Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Riddle of Humanity
GA 170

28 August 1916, Dornach

Lecture XIII

In the course of the preceding lectures I have had to say some things that could with justification be called paradoxical. For these things may well sound paradoxical when they are set against the materialism of our day. But that is how matters stand: what calls itself science today is only concerned with the facts that are available to the senses; but knowledge from the other side of the threshold is related to a different region of the world—perhaps it would be better to say, to a different form of the world—from that in which these facts lie. Remember some of the things that we have needed to discuss. Remember how the external human form led us to a description of man's relation to the cosmos. It was said that the structure of the human head—the head as it actually is—could not have developed within the bounds of a life on Earth, and could not even have begun there. It is the result of Moon forces which have been specially adapted to the case of each individual person so that it also refers back to his preceding incarnation. And the rest of the human body, excluding the head is, in turn, to some extent being prepared to become the head of the next incarnation. Thus, the human head refers back to a previous incarnation; the human body anticipates the next incarnation when it will have undergone a transformation. The human Gestalt really does connect directly with the previous incarnation and with the incarnation to come. A great cosmic relationship is revealed when the human being is considered in this light.

As you know, the rudiments of an understanding for the relation of the external human Gestalt to the twelve signs of the zodiac has been preserved from an earlier, wiser age. Although we naturally do not want to speak in the manner of the dilettantism that is so typical of contemporary astrological investigations, something needs to be said about the deep cosmic secrets that lie behind this way of apportioning the parts of the human body to the cosmos.

You know that astrology assigns the human head to the sign of the Ram, the throat and larynx to the Bull, the part of the body where the arms are attached and also what the arms and hands express to the Twins, the circumference of the chest to the Crab, everything to do with the heart to the Lion, the activities contained by the abdomen to the Virgin, the lumbar region to the Scales, the sexual region to the Scorpion, the thighs to the Hunter, the knees to the Sea-Goat, the calves to the Waterman, and the feet to the Fishes.

In this manner, the whole human body, including the head, is related to the forces that rule the cosmos and are symbolised by the fixed stars of the zodiac.

Diagram 1

Now we have also spoken of how the head itself is actually a transformation of the whole body—namely of the body of the preceding incarnation. And we find another twelve-fold division in the head, where the principal representatives of the sense organs come together. That, too, is a genuine twelve-foldness. The following diagram shows how matters stand.

We will let this (see drawing) represent the whole human body, dividing it among the twelve signs of the zodiac so that the head is given to the Ram, the throat to the Bull, and so on. And now, bearing in mind what has been said about the composition of the whole of the sense organism, this part here, which has been allocated to one sign, must be divided again among all twelve signs. Thus, here the whole process must be repeated again. I urge you to take note of this characteristic, which is true of all the great laws of the cosmos. Whenever there is a twelve-fold order, one part of it will have an independent existence as well as being just one part of the whole. In this case it is the head which, as a part of the whole, is allocated to one constellation, but also, as the unique, special case, is allocated to all twelve constellations. If what has been said is true, one must presuppose that the body of one incarnation becomes the head of the next incarnation. In the next incarnation, what is now the whole head must serve a single sense. A second sense will be formed out of what at present is manifest as the organs of speech, the larynx and everything in its vicinity. This will be metamorphosed and transformed in the next incarnation. A third sense will be formed from the expressive capacities of the arms and so on. The whole of the body that we bear in this world will become the head of our next incarnation; it will undergo a systematic metamorphosis so that the present twelve-fold order of the body can reappear as the twelve-fold order of the head.

One can certainly look for clues that indicate whether a twelve-foldness really is to be found in the head. Now most of you will be aware that there are twelve principle nerves that originate in the human head. When they are properly interpreted—rather than in the pitifully confused fashion of contemporary physiology of the brain—one can recognise that what was distributed over the whole body in the preceding incarnation reappears in these twelve nerves. So the apparent paradox of, for example, the reappearance in the head of what today is in the hands need not cause us to falter. In fact, one may even find it quite easy to grasp such things in their broad outlines. For if we thoroughly examine the physiology of the hands and arms do we not truly see that they already show a disposition to become organs of speech? Do not the hands and arms speak their own eloquent language? Why, then, should it be so difficult to believe that the situation might at some time be quite altered, so that the same things reappear at a different level of being, as sense organs within the head? Only those who have no inkling of what a true metamorphosis of being involves can laugh at the idea that what is now expressed in the body through the knees is being prepared so that it can reappear distributed over the entire body as the sense of touch, as the organ of touch. Our human knees, with their wonderfully constructed kneecaps are highly sensitive in some respects. This characteristic is being prepared to become our sense of touch in our next incarnation; then it will the organ of touch for the whole body. This is the kind of metamorphosis experienced by our various parts, and deep secrets of existence are revealed to us by such matters. But in order to come to a right view of these secrets of existence it is also necessary for us to approach them with reverence. We must not fall into the cynical mood prevalent in current science. In order to listen in on the secrets of being, we must approach them with reverence. For a considerable time now, the prevailing views of the world have reflected humanity's terrible pride and megalomania. The extent of the pride and megalomania at work in contemporary intellectual and scientific life generally goes unrecognised. But for anyone who is aware of it, the megalomania that sometimes emerges in particular individuals comes as no surprise.

In the pursuit of spiritual science it has often been necessary for me to draw attention to the terrible presence of this pride, a pride that has become especially evident during recent phases of human development. Frequently I have spoken about the way men write about human deeds. Just read what the textbooks and other books have to say about the human spirit of discovery. Look, for example, at what is said about the discovery of paper—this same paper about which one can become so despondent these days when one sees all that is printed on it. But just look at all that is said about the capacity that enables a human being to discover such things! I have often pointed out that a wasp's nest consists of the very same material; it is made of genuine paper. The elemental beings who govern the building of wasps' nests really discovered this substance millions of years before humanity discovered it. Other examples can be found-thousands of them. Look at a telescope. It can be turned in two different ways; it can be rotated as well as adjusted up and down. The example of the telescope has already been noted by Schraieg, an author who made several attempts to draw our attention to such things. Look at what man has made here! He has built it with two different devices for rotation: above there is a device that is called a hinge-joint in mechanics, and below is a device called a tenon-joint. These make it possible to rotate the telescope in two different ways and provide the twofold rotation that is required. Now, as you can easily test for yourselves with a telescope, it would be mad to reverse their positions and put a tenon-joint above where the hinge-joint is, and a hinge-joint below instead of a tenon-joint. That would not be advantageous. This invention, this mechanical device, can be held up as an example of the kind of significant discovery of which mankind is capable. But each of you is carrying about a much more ingenious version of this same device. In the back part of your head, where it sits upon a vertebra of your neck, you have a hinge-joint above and a tenon-joint below. That is why you are able to turn your head up and down, as well as to rotate it sideways. So you can find in the human organism the very same thing that is the object of present-day human thought.

There is nothing that has ever been discovered—or ever will be discovered—that cannot be found somewhere in the human organism. All the mechanical devices men have ever discovered or will discover, everything capable of contributing to human evolution, is to be found in the human organism. A human being only lacks the things that have nothing to contribute to human evolution; they are either lacking, or are included in a form very different from the form in which mankind has introduced them into its evolution. Considering the whole nature and spirit of evolution, there must have been a time, far, far back in an early age, when this extraordinary mechanical joint, and many other things as well, first came into being. Now it exists. And we will find that this formation is always present, no matter how far back we trace what we refer to as the course of human development—namely that part of it in which humanity possessed its present form. And however could it have developed through purely mechanical means? Just consider how this device is especially suited to certain purposes—so well suited, in fact, that it is well-adapted for use on a telescope. Any other device would be useless. Could it have come about through that fundamental law applied by the superficial Darwinians—the most superficial, I might add—namely, that something well-adapted to a purpose must have developed out of what is less well-adapted? But what could be less well adapted in this case. Anything less well-adapted would make it entirely impossible for man, in his present form, to live. A man simply could not live as he now lives, and so it is impossible to imagine that there has been a transition from the less-adapted to the better-adapted in such a case. Those who have developed the critique demanded by popular, superficially-grasped Darwinism have always drawn attention to such truths.

How will mankind's relationship with the cosmos be explained in future ages? My answer to this question will also sound somewhat paradoxical. You will recall that I have explained how the current belief that the heavens will reveal their own nature is just an empty phrase. Copernicus investigated the secrets of the heavens in the belief that the heavens would reveal themselves to him. In truth, however, the secrets of the heavens explain what lives on Earth and, conversely, the secrets of the Earth explain the secrets of the heavens.

Paradoxical as it may sound, people of the future will study embryological development and find great cosmic laws revealed in what they can observe. Universal secrets will be revealed to them as they watch how the embryo develops out of the cell and its surroundings to become a whole human being. And what can be observed in the heavens will be received as the principles in accordance with which one explains what happens here on earth in the plants, animals and, particularly as regards embryology, in man. The heavens explain the earth—Earth explains the heavens. You have heard me explain that before. A real and serious principle of knowledge of the future, one that must be expanded, still sounds like a paradox to us today.

Today I would still like to speak about a third, similar paradox. It is related to what we have just said about Lucifer and Ahriman in connection with Goethe's Faust. There is a certain justification in our seeing everything that is expressed in human emotions, passions, feelings, and so on, as the revelations of Lucifer. We can observe that the luciferic realm works more from within. Lucifer has to be there alongside Eve as she sets about making herself beautiful. She must appear beautiful to herself so that she can become the being who finds herself essentially beautiful and whose beauty brings about the Temptation. In order for the counterpart of this to enter into the course of Earth evolution, Ahriman must act: he must act so that the sons of the gods will find the daughters of mankind beautiful, that is, so that they see beauty in objects. Lucifer had to act in order to influence Eve so that she would feel herself beautiful and could bring about the Temptation. In order for it to become possible to behold an object as beautiful, and possible for beauty to become an external cause, Ahriman was necessary. The former happened in the Lemurian period, the latter, in the Atlantean period.

But one must become more and more familiar with the agency of Lucifer and Ahriman. Naturally, I can only describe individual details regarding the manifestations of Ahriman and Lucifer. But you should try to collect all the individual characteristics I have described into comprehensive pictures of them both.

Some of you might well be acquainted with the paradoxical events that are typical of what can be encountered if one moves in circles which engage in occultism, quasi-occultism, occult fraud, and all that is connected with these. In such circles there is something one can experience again and again. Suppose some prominent celebrities were among the members of a society which claimed to be occult. Such groups always include some such celebrities. They are believed. They are the authority upon which one swears. And now something emerges that is promulgated as a dogma. Now, suppose there emerged the dogma that a certain person in the group is the reincarnation of a great and towering individuality, someone who had accomplished things that would have been impossible for other men, someone who followed a path, let us say, and wrote down great truths, thousands of copies of which are spread across the globe. These writings are greatly admired, even though all they contain may be generalities. But that does not matter. Repeatedly this happens: precisely those things that are the most superficial will be regarded as ‘utterly profound’ by thousands upon thousands of people, provided they are served up with the required sentimental ‘soul-sauce’.

I will describe something typical, rather than single out a particular case. The first thing you will often observe when something like this occurs is that various persons will rise up in terrible revolt against what is happening. They will say, ‘We want nothing to do with dogma. Such a thing is nonsense and we do not want any of it; we shall never believe it.’ They instigate a kind of campaign against it. Then some celebrity or other appears to defend the matter in question, and has a meeting with one of the rebels. Then you can observe how, in the space of a few hours, the rebel does a complete about-face and becomes the most rabid of the followers. Sometimes it does not even last an hour—not even a single hour is required. Such things can be experienced repeatedly. Others come along thereafter, asking themselves, ‘How can it be? These women, or men—and, as a matter of fact, it does not just happen with the women, but with the men as well—were thinking quite clearly about the situation a short while ago. Now, after just a short conversation with this occult celebrity, they have been transformed and seem to believe the whole thing.’ Some of you sitting here know that these things do happen. Has the person really been convinced in such cases? No, there can be no question of conviction in the sense in which we usually speak of it, referring to the consciousness of normal waking life. Matters have to be understood in an entirely different light. And for the sake of understanding them, let us consider Ahriman's character for a moment.

One of the chief characteristics of Ahriman, you see, is that he has not the slightest acquaintance with the impartial relation to truth that a human being experiences here on earth. Ahriman knows nothing about this impartial relation to truth, nothing about striving for truth by simply trying to arrive at ideas that accord with an objective world. Ahriman knows nothing of this. He is not concerned with such things.

Ahriman's fundamental place in the cosmos, which I have often described, means that it is a matter of complete indifference to him whether an idea he has formulated is in accordance with reality. Although we would not call them true in the human sense, the truths Ahriman constructs are always determined by their effects. He never says anything just to be in accord with something else, but only in order to achieve some end. What he says is said in order to achieve some effect or other.

It would be ahrimanic, for example, if I were to tell someone something about our building in order to get them to undertake a certain task—saying things that I know will influence the person to undertake the task without any regard for whether or not what I say is true.

I believe you will be able to imagine that such a thing is possible-to calculate what to say to a person in order to create a certain effect while remaining indifferent to the objective truth of what is said. There are all kinds of minor instances of such things happening to people. One could recall various things, but just imagine all that the aunties say when they are trying to be matchmakers and bring two people together. They will say that it is the bride or the bridegroom who are doing things. They are not really concerned whether what they say is right, only with the influence it has on bringing about the match. That is just one little exemplary illustration! Ahriman, of course, does not bother himself with such insignificant cases. But everything in human life provides us with analogies.

Thus, when Ahriman speaks he is interested in the effects of what he says. And when this kind of thing is going on, he helps by formulating his statements to assist the process. Now, suppose it were useful for Ahriman to produce a group of people on earth who believe in some particular thing—in the kind of thing I was just now talking about. The ability to win people over to ahrimanic truths can be acquired by someone who has been sufficiently initiated into corrupt occultism, provided that this form of initiation has not awakened in him the impulse to replace that occultism with the rightful kind. He can link himself to Ahriman so as to be able to convince people of ahrimanic truths—if I may use this paradoxical turn of speech-truths that are not true at all in the human sense, but which will have their effects! That is what is always at the root of such events as I have been describing: in the space of a brief hour, ahrimanic arts are employed to influence the person who has been a thorough-going rebel. In association with Ahriman it is possible to influence a person and bring him to believe that some human being or other is the reincarnation of a particular, towering individuality. All that one has to learn is how to inject truths into some sphere of life—in this case, into the human sphere—while taking account of their effect, but not their objectivity.

To be sure, there are some men who are so ignorant and foolish that they simply take on ahrimanic influences unconsciously, without any other person having to resort to the ahrimanic arts. But the ahrimanic arts are also being practised among mankind—arts which are directly applied and are achieved through association with Ahriman. And these things resulting from the association of men with Ahriman have an especially great significance for our times. For a considerable time now, things have been happening to humanity that can only be understood by someone familiar with the secrets to which we have just been ever-so-lightly alluding.

Ahriman never concerns himself with whether or not an idea agrees with the objective world. He is only interested in its effects and in how it can be used.

Other matters are important to Lucifer. He possesses different qualities, which have already been mentioned. But in order to better acquaint ourselves with these matters, we need to pay special attention to one particular quality of Lucifer. For neither is he concerned with whether an idea accords with the objective world. Most emphatically not! He wants those ideas to be evolved which will generate the greatest possible human consciousness. Understand well what I am saying: he wants to generate the greatest possible amount of human consciousness—as intense and as widely spread as possible. This widespread consciousness that interests Lucifer is also connected with a certain human inner sense of gratification, which accompanies it. And this kind of gratification also belongs to Lucifer's domain. Perhaps you will remember me describing how, until a certain phase of the Atlantean epoch, everything to do with sexuality happened unconsciously. Various peoples have beautiful myths pointing to the unconscious nature of the sexual process in earlier times. It only became conscious during the course of time. Lucifer played an essential role in bringing this unconscious sphere more and more into the light of consciousness. This is what Lucifer wants: his goal is to bring about a human consciousness that is not right for its time; at the wrong period of time he wants to give men consciousness of something—conscious to a degree that could only be rightly developed at another point in time. Lucifer is not willing, without further ado, to allow mankind to be determined by anything external. He wants everything that affects consciousness to work from within. This is what gives all visionary life, which is pressed outward from within, its luciferic character. One must get to know Lucifer, for as spiritual forces working in the cosmos it is, of course, necessary for him and his powers to be put to work in the proper place. But as one gets to know him, one can be especially struck by Lucifer's dreadful lack of the slightest understanding for even the most harmless of delights, if they apply to something external. Lucifer has not the slightest understanding of man's harmless delight in what is around him. He understands what can be kindled by all manner of inward things. He has a great understanding for how a person can develop a passion in which he indulges and which gives him pleasure, so that as much unconscious material as possible is drawn up into consciousness. But in spite of his wisdom—for, naturally, Lucifer possesses a lofty wisdom—he cannot understand the innocent jokes that people make about external events. Such things lie entirely outside Lucifer's domain. And one can protect oneself from luciferic bombardment—which he is exceedingly ready to attempt—by learning to live in the innocent delights, delights that come to us innocently from without and entertain us. When we take pleasure in a good caricature, Lucifer gets incredibly angry.

These are the kinds of relationships that are revealed when one leaves behind the concreteness of the sense world and steps across the threshold. There, in that sphere, all possesses the character of living being; nothing has the character, typical of the physical world, of being just a thing. As soon as one enters even the elemental world, everything is alive. So you can see that we can pretty well say that it is a matter of indifference to both Ahriman and Lucifer whether or not an idea is in harmony with the objective world. Ahriman is interested in the effects of what he says; Lucifer is interested in expanding human consciousness in certain situations where man should not be conscious. Such awareness is accompanied by a kind of inner pleasure, although it is not right for the present cycle of time.

In both cases things are achieved that ideas, formed solely on the basis of their agreement with the external world, could not achieve. For the reasons I have described, malicious occult circles cultivate an alliance with Ahriman. They also cultivate an alliance with Lucifer in order to find pleasant methods for bringing about visionary experiences—in other words, methods that kindle visions from within.

Of course, Lucifer and Ahriman also work in the human unconscious. There they accomplish the same things that the malevolent occult circles deliberately set about doing, the same things in which these circles are engaged, in alliance with Lucifer and Ahriman. And much of the criticism that must be levelled against the way our own fifth post-Atlantean epoch is unfolding in that great world out there, can be traced back to luciferic and ahrimanic impulses. At present, luciferic and ahrimanic streams have a strong grip on the world and their effect is chaotic. This is shown not only by the great amount of lying and falsification that goes on, but also by everything that is said, simply because it corresponds to emotions and passions without any regard for justifying it by showing how it accords with objective reality. For, in the present phase of human development, if we want to be in the exclusive care of benevolent powers we cannot disregard the objective truth of our assertions and mould them to the shape of our passions. Atlantean humanity was capable of inwardly determining truths that would accord with the corresponding objective reality. This capacity persisted into the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, at the latest. But, as we know, it exists no longer. It is precisely for the purpose of allowing mankind to learn to observe and investigate the external world without basing its assertions on subjective passions, that we are going through our present cycle of development.

Thus, today, when truths are nevertheless formed on a subjective basis without any attempt being made to bring them into agreement with the external world, there is a luciferic stream at work. This luciferic stream has allied itself with ahrimanic streams. One brings about a form of consciousness that is wrong, the other brings about falsehood or lying. And what we are describing is already very, very widespread at the present time. These days, many souls have been lured away from a right awareness for whether an idea harmonises with the objective world. They are not in the least concerned about it. And if someone does show concern for whether his ideas agree with the objective reality, he is not understood. In such cases, a person is met on all sides by a distinctive attitude—it is difficult to find the right word for it, an attitude of surprise—people are surprised that it is even possible to think in this fashion. In such circles one meets the least agreement precisely when one is attempting to point to characteristics of reality by simply drawing attention to the things of the world and repeating them in one's ideas, basing everything one says on what is there. Sometimes this is scarcely understood. It is not understood that this is radically different from what happens when someone simply shapes his assertions to match one or the other of his passions, be these personal or national. Therein lies a radical distinction of which people of today are not even aware. Many is the time that people fail to consider whether their assertions are in accordance with the facts; they simply form them in accordance with their own preconceptions and along already-established lines of thought. But what matters today is whether or not our assertions are in accordance with the facts. Otherwise we cannot hope to accomplish the transition to an epoch in which the spiritual world can be seen in the proper light. We will never be able to discover the facts of the spiritual world unless we develop an attitude that acknowledges the facts of the physical world. The right way of experiencing the spiritual world must be developed here in the physical world. That is why we have been placed in the physical world: it is our task here to seek for ideas that are in harmony with objective reality, so that we acquire this ability and so that it becomes a habit we can carry with us into the spiritual world.

But today so many people base their assertions on nothing but emotion and are not in the least interested in whether they agree with objective reality. This is precisely the opposite of the direction in which humanity must move if it is to progress. And, especially in our materialistic age, the notion of thinking in accordance with reality has been so frightfully distorted by the influences we have been describing; thinking that is in accord with reality has become a rarity. And an honest attempt to think in accordance with reality today collides with all the contemporary thinking that is at variance with reality. A dreadful example of this is the way in which our anthroposophical Movement again and again collides with thinking that has not been measured against reality. But the facts are there, and in the end one cannot remain silent if one is sincere about this Movement.

These collisions between attempts to think in accordance with reality and thinking that is an enemy of reality show what is involved in standing up for the truth today. That other thinking is opposed to reality in the manner we have described. It is true that every age must fight with the forces of opposition; but in every age it is necessary to get to know them in the particular shape and particular metamorphosis they have assumed. The stream of the Pharisees, for example, has not died out; today it is present in another form. And we will only be able to proceed with the necessary clarity if we really understand this distinction between thinking that is in harmony with reality and thinking that is an enemy of 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:

AltName

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:

AltName

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.