen zu erzeugen, die an etwas Bestimmtes glauben, an das glauben, wovon ich gerade vorhin gesprochen habe. Wenn nun jemand so weit in die Geheimnisse des schlechten Okkultismus eingeweiht ist und durch seine Art von Einweihung keine Neigung hat, an Stelle dieses Okkultismus den richtigen zu stellen, dann kann er eben erlauben Sie diese paradoxe Wendung -: sich mit Ahriman so verbinden, daß er jemandem eine Wahrheit beibringen kann, die ahrimanisch ist, die also im menschlichen Sinne keine Wahrheit ist - die wirken soll! Und das liegt immer zugrunde dem, was ich eben beschrieben habe, wo in einer ganz kurzen Stunde jemand, der ganz rebellisch war, durch ahrimanische Künste suggeriert wird. Im Bunde mit Ahriman kann man schon auch das einem anderen Menschen beibringen, daß er glaubt, daß in dieser oder jener menschlichen Persönlichkeit diese oder jene überragende Individualität inkarniert sei. Man muß nur die Künste kennen, Wahrheiten so hineinzuwerfen in irgendein Lebensgebiet - in diesem Falle in die Menschheit -, daß man nur ihre Wirkung berechnet, nicht ihre Übereinstimmung mit der Objektivität.
Solche Dinge werden in vielen Gemeinschaften getrieben, die sich okkultistisch nennen. In vielen solchen Gemeinschaften, die sich okkultistisch nennen, handelt es sich durchaus nicht darum, Vorstellungen nur zu entwickeln, die in Übereinstimmung mit der Objektivität sind, sondern Dinge zu sagen, die ganz bestimmte Wirkungen erzielen — nach der einen oder anderen Richtung hin.
Gewiß, es kann auch Menschen geben, die so dumm und töricht sind, daß sie - ohne daß die ahrimanischen Künste unmittelbar durch einen Menschen angewendet werden — gleichsam unbewußt ahrimanische Impulse aufnehmen, Aber es gibt schon das in der Menschheit, daß ahrimanische Künste, das heißt direkt Künste, die im Bündnisse mit Ahriman bewirkt werden, wirklich geübt werden. Und für unsere Zeit sind diese Dinge, die aus dem Menschenbündnis mit Ahriman hervorgehen, von ganz besonders großer Bedeutung. Denn vieles von dem, was seit langer Zeit in der Menschheit geschieht, geschieht in einer Art, die man nur verstehen kann, wenn man die Geheimnisse kennt, auf die hier in zarter Weise hingedeutet worden ist.
Für Ahriman handelt es sich also darum, daß er nie sieht auf die Zusammenstimmung einer Vorstellung mit der Objektivität, sondern auf die Wirkung, auf das, was erreicht werden kann.
Für Luzifer handelt es sich um etwas anderes. Andere Eigenschaften hat Luzifer. Nun, wir haben schon auf sie hingewiesen. Aber wir wollen jetzt auch in bezug auf Luzifer eine besondere Eigenschaft hervorheben, damit wir diese Dinge immer besser und besser kennenlernen. Sehen Sie, auch bei Luzifer handelt es sich nicht um das Zusammenstimmen irgendeiner Vorstellung mit der Objektivität, radikal niemals, sondern darum, daß diejenigen Vorstellungen entwickelt werden, die möglichst viel Bewußtsein im Menschen hervorbringen. Also verstehen Sie mich wohl darinnen: die möglichst viel, möglichst intensives Bewußtsein, ein möglichst ausgebreitetes Bewußtsein im Menschen hervorbringen. Dieses ausgebreitete Bewußtsein, an dem Luzifer sein Interesse hat, ist ja zugleich verknüpft, wenn es hervorgebracht wird, mit einer gewissen inneren Wollust des Menschen. Und dieses Wollüstige ist wiederum Luzifers Gebiet. Sie erinnern sich vielleicht, daß ich für die atlantischen Zeiten darauf aufmerksam gemacht habe, daß bis zu einem gewissen Zeitpunkte alles Sexuelle unbewußt vor sich gegangen ist. Schöne Mythen der verschiedenen Völker weisen hin auf diesen unbewußten Charakter des sexuellen Vorgangs in der älteren Zeit. Er ist erst im Laufe der Zeit ins Bewußtsein hereingeholt worden. Luzifer hat wesentlich Anteil daran, daß das Unbewußte hier in das Bewußte und immer Bewußtere hereingeholt wird. Dieses: außer der dazu bestimmten Zeit, außer dem rechten Zeitenzyklus Bewußtsein im Menschen hervorzurufen, also über etwas Bewußtsein hervorzurufen, wo dieser Grad des Bewußtseins eigentlich in einem anderen Zeitpunkte richtig entwickelt würde, das ist Luzifers Bestreben. Luzifer will gar nicht den Menschen so ohne weiteres auf etwas Äußeres gerichtet sein lassen. Er will, daß alles, was ins Bewußtsein wirkt, von innen wirkt; daher alles visionäre Leben, das nur gleichsam von innen herausgepreßt wird, luziferischen Charakter hat. Lernt man Luzifer kennen, wie man ihn ja kennenlernen muß, weil er selbstverständlich mit seinen Wirkungen immer an die richtige Stelle gesetzt werden muß, weil man es mit geistigen Wirkungen im Weltenall zu tun hat, so wirkt auf einen ganz besonders scheußlich, daß Luzifer gar nicht das geringste Verständnis hat für harmloses Ergötzen des Menschen an Äußerem. Dieses harmlose Ergötzen an dem, was von außen kommt, dafür hat Luzifer nicht das geringste Verständnis. Verständnis hat er für das, was durch alle möglichen inneren Dinge angefacht wird. Luzifer hat großes Verständnis dafür, daß jemand in sich eine Leidenschaft hervorruft, der er frönt, die ihm Wollust bereitet, so daß möglichst ins Bewußtsein gerufen wird das, was sonst unterbewußt bleibt. Aber trotz seiner Weisheit — denn Luzifer hat Ja natürlich eine hohe Wetsheit - kann er nicht verstehen einen harmlosen Witz, den jemand, durch irgendein äußeres Ereignis hervorgerufen, macht, Das liegt ganz außerhalb des Gebietes des Luzifer. Und man kann geradezu sich gegen luziferische Bestürmungen, die er ja sehr leicht unternimmt, dadurch schützen, daß man versucht, in dem zu leben, was auf harmlose Weise ergötzt, auf harmlose Weise von außen herein den Menschen unterhält. Das kann er gar nicht leiden, Luzifer. Wenn man Freude hat an einer guten Karikatur, das ärgert Luzifer ganz entsetzlich.
Ja, so sind schon die Zusammenhänge, die sich enthüllen, wenn man aus dem Dinglichen der sinnlichen Welt in das Gebiet eintritt, das jenseits der Schwelle liegt, wenn man in diejenige Sphäre kommt, wo alles eben nicht den Charakter der Dinge hat wie in der physischen Welt, sondern den Charakter der Wesen hat, des Lebendigen hat. Schon wenn man in die elementare Welt eintritt, hat alles den Charakter des Lebendigen. So sehen Sie, daß man gewissermaßen sagen kann: Sowohl Ahriman wie Luzifer ist die Übereinstimmung der Vorstellung mit der Objektivität gleichgültig. Bei Ahriman handelt es sich um die Wirkung bei dem, was er sagt, bei Luzifer handelt es sich um die Ausbreitung der Bewußtheit in der menschlichen Natur von dem, was eigentlich nicht bewußt werden sollte in einer gewissen Lage, was außerhalb des rechten Zeitenzyklus liegt und verknüpft ist mit einer gewissen inneren Wollust.
Auf diese beiden Arten lassen sich nämlich Dinge erzielen, die sich nicht erzielen lassen, wenn man bloß auf das baut, was Übereinstimmung ist der Vorstellung mit der Objektivität. Und so, wie in schlecht okkultistischen Kreisen das Bündnis mit Ahriman gesucht wird aus Gründen, die ich vorhin charakterisiert habe, so wird in diesen schlecht okkultistischen Kreisen das Bündnis mit Luzifer gesucht, wobei versucht wird, auf den Menschen zu wirken so, daß man in wollüstiger Weise bei ihm ein Schauen hervorruft, also von innen heraus angefacht ein Schauen hervorruft.
Was so in schlecht okkultistischen Kreisen bewußt hervorgebracht wird, was eingegangen wird als ein Bündnis mit Ahriman und Luzifer, das wird natürlich auch dadurch geübt, daß ins Unbewußte der Menschen Ahriman und Luzifer hineinwirken. Und vieles von dem, was kritisierend gesagt werden muß über den Charakter gerade des fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraums, wie er sich jetzt entfaltet in der großen Welt draußen, muß auch in dieser Art auf ahrimanische und luziferische Impulse zurückgeführt werden. Daß so vieles gesagt wird, was direkt verlogen oder gelogen ist, daß aber auch so vieles gesagt wird, nicht deshalb, weil zuerst geholt wird die Berechtigung, etwas zu sagen aus der Übereinstimmung mit der Objektivität, sondern weil man es sagen will, weil es der Emotion, der Leidenschaft entspricht, das ist darauf zurückzuführen, daß wirklich in chaotischer Weise ahrimanische und luziferische Strömungen gegenwärtig sehr stark die Welt ergriffen haben. Denn wir würden in der heutigen Menschheitsentwikkelung nicht können aus einer Leidenschaft heraus Behauptungen tun, ohne zu untersuchen die Übereinstimmung mit der Objektivität, wenn wir uns nur den guten Mächten überlassen würden. Der atlantische Mensch und der nachatlantische höchstens bis in die Mitte der vierten nachatlantischen Periode hinein konnte noch aus seinem Inneren heraus Wahrheiten in Übereinstimmung mit der bezeichneten Objektivität finden. Aber das, wissen wir ja, ist verlorengegangen. Es ist ja gerade unser Zeitenzyklus da, damit die Menschheit lernen kann, die Außenwelt zu beobachten, die Außenwelt zu untersuchen, und nicht aus den Leidenschaften heraus sich Behauptungen zu formen.
Wenn also heute dennoch Wahrheiten geformt werden aus dem Inneren heraus, ohne daß gesucht wird die Übereinstimmung mit der Außenwelt, so ist das eine luziferische Strömung, die sich verschwistert mit ahrimanischen Strömungen, wobei das eine nicht ein richtiges Bewußtsein, das andere Gelogenheit oder Verlogenheit erzeugt. - Und sehr, sehr verbreitet ist das, was hier bezeichnet wird, schon in der Gegenwart. Denn es ist heute vielen Seelen das rechte Bewußtsein abspenstig gemacht worden von dem, was überhaupt Übereinstimmung ist der Vorstellung mit der Objektivität. Es wird gar nicht gesucht in dieser Richtung. Und wenn versucht wird, gerade diese Übereinstimmung der Vorstellung mit der Objektivität zu finden, dann versteht man das gar nicht, dann sieht man das von vielen Seiten als etwas an, was, ja, was eigentlich —- man kann schwer ein Wort dafür finden -, was überraschend ist, daß es so getan werden kann. Gerade am wenigsten findet man in den Kreisen dann Zustimmung, wenn man versucht, solche Charakteristiken der Wirklichkeit zu geben, die sich stützen auf das, was da ist, die einfach die Dinge der Welt nehmen und sie in der Vorstellung wiederholen. Das versteht man zuweilen sehr wenig. Man versteht gar nicht, daß das etwas anderes, etwas ganz radikal anderes ist als das, was jemand macht, wenn er gerade diese oder jene Leidenschaft hat, sei es persönliche Leidenschaft, sei es nationale Leidenschaft, und nach dieser Leidenschaft einfach seine Behauptungen formt. Aber da liegt der radikale Unterschied, den man heute noch gar nicht bemerkt. Man formt vielfach Behauptungen nach dem, wie man schon denkt, nach der Richtung seines Denkens, und sieht dabei nicht, ob solche Behauptungen mit den Tatsachen übereinstimmen. Aber darauf kommt es heute an, daß unsere Behauptungen mit den Tatsachen übereinstimmen. Denn sonst können wir niemals hoffen, in eine Epoche überzugehen, wo die geistige Welt in der richtigen Weise angesehen werden kann. Eignen wir uns nicht in der physischen Welt eine Gesinnung für Tatsächlichkeit an, so werden wir sie nicht finden können für die geistige Welt. In der richtigen Weise sich in die geistige Welt hineinleben zu können, muß angeeignet werden hier in der physischen Welt. Deshalb sind wir in die physische Welt hereingestellt, wo wir angewiesen sind, die Übereinstimmung der Vorstellung mit der Objektivität zu suchen, damit wir dieses uns aneignen, damit dieses eine Gewohnheit werde, und wir dieses hineintragen können in die geistige Welt.
Wie viele Menschen machen aber heute Behauptungen, bei denen ihnen gar nichts daran liegt, ob sie mit der Objektivität übereinstimmen, nur aus der Emotion heraus. Das bewegt sich gerade in der gegenteiligen Richtung von der, wohin sich die Welt bewegen muß, wenn die Menschheit vorwärtsschreiten will. Und wirklichkeitsgemäßes Denken ist gerade unserem materialistischen Zeitalter unter dem charakterisierten Einfluß in so furchtbarer Weise abhanden gekommen, wirklichkeitsgemäßes Denken ist heute so selten zu finden. Und wenn wirklichkeitsgemäßes Denken einmal in ehrlicher Weise angestrebt wird, dann stößt es zusammen mit allem, was heute unwirklichkeitsgemäßes Denken ist. Sie sehen es ja in einer furchtbaren Weise daran, daß immer wieder und wiederum von den Zusammenstößen unserer anthroposophischen Bewegung mit unwirklichkeitsgemäßem Denken gesprochen werden muß, weil die Tatsachen einmal da sind, und weil man schließlich nicht schweigen kann, wenn man es ehrlich mit dieser Bewegung meint.
Sie sehen an diesen Zusammenstößen des wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denkens, das erstrebt wird, mit dem wirklichkeitsfeindlichen Denken - in dem Sinne feindlich, wie es charakterisiert worden ist —, um was es sich heute handelt, wenn man Wahrheit vertreten will. Gewiß mußte in allen Zeiten derKampf aufgenommen werden mit den widerstrebenden Mächten; aber man muß ihn auch für jede Zeit wiederum in seiner besonderen Form, in seiner besonderen Metamorphose kennenlernen. Auch das Pharisäertum ist nicht ausgestorben, es findet sich heute nur in einer anderen Form. Und mit jener Klarheit vorwärtskommen, wie es nötig ist, werden wir nur, wenn wir diesen Unterschied zwischen wirklichkeitsgemäßem Denken und wirklichkeitsfeindlichem Denken eben wirklich verstehen.
Thirteenth Lecture
In the lectures I have given, I have had to say many things that could be called paradoxical, and that may rightly sound paradoxical in view of contemporary materialism. But that is how it is: insights from the realm beyond the threshold refer to another realm of the world, or perhaps we should say to another form of the world than that in which the facts perceptible to the senses lie, which today are regarded as the sole object of what is called science. Let us recall some of the things that had to be said. Let us remember that we were able to explain how the external form of the human being points to the world context of the human being: how the human head in its formation, in its entire structure—that is, the head as it is—is, first of all, a structure that could not have been predisposed or developed within earthly life, that it is a result of the forces of the moon, but also, in its specific, individual form, is the result of each individual human being's previous incarnation, and that, in turn, what is outside the head, the human body, is, in a sense, in preparation to become the head in the next incarnation. Thus, in the form of the human head, we have an indication of a previous incarnation; in that which becomes the human body, we have an indication of the next incarnation of the human being. In this way, the human form is directly connected to the previous and the next incarnation. When we look at the human being in this way, we see that he points to a great world connection.
You know that those rudiments that have remained from older, wiser times relate human beings, in terms of their outer form, to the twelve signs of the zodiac. Without, of course, wishing to comment here on the amateurish character that astrological research has taken on in many quarters today, it should nevertheless be pointed out that deep and significant mysteries lie behind this assignment of the human form as a whole to the universe.
You know that astrology assigns the head of the human being to Aries, the neck with the larynx to Taurus, the part with the arm stumps and what is expressed in the arms and hands to Gemini, the circumference of the chest to Cancer, everything connected with the heart to Leo, what what happens in the abdomen to Virgo, the loins to Libra, the sexual organs to Scorpio, the thighs to Sagittarius, the knees to Capricorn, the lower legs to Aquarius, and the feet to Pisces.
Here we have the allocation of the entire human body, including the head, to the forces that govern the universe, which can be expressed in a certain way by symbolizing them with the fixed stars of the zodiac.
Now, however, we have said that the head itself is actually a transformation of the whole body, namely the body as it was in the previous incarnation, and that in the sense organs, which have their representative representation to each other in the head, we again have to see a twelvefold division, a true twelvefold division. So that we can draw a diagram of the following kind:

Let this be schematically the whole body of the human being (see drawing), and let us now assign the head to Aries, the neck to Taurus, and so on, so that we assign the whole human being to the twelve constellations. According to what we have now said about the connection of the entire sense organism, we must now assign what is assigned here to only one constellation to all twelve constellations. So we must repeat the same thing here. And I draw your attention to this peculiarity, which is repeated in all the great laws of the universe. When you have something like a number twelve, one member of the twelve always belongs to the whole and yet is also an independent member. One member, the head, is assigned to one constellation and yet — as something special, something unique — to all twelve constellations. If what has been said is correct, one would have to assume that if this is the body in one incarnation, which becomes the head in the next incarnation, then what is today the whole head would, in the next incarnation, serve as a sense organ. What is today the larynx, the organ of speech, with everything in its vicinity, would have to serve a second sense life in the next incarnation, transformed, metamorphosed; what is expressed in the arms would serve a third sense life, and so on. As we stand in the world, we would say: our entire body is transformed, metamorphosed into a head in the next incarnation, and so regularly that the twelvefold nature that is in our body today could reappear in the twelvefold nature of the head in the next incarnation.
One might even ask: Is there any indication that this twelvefold nature is really contained in the head? Well, most of you will know that twelve main nerve roots emerge from the human head. Once these are correctly interpreted — not in the pitifully confused way of today's brain physiologists — one will recognize in these twelve nerve outlets of the head what was assigned to the whole body in the previous incarnation. And one need not dwell on the paradox that, for example, what is now in the hands will one day appear as something in the head. One can even understand such things quite easily in a rough way. For is not what we have in our hands and arms, when we look at them physiognomically, truly something that already shows us, as it were, the rudiments of the organs of speech? Do we not use our hands and arms to speak eloquently? Why should we not believe that this will one day become something completely different, something that manifests itself on a completely different level of existence as a sense organ of the head? And to laugh at the idea that what is expressed today in our knees is preparing to spread throughout the entire body and become the sense of touch, the organ of touch, is something only those who have no idea what metamorphosis of existence actually is could do. This peculiarity of our human knees, with their wonderful structure of the kneecap, which is so sensitive in a certain respect but in a different way from the sense of touch of the whole body, is preparing itself to become the sense of touch in a future incarnation. Thus, what is in us undergoes metamorphosis, and through this we gain insight into the deep mysteries of existence. However, in order to see correctly into such deep mysteries of existence, to see into them with reverence, it is necessary that we do not develop the attitude that is developed today in ordinary science, which is actually a cynical attitude toward what it should be. We need reverence toward existence if we want to listen to its mysteries. Modern man has long since brought his terrible arrogance and megalomania into all his worldviews. When this megalomania finds particular expression in individual characters, it comes as no surprise to those who see how, especially in the intellectual and scientific life of humanity, a megalomania and arrogance prevails today that is not widely noticed.
In spiritual science, I have often had occasion to draw attention to this arrogance, which is particularly prevalent in the recent development of humanity. I have often spoken of how people write when they write about human deeds. Read what is written in school textbooks or other works that speak of the inventive genius of humanity about the invention, say, of paper, this paper about which one feels so sad when one sees how much is printed on it in modern times. But what do people say about the human capacity that has brought about such things! I have pointed out that the wasp's nest is made of the same material as real paper; that millions of years ago, elementary beings, which are the basis of wasp nest construction, truly had this invention before humans did. And one could say the same thing in a thousand different ways. Take a look at a telescope that can be rotated in two ways, so that it can move up and down and also be turned. Schmick, who has made various efforts to draw attention to such things, has already pointed out this example of the telescope. Look at what man has achieved here! This double movement of the telescope, back and forth and up and down, is produced by a double device for rotation, an upper device, which in mechanics is called a hinge joint, and a lower one, which in mechanics is called a pivot joint. This allows the double rotation to be produced in the right way. Now, it would be foolish—which can easily be tested with a telescope—to do the opposite: to place the pivot joint in the place of the hinge joint and the hinge joint under the pivot joint. That would be disadvantageous. One could praise this as a profound invention of humankind, that we have invented such a movement mechanism. But in a much more ingenious way—if I use the word “ingenious” objectively, not subjectively—you all have this mechanism at the back of your head, where your head sits on your cervical vertebrae: a hinge joint at the top and a pivot joint at the bottom. This enables you to move your head up and down and turn it to the sides. You see, we have here exactly the same thing that is the subject of human thought today, in the human organism.
There is absolutely nothing that humans have invented or will ever invent that cannot be found in some form in the human organism. Everything that humans have discovered and will discover in terms of mechanical devices can be found in the human organism, everything that can truly contribute to human evolution. Only that which cannot contribute to human evolution is not found in humans, or is found in humans in such a way that it is integrated quite differently than it is integrated by humans into their evolution. So we can say: if we look back to early, early times, there must have been a time — it lies in the character and in the whole spirit of evolution — when this peculiar joint mechanism and many other things came into being. And now it is there. And we will be able to go back in human evolution — what we call human evolution, namely human evolution in which human beings already have the form they now possess — and go further back: we will never find that this arrangement was not there. And if it had been supposed to arise by purely mechanical means, how could that have happened? Consider that this is a particularly useful device, so useful that it can be used effectively in a telescope. Any other device would be useless. Now, according to a well-known principle of superficial Darwinism — superficial, I say — the useful should have developed from the less useful. But what, for example, is the less useful in this case? The less practical would make it impossible for humans to live as they do now. They would not be able to live as they do now, and it is inconceivable that one can speak here of a transition from the less practical to the practical. Those who have developed the necessary counter-truths to the commonly accepted, superficially understood Darwinian truths have always pointed out such things.
How will we in the future enlighten ourselves about the connection between humans and the universe? I have already had to say something paradoxical about this. You will remember how I explained that the present belief that heaven will enlighten itself is a phrase, and that in truth the secrets of heaven, which will be explored and which Copernicanism takes as as if the heavens could enlighten themselves, that these mysteries of the heavens can provide enlightenment about what lives on earth, and vice versa, the mysteries of the earth about the mysteries of the heavens.
As paradoxical as it sounds today, in the future we will study the development of the embryo, how it develops from the cell and its environment and so on, until it becomes a fully formed human being. What we will observe there will be accepted as a revelation of the great cosmic, universal mysteries. And what will be observed in the heavens will have to be regarded as the explanatory principle for what happens here on Earth in animals, plants, and humans, especially in the embryonic stage. The heavens explain the Earth, and the Earth explains the heavens. I have already explained this. It is still a paradox of our time—a real, serious principle of knowledge for the future that must be expanded.
Today I would like to talk about something similar, a third paradox, so to speak, which is connected with the considerations we have just made about Ahriman and Lucifer in connection with Goethe's Faust. We are right to look for the manifestations, the revelations of Lucifer in everything that is expressed in human emotions, in human passions, feelings, and so on. The more we consider the Luciferic from within, the more we see that when Eve had to set about making herself beautiful in order to appear beautiful, in order to be the being that finds itself beautiful as such and can cause temptation through its beauty, Lucifer had to be involved. When the other thing was to happen in the course of Earth's development, that the sons of the gods should find the daughters of men beautiful, that is, should find the object beautiful, then Ahriman had to work. In order to penetrate Eve so that she felt beautiful and could appear beautiful through her seduction: Lucifer. In order that the object could be found beautiful and appear beautiful from the outside, Ahriman was necessary. The former falls into the Lemurian epoch, the latter into the Atlantean epoch.
Now, however, we must get to know the Ahrimanic and the Luciferic more and more precisely. Of course, I can only characterize individual aspects of the Ahrimanic and the Luciferic. The Ahrimanic and Luciferic characters must then be pieced together in their totality from the individual characteristics I have given you.
Perhaps some of you are familiar with what one might call a paradoxical event that typically occurs for those who move in circles where occultism, quasi-occultism, occult fraud — well, everything related to these things — are practiced. This is an experience that can be had again and again. Let us assume that there is a society that calls itself occult, with some prominent celebrities. In such occult societies, there are always celebrities who are believed and sworn allegiance to. Now something appears that is spread as dogma. Let us assume that it appears as dogma that this or that personality is the embodiment of a powerful, outstanding individuality, has achieved something that other people cannot achieve, in some special way, let us say, has written great truths, which are distributed in thousands and thousands of copies throughout the world and regarded as something great, even though they may sometimes contain only general phraseology; but that doesn't matter. It happens again and again that the most superficial things, when presented with the necessary sentimental sauce, are accepted as the “deepest” by thousands and thousands of people.
When something like this happens, one often finds—I don't want to cite a single case, but rather something typical—that there are various people who initially rebel against it, saying: We don't want dogmatism, that's nonsense, we don't want that; we'll never believe in it. They start a kind of campaign against it. Then some celebrity who supports the cause comes along and meets one of these rebels. And you can see what happens: within a few hours, the rebel is converted, converted in just a few hours, and becomes the most ardent supporter. Sometimes it doesn't even take hours, maybe not even an hour. These things happen time and time again. And you can hear people coming up and asking: Yes, how is that possible? They – and it's really not just “them,” but often “him,” truly – were just now thinking very clearly about this case, and as soon as they had a short conversation with this occult celebrity, they were transformed, and now they believe everything.
There are people sitting here who know that these things have happened. Has conviction really been achieved in such a case? No, in such a case there can be no question of what we call conviction in ordinary life here. The matter must be understood quite differently. And in order to understand it, let us consider for a moment the character of Ahriman.
You see, one of the main characteristics of Ahriman is that he does not know the unbiased relationship that human beings have to truth as they live here on Earth. Ahriman does not know this unbiased relationship to truth, where one strives to have truth simply as the agreement of an idea with an objectivity. Ahriman does not know this. That is why it is not important to him. Because of the position that Ahriman has in the universe, which I have already characterized several times, he is really quite indifferent when forming an idea as to whether it corresponds to reality. For him, Ahriman, in everything he considers to be truth—we would not call it truth in a human context—but what he develops as truth for himself, it is always a matter of effects. Something is not said in order to correspond to something else, but in order to have an effect. This or that is said in order to produce this or that effect.
So, it would be Ahrimanic if I were to say this or that to someone, let us say in relation to construction, and it would be completely irrelevant to me whether it is true or not, if I only wanted to cause the person concerned to do this or that, knowing that if I say this to him, he will do this or that.
I think you can imagine that this can happen, that one thinks up something, whereby it is irrelevant whether it corresponds to objectivity or not, but which one treats in such a way that it has a certain effect on the person who hears it. - In small ways, there are all kinds of things like this among people. One could recall many examples, but just think of all the things aunts say when they want to earn a matchmaker's fee by bringing two people together, and then say about the two people that she is the bride, that he is the groom! It really doesn't matter to them whether the things are true or not, but rather that under the influence of what they say, they earn their matchmaker's fee. That is just a very small example! Of course, Ahriman does not concern himself with such small examples. But I think we naturally have an analogy for everything in human life.
So with Ahriman, all his statements are effects. And he forms his statements in such a way that he can help when it comes to communicating such things. Now think about how it would be advantageous for Ahriman to create a number of people on earth who believe in something specific, who believe in what I just spoke about. Now, if someone is so deeply initiated into the secrets of evil occultism and, because of the nature of his initiation, has no inclination to replace this occultism with the right one, then he can—allow me this paradoxical turn of phrase—connect himself with Ahriman in such a way that he can teach someone a truth that is Ahrimanic, that is, a truth that is not true in the human sense, but which is supposed to have an effect! And this always underlies what I have just described, where in a very short hour someone who was completely rebellious is influenced by Ahrimanic arts. In league with Ahriman, one can also teach another person to believe that this or that outstanding individuality is incarnated in this or that human personality. One only needs to know the arts of throwing truths into any area of life—in this case, into humanity—in such a way that one calculates only their effect, not their correspondence to objectivity.
Such things are done in many communities that call themselves occult. In many such communities, it is not at all a matter of developing ideas that are in accordance with objectivity, but of saying things that achieve very specific effects — in one direction or another.
Certainly, there may also be people who are so stupid and foolish that they — without the Ahrimanic arts being directly applied by a human being — unconsciously take up Ahrimanic impulses, as it were. But it is already present in humanity that Ahrimanic arts, that is, arts that are directly brought about in alliance with Ahriman, are actually practiced. And for our time, these things that arise from the alliance between humanity and Ahriman are of particularly great significance. For much of what has been happening in humanity for a long time is happening in a way that can only be understood if one knows the secrets that have been delicately hinted at here.
For Ahriman, therefore, it is never a question of whether an idea corresponds to reality, but rather of the effect it has, of what can be achieved.
For Lucifer, it is something else. Lucifer has different characteristics. We have already pointed these out. But now we want to highlight a special characteristic of Lucifer so that we can get to know these things better and better. You see, even with Lucifer, it is not a matter of any idea corresponding to reality, never ever, but rather of developing ideas that bring forth as much consciousness as possible in human beings. So please understand me correctly: it is about bringing forth as much consciousness as possible, as intense as possible, as widespread as possible in human beings. This widespread consciousness, in which Lucifer is interested, is at the same time linked, when it is brought forth, to a certain inner lust in human beings. And this lust is again Lucifer's domain. You may remember that I pointed out for the Atlantean times that up to a certain point everything sexual took place unconsciously. Beautiful myths of various peoples point to this unconscious character of the sexual process in earlier times. It was only brought into consciousness in the course of time. Lucifer has a significant part in bringing the unconscious into consciousness and into ever greater consciousness. This is Lucifer's aim: to bring consciousness into human beings outside the appointed time, outside the right cycle of time, that is, to bring consciousness into being where this degree of consciousness would actually be properly developed at another point in time. Lucifer does not want human beings to be directed toward something external without further ado. He wants everything that affects consciousness to come from within; therefore, all visionary life that is only pressed out from within, as it were, has a Luciferic character. If you get to know Lucifer, as you must, because his effects must always be placed in their proper context, since we are dealing with spiritual effects in the universe, it seems particularly abhorrent that Lucifer has not the slightest understanding for people's harmless delight in external things. Lucifer has not the slightest understanding of this harmless delight in what comes from outside. He has understanding for what is stirred up by all kinds of inner things. Lucifer has great understanding for someone who arouses a passion within himself, indulges in it, and derives pleasure from it, so that what otherwise remains in the subconscious is brought into consciousness as much as possible. But despite his wisdom — for Lucifer naturally has great wisdom — he cannot understand a harmless joke that someone makes, prompted by some external event. This lies completely outside Lucifer's realm. And one can protect oneself against Lucifer's assaults, which he undertakes very easily, by trying to live in what amuses in a harmless way, what entertains people in a harmless way from outside. Lucifer cannot stand that at all. When one takes pleasure in a good caricature, it annoys Lucifer terribly.
Yes, such are the connections that are revealed when one enters from the material world into the realm that lies beyond the threshold, when one enters that sphere where everything has not the character of things as in the physical world, but has the character of beings, of living things. Even when you enter the elemental world, everything has the character of living beings. So you see that one can say, in a sense, that both Ahriman and Lucifer are indifferent to the correspondence of ideas with objectivity. In Ahriman's case, it is the effect of what he says; in Lucifer's case, it is the spread of consciousness in human nature of what should not actually become conscious in a certain situation, what lies outside the right cycle of time and is linked to a certain inner lust.
In these two ways, things can be achieved that cannot be achieved if one relies solely on the correspondence between imagination and objectivity. And just as in bad occult circles the alliance with Ahriman is sought for reasons I characterized earlier, so in these bad occult circles the alliance with Lucifer is sought, whereby an attempt is made to influence people in such a way that a voluptuous way of seeing is evoked in them, that is, a way of seeing that is kindled from within.
What is consciously brought about in bad occult circles, what is entered into as an alliance with Ahriman and Lucifer, is of course also practiced by Ahriman and Lucifer working into the unconscious of human beings. And much of what must be said critically about the character of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, as it is now unfolding in the great world outside, must also be traced back to Ahrimanic and Luciferic impulses of this kind. That so much is said that is directly dishonest or a lie, but also that so much is said not because the justification for saying something is first sought in its agreement with objectivity, but because people want to say it, because it corresponds to their emotions and passions, can be traced back to the fact that Ahrimanic and Luciferic currents have really taken hold of the world in a chaotic way. For in the present stage of human development, we would not be able to make assertions out of passion without examining their correspondence with objectivity if we were to abandon ourselves to the good forces alone. The Atlantic human being and the post-Atlantic human being, at least until the middle of the fourth post-Atlantic period, could still find truths from within themselves that were in accordance with the aforementioned objectivity. But we know that this has been lost. Our present cycle is precisely there so that humanity can learn to observe the outer world, to investigate the outer world, and not to form assertions out of passion.
So if truths are nevertheless formed today from within, without seeking agreement with the outer world, this is a Luciferic current that is allied with Ahrimanic currents, whereby the one produces a false consciousness and the other produces dishonesty or mendacity. - And what is described here is already very, very widespread in the present. For today, many souls have been deprived of the right consciousness of what agreement between imagination and objectivity actually is. No search is made in this direction. And when attempts are made to find this correspondence between imagination and objectivity, it is not understood at all; it is seen from many sides as something that is, well, what is it really? It is difficult to find a word for it. It is surprising that it can be done. In these circles, you find the least approval when you try to give such characteristics of reality that are based on what is there, that simply take the things of the world and repeat them in the imagination. Sometimes this is very difficult to understand. It is difficult to understand that this is something different, something radically different from what someone does when they have a particular passion, be it a personal passion or a national passion, and simply form their assertions according to this passion. But this is where the radical difference lies, which is not yet apparent today. People often form assertions based on how they already think, according to the direction of their thinking, and do not see whether such assertions correspond to the facts. But what matters today is that our assertions correspond to the facts. Otherwise, we can never hope to enter an era in which the spiritual world can be viewed in the right way. If we do not acquire an attitude toward reality in the physical world, we will not be able to find it in the spiritual world. The ability to live in the spiritual world in the right way must be acquired here in the physical world. That is why we have been placed in the physical world, where we are instructed to seek the correspondence of our ideas with objectivity, so that we may acquire this, so that it may become a habit, and so that we may carry it over into the spiritual world.
But how many people today make assertions without caring whether they correspond to objectivity, simply out of emotion? This moves in the opposite direction from where the world must move if humanity wants to progress. And realistic thinking has been lost in such a terrible way in our materialistic age under the influence described above; realistic thinking is so rare today. And when realistic thinking is honestly sought, it collides with everything that is unrealistic thinking today. You can see this in a terrible way in the fact that we must speak again and again of the clashes between our anthroposophical movement and unrealistic thinking, because the facts are there, and because we cannot remain silent if we are honest about this movement.
You can see from these clashes between realistic thinking, which is what we are striving for, and unrealistic thinking — hostile in the sense that it has been characterized — what is at stake today if we want to stand up for truth. Certainly, the struggle against opposing forces has always had to be taken up; but it must also be recognized in each age in its particular form, in its particular metamorphosis. Phariseeism has not died out either; it is only found today in a different form. And we will only move forward with the clarity that is necessary if we truly understand this difference between realistic thinking and anti-realistic thinking.