Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Three Streams of Human Evolution
GA 184

6 October 1918, Dornach

Lecture Three

Yesterday I made two observations drawn from the science that we must call the science of Initiation, and I should like to remind you of them, for we shall need them as a connecting link. First, I said that the truths, the deepest truths, relating to the Mystery of Golgotha must by their nature be of the kind that cannot be substantiated through external historical evidence perceptible to the senses. Anyone who sets out by an external historical route to find a proof of the facts concerned with the Mystery of Golgotha, in the same way as historical evidence is sought for other facts, will be unable to discover it, for the Mystery of Golgotha is meant to relate itself to mankind in such a way that access to its truths is finally possible only by a supersensible path. If I may put it rather briefly—where the most important event in earthly existence is concerned, men are intended to accustom themselves to approaching it by supersensible means, not through the senses.

The second thing I said yesterday is that man, with the understanding he possesses according to his development as an earthly being, is never able, right up to his death, to comprehend the Mystery of Golgotha through his own understanding developed within the sense-world. I went on to say: It is only after his death, during the time he spends in the supersensible world, that there develops in man the understanding, and the forces for that understanding, which can fully make clear the Mystery of Golgotha. Hence I stated yesterday something which will quite naturally be held up by the external world as an absurdity, a paradox. I said that even the contemporaries of Christ were unable to reach such an understanding until the second or third century after the Mystery of Golgotha, during their life beyond the threshold; and that what has been written about the Mystery of Golgotha in those centuries was inspired by men who had been contemporaries of it and, from the spiritual world, from the supersensible world, had an inspiring influence on the writers of that period.

Now there is an apparent contradiction to this in the fact that the Gospels are inspired writings (as you may gather from my book, Christianity as Mystical Fact; they are inspired writings of Christianity. The inspired Gospels, therefore, could give expression to the truth about Christianity only because—as I have often emphasised—they were not written out of the primal nature and being of man, but with the remnants of atavistically clairvoyant wisdom.

What I have said here about the relation of mankind to the Mystery of Golgotha is drawn from the science of Initiation. If in this way something has been given out of supersensible knowledge, the question may well be asked: How does it appear when compared with the facts of external historical life? Hence at the beginning of this lecture to-day I want to put forward, as a particularly characteristic case—at first only as a question which should receive an answer by the end of our studies to-day—a typical ecclesiastical author of the second century. I might just as well—but then naturally I should have to give the whole treatment a different form—choose some other writer of the Church, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or any other. But I am choosing one who is often mentioned—Tertullian. With regard to the personality of Tertullian I should like to ask how the external course of Christian life is related to the supersensible facts of which I was speaking yesterday, and have repeated in essence to-day.

Tertullian is a very remarkable personality. Anyone who hears the ordinary things said about Tertullian—well, he will hardly get beyond the knowledge of Tertullian that is generally current. He is said to have been the man who justified belief in the being of Christ, in the sacrificial death and the resurrection, by saying, Credo quia absurdum est—“I believe because it is absurd,” because no light is thrown upon all this by human reason. The words, Credo quia absurdum est, are not to be found in any of the other Fathers of the Church; they are pure invention, but they are the source of the later opinion about Tertullian that has been held, often dogmatically, right up to the present day.

When, on the other hand, we come to the real Tertullian—there is no need to be an actual follower of his—then the more exactly we get to know his personality, the more we respect this remarkable man. Above all we learn to respect Tertullian's use of the Latin language, the language which expresses the most abstract way of human thinking, and had come in other writers of his time to exemplify the thoroughly prosaic character of the Romans—Tertullian makes use of it with a true fieriness of spirit. Into his style of treatment he brings temperament, brings movement; he brings feeling and holy passion. Although he is a typical Roman who expresses himself as abstractly as any other Roman about what is often called reality—and although in the opinion of people versed in the Greek culture of that time he was not a particularly well educated man—he writes with impressiveness, with inner force, and in such a way that while using the abstract, Roman language, he became the creator of a Christian style. And the way in which Tertullian himself speaks is impressive enough. In a kind of apologia for the Christians he writes in such a way that one seems to be listening directly to the speech of a man in the grip of a holy passion.

There are certain passages where Tertullian is defending the Christians who, when they are accused under a procedure very like torture, do not deny but testify that they are Christians—testify to what they believe. And Tertullian says of them: In all other cases those who are tortured are accused of denying the truth; in the case of the Christians it is the reverse; they are declared infamous when they testify to what is in their souls. The aim of torturing is not to force them to speak the truth, which would be the only sense in torture; the aim is to force them to say what is untrue, while they continue to speak the truth. And when out of their souls they testify to the truth, they are looked upon as malefactors.

In short, Tertullian was a man with a fine sense of the absurd in life. He was a subtle observer who had already identified himself with what had developed as Christian consciousness and Christian wisdom. So it is really significant when he makes such a statement as: You have familiar sayings; very often you say out of immediate feeling in your soul: “God be with you,” “It is God's will,” and so on. But that is the belief of the Christians: the soul—if only unconsciously—is confessing itself to be Christian.

Tertullian is also a man of independent spirit. He says to the Romans, to whom he himself belongs: Consider the Christians' God and then reflect upon what you are able to feel about true piety. I ask you whether what you as Romans have introduced into the world is in keeping with true piety, or whether true piety is what the Christians desire? Into the world you have brought war, murder, killing (said Tertullian to his fellow-Romans); that is precisely what the Christians do not want. Your sanctuaries are blasphemies (so said Tertullian to the Romans) because they are trophies of victory, and trophies of victory are signs of the desecration of sanctuaries. ... Thus spoke Tertullian to the Romans. He was a man of independent feeling. And turning to the ways of Rome he said: Do men pray when they instinctively look up to the sky, or when they look up to the Capitol? Thus Tertullian was in no way a man entirely merged in the abstractions of Rome, for he was permeated with a lively sense of the presence in the world of the supersensible.

Anyone who speaks on the one hand with the independence and freedom of Tertullian, and at the same time out of the supersensible—such a man is very rare, even in those days when the supersensible was nearer than it later came to be. And Tertullian was more than merely rational. To declare that “when the Christians say what is true, you claim them to be malefactors, whereas men should be claimed as malefactors only if when tortured they say what is untrue ...” certainly that was rational, but it was also courageous. And Tertullian said other things, too, for instance: When you Romans look up to your Gods, who are demonic beings, and really put questions to them, you will receive the truth. But you do not want to receive the truth from these demonic beings. If an accused Christian is confronted by someone who is possessed by a demon, and out of whom the demon speaks, and if the Christian is allowed to question it in the right way, the demon will admit that it is a demon. And of the God whom the Christian acknowledges the demon will say—though with fear: “That is the God who now belongs to the world!” Tertullian does not call on the evidence of Christians alone, but also on that of demonic beings, saying that they will confess themselves to be demons if they are simply questioned, questioned fearlessly; and that, just as it is described in the Gospels, they will acknowledge Christ-Jesus to be the true Christ-Jesus.

At all events we have here a remarkable personality who, as a Roman, confronts his fellow-Romans in the second century. This personality strikes us especially when we consider his relation to the Mystery of Golgotha. The words spoken by Tertullian concerning the Mystery of Golgotha are approximately these: The Son of God is crucified. Because this is shameful, we are not ashamed. The Son of God has died; this is easy to believe because it is foolish. Tertullian's words are: Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. It is credible, perfectly credible, because it is foolish. Thus: God's Son has died; this is perfectly credible because it is foolish. And He has been buried, He has risen again; this is certain, because it is impossible. From the words, Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est, the other untrue words have originated: Credo quia absurdum est.

Let us rightly understand what Tertullian says here about the Mystery of Golgotha. He says: The Son of God is crucified. If we men contemplate this crucifixion, because it is shameful we are not ashamed. What does he mean? He means that the best that can happen on earth is bound to be shameful, because it is the way of man to do what is shameful and not what is excellent. Were anything declared to be a most splendid deed, says Tertullian, a most splendid deed brought about by man, it could not be the most excellent event for the earth. For the earth the most excellent deed will indeed be one that brings shame to men, not fame—this is Tertullian's meaning.

To continue: “The Son of God has died. This is perfectly credible because it is foolish.” The Son of God has died; it is quite credible because human reason finds it foolish. Were human reason to pronounce it sensible it would not be credible, for what is found sensible by human reason cannot be the highest; it can never be the highest thing possible on earth. For human reason with its cleverness is not so high that it can arrive at what is highest; it arrives at the highest when it is foolish.

“He has been buried and has risen again. It is certain because it is impossible.” As a natural phenomenon it is impossible that the dead should rise again; but according to Tertullian the Mystery of Golgotha has nothing to do with natural phenomena. Were anything to be counted as a natural phenomenon, it would not be the most valuable thing on earth. What has most value for the earth can be no natural phenomenon and must, therefore, be impossible in the kingdom of nature. It is just on this account that He has been buried and has risen again, and it is therefore certain because it is impossible.

I should like to put Tertullian before you, with these words of his just quoted from his book, De Carne Christi, as a question. I have tried to describe him, first as a free, independent spirit, secondly as one who in man's immediate surroundings perceives the demonically supersensible. But at the same time I quoted three propositions of Tertullian's on account of which all clever people must look upon him really as a simpleton.

In matters of this kind it is certainly remarkable how one-sidedly people judge. When they put forward a proposition as false as Credo quia absurdum est, they are pronouncing judgment on the whole man in accordance with it. It is, however, necessary to take the three propositions—which certainly are not at first glance intelligible, for Tertullian is not to be easily understood—to take them first together with his complete awareness of the inter-working of the supersensible world into the human environment.

And now we want to bring before our souls something which in some measure is suited to spread light over the Mystery of Golgotha from another point of view. I have in mind two phenomena about which I said a few words during our studies of the day before yesterday. These two phenomena in the life of mankind are, first, the phenomenon of death, and secondly the phenomenon of heredity—death which is connected with the end of life, and heredity with birth. Where these are concerned it is important to have a clear insight into human life and the being of man. From all that I have been describing to you for some weeks you will be able to gather the following.

When man looks around with his senses at his environment and wishes to grasp the world of the senses with his understanding, then among the phenomena of the senses he encounter? also the phenomena of inheritance, for to a certain extent the characteristics of forefathers can be traced in their descendants, who are subject to the unconscious working of these inherited forces. Things connected with the mystery of birth, all the various inherited characteristics, are often studied without our knowing it. When, for example, we are learning about folklore, we are always speaking about inherited characteristics without noticing it. We cannot study a people without seeing all that we are studying in the light of inherited characteristics. When you speak of a particular people—of Russians, for example, of Englishmen, of Germans—you are speaking of qualities belonging to the realm of heredity, qualities the son acquires from the father, the father from the grandfather, and so on. The realm of heredity, connected as it is with the mysteries of birth, is indeed a wide realm, and when talking about external life we are often speaking of the facts and forces of heredity without being aware of it.

The fact that the mystery of death plays into the life of the senses is indeed constantly before us at the present time; it needs no reiteration. But if we look back over the human faculty for knowledge, something different becomes apparent. We see that this facility is adapted for grasping a great deal in the natural order, but it regards itself as sovereign and wants to grasp in terms of the natural order everything found therein.

Now this human faculty for knowledge is never adapted for grasping either the fact of heredity, which is connected with birth, or the fact of death. And so it turns out that the whole of man's outlook is permeated by false concepts, because it assigns to the sense-world phenomena which indeed are manifest in the sense-world but in their whole being are of a spiritual nature.

We count human death—it is different with animals and plants, as I have shown—we count human death among the phenomena taking place in the sense-world, because that is what it appears to be. But with this we get nowhere in learning about human death. It would never be possible for a natural science to say anything about the death of human beings; for on those lines we arrive merely at exchanging our whole human outlook for a delusion, with the facts of death mixed into it everywhere. We learn something about the truth of nature only when we omit death, and omit also inherited characteristics. A typical feature of human knowledge lies in its becoming corrupted, becoming mere appearance, because it claims to be able to deal with the entire world of the senses, including death and birth. And because it mixes death and birth into its whole outlook, its outlook concerning the world of the senses is falsified. We shall never perceive what man is as a sense-being if we ascribe to the sense-world the inherited qualities, which are indeed connected with death. We corrupt the whole picture of man developing along his normal straight line—I have told you of three streams, the normal straight line and the Luciferic and Ahrimanic side-streams—we corrupt the whole picture of mans development if we ascribe birth and death to his essential being in so far as he belongs to the world of the senses.

That is the strange situation in which we find the human faculty for knowledge! Under the guidance of nature itself this faculty is driven to thinking falsely because, were it able to think in accordance with truth, it would have to separate off from nature a picture of human life in which there was no heredity and no death. We should have to rule out death and heredity, paying no attention to death and birth, making our picture without them—then we should have a picture of nature. Inherited characteristics and death have no place in Goethe's world-outlook. They do not come into it and are not in keeping there. It is indeed the special characteristic of Goethe's world-outlook that you are unable to fit death and heredity into it. It is so good just because death and heredity have no place there, and that is why we can accept it as a true picture of the reality of nature.

Now up to the time of the Mystery of Golgotha people still thought about death and heredity out of certain spiritual depths, and more in conformity with nature. The Semitic peoples looked upon inherited characteristics as a direct continuance of the working of the God Jahve. They eliminated everything connected with heredity from nature, seeing it as the direct working of Jahve—for as long, at least, as the Jahve-outlook was properly understood. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, signified the continued working of inherited characteristics.

On the other hand, the Greek outlook—though in its decadence it had little success—sought to grasp something in the nature of man that lived in him between birth and death but had nothing to do with death. The Greeks sought to raise out of the sum-total of phenomena something with which death had no power to interfere. They had a certain horror of the very idea of death. Just because they concentrated on the realm of the senses, they had no wish to understand death; for they instinctively felt that when the human gaze is directed purely to the world of the senses—as it was with Goethe—death becomes a stranger. It is not in keeping with the sense-world; it is foreign to it.

But now there arose other outlooks, and the alteration in certain ancient outlooks appeared most typically among the leading peoples and individuals at the time when the Mystery of Golgotha was approaching. Men increasingly lost all ability to look into the spiritual world in the atavistic way; and so they came more and more to believe that birth and death, or heredity and death, belong to the world of the senses. Heredity and death—they do indeed play their part, very palpably, in the world of the senses, and men came more and more to the view that heredity and death belong there. This view wormed its way into the whole of man's outlook. For centuries prior to the Mystery of Golgotha the whole human outlook was permeated by the belief that heredity and death have to do with the world of the senses. Thereby something very, very remarkable came into being. You will understand it only if you allow the spirit of what I have been telling you in the last few days to work upon you in the right way.

Now the fact of heredity was easily seen by observing how it figured among the phenomena of nature, and it was thought to be a natural phenomenon. Increasingly the belief gained ground that heredity is a natural phenomenon. Every fact of this kind, however, evokes its polar opposite: in human life you can never cultivate a fact without that fact evoking its opposite. Man's life runs its course in the balancing of opposites. A basic condition of all knowledge is the recognition that life runs its course in opposites, and a state of balance between opposites is all we can strive for. What, therefore, was the consequence of this belief that heredity has its place among natural phenomena and belongs to them? The consequence was the bringing of the human will into terrible discredit; and this took the form—because its opposite developed—of bringing into the human will a fact belonging to the past, a fact we know in Spiritual Science as the influence of Luciferic and Ahrimanic spirits. And the effect on the soul of looking for heredity among the phenomena of nature was so potent that it led irresistibly to a moralistic world-outlook. For out of this misunderstanding of heredity its opposite came into being—the belief that once through the human will something had happened which went on to permeate the world as “original sin.” It was precisely through the introduction of heredity into the phenomena of nature that this great evil originated—the placing of “original sin” into the moral realm.

In this way human thinking wasted astray; it was unable to see that the way original sin is generally represented is blasphemy, terrible blasphemy. A God as conceived by the majority of people, a God who permits out of pure ambition, one might say, what happens in Paradise—according to the usual telling of the story—a God who does not do this with intentions of the kind described in the book Occult Science, but in the way usually described, would be no God of the heights. And to attribute this ambition to God is blasphemy. Only when we come to the point of not setting inherited characteristics in a moral light, but seeing them as a physically perceptible fact in a supersensible light; only when we relate them to the supersensible without any of this moral interpretation; when in the supersensible light we decline to fit them into a moral world-picture in the manner of rabbinical theology—only then do we come properly to terms with this matter.

Rabbinical theology will always give an elaborate intellectual interpretation of what are manifest in the world of the senses as the forces of heredity; but we should school ourselves through a spiritual outlook to discern the spirit in the inherited characteristics found in the sense-world. That is what it really comes to. And the essential thing is for you to see that, but for the Mystery of Golgotha, mankind would by then have reacted to the point of denying the spirit because people would have ceased to recognise the spirit in the inherited characteristics within the sense-world; for men have increasingly replaced the conception of the spirit by rabbinical and socialistic interpretations.

A tremendous amount is involved when a man is constrained to say: You understand nothing about the sense-world if you are not prepared for those phenomena which, because of their spiritual connections, do not really belong there. We must point to the connections of heredity with spiritual perception, supersensible perception. When the intellect takes hold of the realm of the senses, which is itself permeated with a spiritual, supersensible element, and turns it into a realm of morality, intellectually measurable—that is the spirit to which the spirit of Christ, the spirit of the Mystery of Golgotha, stands opposed. I mean this with reference to heredity and to death.

Certainly the Church Fathers were able to verify that even among the heathen there were many who were convinced of immortality. But what was involved in this? Only in ancient times had it been truly recognised that in the world of the senses death is indeed a supersensible phenomenon. By the time of the Mystery of Golgotha the prevailing outlook had been corrupted by an acceptance of death as an experience of the sense-world; and thereby the forces of death were extended over the rest of that world. Death has to be looked upon as a stranger in the sense-world. Only then can a genuine science of the natural order arise.

A further element came in with the reflections of various ancient philosophers on immortality. They turned to the immortal in man. They were right in doing so, for they said: Death is there in the world of the senses. But they said it out of a corrupted world-outlook; for otherwise they would have been impelled to say: Death is not there in the world of the senses; only in appearance does it enter there. Out of their corrupted world-outlook they said that death is in the sense-world. ... And they gradually pictured the sense-world in such a way that death had a place there. In consequence, all other things are corrupted ... it goes without saying that everything else goes wrong when death is given a place in the sense-world. When this was said out of a corrupted world-outlook, other things too had to be said, for instance: We must turn to something in opposition to death, to something of a supersensible nature that opposes death. And indeed, because in the last days of antiquity and out of a corrupted world-outlook people turned to an impersonal spirituality, this world of spiritual immortality—even when called by some other name—was the Luciferic world. What people call something is unimportant; what matters is the active reality behind the picture in their minds. And in this case the reality was the Luciferic world. Even if the words sounded different, these philosophers of late antiquity had in all their interpretations said nothing but: “As souls approaching death we want to take flight to Lucifer, who will receive us, so that immortality will be ours. We die into the kingdom of Lucifer.” That was the true meaning of their words.

I have told you about the forces that prevail in human knowledge, as a result of all the conditions I have described—well, these forces have remnants which can be seen still active to-day. For what must you admit if you take in earnest the words I have spoken to-day out of Initiation-wisdom? You will have to say: Man has his origin and his end. Neither may be understood with the human intellect that serves to understand nature; for by introducing birth and death into the sense-world, where they do not belong because they are strangers, we arrive at a false outlook about both the supersensible and the sensible. Both are corrupted—the comprehension of the spirit and the comprehension of nature. And what is the consequence? One consequence for example, is this: there is an anthropology which traces the origin of man to very primitive ancestors, and it does so quite scientifically and very cleverly. Go through these anthropological writings which trace men back to primitive ancestors, who are portrayed as though the characteristics which still belong to savage peoples were the starting-point of the human race. Scientifically, this opinion is quite in order, but the conclusion which should be drawn from it is the following: Just because it is scientifically in order to believe that birth and death belong to the world of the senses—on that very account it is false; on that account the real origin of man was different. When Kant and Laplace thought out their theory, they built it up from natural science. On the surface there is nothing to be said against it—but things were different for the very reason that the Kant-Laplace theory is correct from the standpoint of natural science. You arrive at the truth if, both for man's beginning and his end and for the origin and end of the earth, you acknowledge the opposite of what holds good for natural science in its present-day form. What Anthroposophy has to say about the origin of the earth will be all the more in accordance with the truth, the more it contradicts what can be said by a natural science that is correct in the sense of to-day.

Hence Anthroposophy does not contradict the natural science of to-day. It allows validity to natural science, but, instead of extending it beyond its boundaries, it shows the points where supersensible perception must come in. The more logical Anthroposophy is, the more correct will it be in respect of the present natural order, which is necessary for man and inherent in him, and all the more will it refrain from saying what is not true concerning the origins of man's existence and of the earth. And the less natural science divines what death really is, the more will it indulge in fantasy where death is concerned. But without the Mystery of Golgotha it would have been human destiny to think unavoidably out of a corrupted world-outlook about the most important things. For this did not depend at all on human will or human guilt; it depended entirely on human evolution.

In the course of his evolution man simply came to regard as his real being the combination of flesh, blood and bones in which he found himself. An Egyptian of ancient days, in the older and better period of Egypt, would have thought it terribly comic had anyone maintained that what walked around on two legs, and consisted of blood, flesh and bones, was really man. These things, however, do not depend upon theoretical considerations; they cannot be spun out of rumination. Gradually it came to seem natural for a man to accept as himself a form consisting of flesh, blood and bones—a form which in truth is a reflection of all the Hierarchies. So much error was spread abroad on these matters that, curiously enough, those very individuals who were led to see the error blundered into a still greater one.

Certainly there were some who arrived at the idea—but in an Ahrimanic-Luciferic way—that man is not just flesh and blood and bones. They now said: “Well, if we are something better than this combination of flesh, blood and bones, we will despise the flesh; we will look upon the human being as something higher and rise above this man of the senses.” But this image of flesh, blood and bones, together with the etheric and astral bodies, as seen by man is an illusion; in reality it is the purest likeness of the Godhead. As I have explained, the error we have been talking about is not an error because we ought to be seeing the devil in the world; but it is an error to identify ourselves with physical nature because in our own world we

should be seeing God in us. It is also false to say: I am a quite high being, a tremendously high being, a tremendously lofty soul ... and everything around me is inferior and ugly (see blue in diagram, I). It is not like that. This is how the matter really is: There are the kingdoms of the higher Hierarchies, all divine Beings (diagram, II); they have considered it to be their divinely-appointed aim to give shape to a form that is in their image (blue circle). This form presents itself outwardly as the visible human body. And into this form, which is a copy of the Godhead and is shamefully belittled when looked upon as something inferior, the Spirits of Form have planted the human ego, the present soul—the youngest of man's members, as I have often said (the point in the blue circle.)

If the Mystery of Golgotha had not come about, man would have been able to gain only false conceptions about heredity and about death. And these false conceptions would have become ever more exaggerated. At present they appear at times in an atavistic way (as in many socialistic groups to-day an atavistic world-outlook prevails), so that death and birth are reckoned as phenomena of the senses. It would have been a necessity in man's further evolution for the door of the supersensible to be altogether closed to him. And what he could find of the supersensible within the sense-world—heredity and death—would have betrayed him, coming in a treacherous way to say: “We are of the senses” ... whereas they are not. Only by refusing to believe in a nature that shows us death and birth in a false light shall we reach the truth—such is the paradoxical way in which man is placed into the world.

There had to be planted into man something to bring equilibrium into his evolution—something able to lead him away from the belief that heredity and death are phenomena of the senses. Something had to be put before him to show clearly that death and heredity are not phenomena of the senses, but are supersensible. For this reason the event that gives man the truth about these things must not be accessible to his ordinary forces, for these are on the road to corruption and have to be set right by a powerful counter-shock. This counter-shock was the Mystery of Golgotha, for it entered human evolution as something supersensible, and so it gave men the choice—either to believe in this supersensible event, approaching it in a supersensible way but now consciously, or to succumb to those views which must result from regarding death and inherited characteristics as belonging to the world of the senses.

Hence two facts that are inseparable from a true view of the Mystery of Golgotha are those which form, as it were, its boundaries: namely, the Resurrection, which cannot be understood independently of the Virgin Birth—born not in the way that makes birth a delusive fact few mankind, but born in a supersensible way and going through death in a supersensible way. These are the two basic facts that have to act as boundaries to the life of Christ Jesus. No-one understands the Resurrection, which is meant to stand in opposition to the false idea that death belongs to the world of the senses—no-one understands this truth who does not accept its correlate, the Virgin Birth, the birth that is a supersensible fact.

Men wish to understand these truths, and modern Protestant theologians want to understand them in terms of theology, with the ordinary human intellect. But the ordinary human intellect is but a pupil of the sense-world, and, moreover, of a corrupted view of the sense-world which has arisen since the Mystery of Golgotha. And when they cannot understand these truths they become followers of Harnack, or something of the sort; they deny the Resurrection, while talking round and about it in all sorts of ways. And as for the Virgin Birth—well, they look upon that as something no reasonable being can even discuss.

Nevertheless, with the Mystery of Golgotha is intimately connected the metamorphosis of death—in other words, the metamorphosis of death from a fact of the sense-world into a supersensible fact; and the metamorphosis of heredity means that what the sense-world reflects in an illusory way as heredity, connected with the mystery of birth, is changed in the supersensible into the Virgin Birth.

However much that is erroneous and inadequate may be said about these things, man's task is not to accept them without understanding them. His task is to acquire supersensible knowledge, so that through the supersensible he can learn to grasp these things, which cannot be understood in the sense-world. If you think of the various lecture-courses in which these things have been spoken of, if you think particularly of the content of what I have given as the Fifth Gospel, [ Seven lectures given in Christiania (Oslo) from October 1st to 6th, 1913.] you will discover a whole series of ways by which these things may be understood, but understood supersensibly only. For it is right that, as long as the intellect of the student keeps to the realm of the senses, in accordance with the outlook of to-day, these facts cannot be understood. It is just when the most sublime facts of earthly life are such that they are unintelligible to the intellect of the student of the sense-world—it is just then that they are true. Hence it is not surprising that the science of Initiation is opposed by ordinary science, for it speaks of things which—just because they do not contradict true natural science—must contradict a natural order derived from a corrupted view of nature. Theology, too, has largely fallen a victim to this corrupted view of nature, though in a different direction.

When you take the other matter of which I was speaking yesterday, that only after death is man able to come to a right conception of the Mystery of Golgotha, then, if you reflect a little, you will no longer find it inconceivable that through the gate of death man enters a world where he cannot be tricked into thinking that death belongs to the world of the senses, for he sees death from the other side—I have often described this—and from this other side he learns increasingly to study death. And by this means he becomes ever more fitted to contemplate the Mystery of Golgotha in its true form. Thus we have to admit that had the Mystery of Golgotha not come about (but what is said in this connection can be understood only through supersensible knowledge), death would have taken possession of man. Evil also would be in the world, and wisdom also. But since men through their evolution had to fall into a corrupted view of nature, they were bound to have a false view of death. In wishing for immortality they turn to Lucifer, and in wishing to turn to the spirit they fall victim to Lucifer. If they do not turn to the spirit they become like dumb animals, and if they do turn to the spirit, they fall into Lucifer's grip. Looking to the future implies a wish to be immortal in Lucifer; looking towards the past means interpreting the world in such a way that inherited characteristics, which are supersensible, are viewed in terms of morality, thereby inventing the medieval blasphemy of original sin.

A real devotion to the Mystery of Golgotha is a protection against all these things. It brings into the world a true conception of birth and death, gained on a supersensible path. By a true conception of this kind men should be healed from the effects of the corrupted conception. Thus Christ Jesus is the Healer, the Saviour. And therefore—because men have not chosen to follow a corrupted conception of the world because they are good for nothing, but have come to it through their evolution, through their nature—therefore the Christ works healingly; therefore He is not only the Teacher but the Physician of mankind.

These things must be pondered—as I have said and must always repeat, they can be discerned only through supersensible knowledge—but if we are to ask ourselves: What kinds of knowledge could be reached by the souls who inspired such a spirit as Tertullian in the second century?—we must look to the dead who were perhaps contemporaries of Christ Jesus and have thus inspired Tertullian. Certainly, since there was much corrupted knowledge in the world, many things came through in distorted, clouded colourings. If, however, through the words of a Tertullian we hear the inspiring voices of the contemporaries of Christ, we shall understand how Tertullian was able to say such words as: “God's Son has been crucified. Because it is shameful, we are not ashamed of it.” Through a corrupted outlook men were bound to fall into shame; that which gives greatest meaning to the earth is manifest in human life as a shameful deed. “God's Son has gone through death. It is perfectly credible because it is foolish”—Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Precisely because it is foolishness by any criterion that man can reach with his ordinary intelligence up to the end of his physical life—for that very reason it is true in the sense of what I have been telling you to-day. “He is laid in the grave and has risen again; this is certain because it is impossible”—because within the corrupted phenomena of nature it does not happen.

When in the supersensible sense you take Tertullian's words as being inspired by Christ's contemporaries, who by that time had long been dead, you may say: Certainly Tertullian has absorbed all this, just in the way he could do in accordance with the constitution of his soul! ... But you will be able to divine how he came to be so inspired. Indeed, such a source was accessible only to a man who with his inner knowledge was so firmly grounded in the supersensible that he referred to demons being witness to the Divine, just as he spoke of human witnesses. For Tertullian spoke of how the demons themselves say they are demons and recognise the Christ. That was the preliminary condition for Tertullian being able to lay hold of what was given him through inspiration.

For those who incline to be Christians in a false way, there is something very disconcerting, thoroughly disconcerting, here. For just think, if even demons tell the truth and point to the true Christ, the demons might ultimately be questioned by a Jesuit—someone or other whom the Jesuit maintained was possessed by demons might be impelled by these demons to speak about the real origin of the Jesuits' Christ, and the demon might then say to the Jesuit: “Yours is not the Christ; the Christ of that other is the true one.”—You can understand the Jesuitical fear of the spiritual world! You can see how alarming it is to be exposed to the possible danger of being disowned in some corner of the spiritual world! Then someone might call Tertullian as witness for the Crown and might say: “Now see here, my dear Jesuit, the demon says himself that your God is a false God—and Tertullian, whom you have to recognise as a bona fide Church Father, says that demons tell the truth about themselves and about the Christ, just as the Bible states.” In short, the matter becomes very ticklish as soon as it is admitted by the supersensible world—even though in an unorthodox form—that demons witness to the truth. For even were we to cite Lucifer, he would not say what is untrue about the Christ! But it might leak out that something else is untrue about the Christ.

Now the truths of Initiation often sound different from what human beings find it convenient to acknowledge. Certainly this leads to things going rather criss-cross when to-day an endeavour is made to introduce Initiation truths to the external world—especially when they have to be introduced into the midst of immediate reality. Yes, as soon as the field is open for statements coming from the supersensible, some very remarkable conflicts may arise—when these statements are opposed by others which owe nothing to the supersensible!

This can often be applied to ordinary life. It has brought me a certain satisfaction that a suggestion I made really to myself during my lectures—and things I say during lectures I give out as my own conviction, with no intention of compelling others to accept them—this suggestion has been followed up, and our Building, out of all the conditions experienced at the present time, has been called the “Goetheanum.” And even if this has been with the assistance of certain supersensible impulses, it seems to me to be both right and good. But if I am asked by anyone for the reasons from an intellectual standpoint—as though I ought to count them all up on my fingers—if I am asked to give all the reasons for this, I should appear to myself a prodigious Philistine if I were to count up all the reasons for what has been felt out of a deep necessity—all the reasons for and against would seem to me like sheer hair-splitting.

One is often in this situation precisely when ascribing supersensible impulses to the will. People often say: “I don't understand this, I can't grasp what it means.” But is it terribly important whether you or anyone else grasps what a thing means? For what does this grasping (begreifen) mean? It really means putting a matter in the light where repose the thoughts which for decades a person has found comfortably suitable for himself. Otherwise its meaning is no different from what people call “understanding.” What people themselves call understanding often signifies very little where truths revealed from the spiritual world are concerned. Just in the most supersensible spheres—where truths are not mere theory but are meant to seize upon the will, to strike into the world of deeds—just here there is always something rather questionable when people ask intellectually: Why, why, why is this so? Or: How is this or that to be understood? In this connection we ought to accustom ourselves to finding for certain things belonging to the supersensible world an analogy—but only an analogy—with recognised facts of nature. If you leave here and a dog bites you and you have never before had a dog bite you, I don't know whether you will ask, Why has it bitten me? Or, How am I to understand it?—For what sort of connection has it with the intellect! You will simply relate the facts. So it is with certain supersensible things—we simply relate the facts. And there are many such things, as you can gather from what I have told you to-day—that in the sense-world there are two apparent events which conceal their real meaning: human death and human birth, which bring the supersensible into the world of the senses and are strangers in that world. They disguise themselves as sense-phenomena and in that way they extend their disguise over the rest of nature, so that the rest of nature also is bound to be seen in a false light by human beings to-day.

Thoroughly to understand these things, to absorb them thoroughly into our own approach to knowledge, is one of the future demands that will be made on human life. The Time Spirits will make this demand especially on those who are seeking knowledge for the future and wish to bring active will-impulses into some particular sphere. Particularly must the spiritual branches of culture be taken in hand—theology, medicine, jurisprudence, philosophy, natural science, even technics and social life, even politics—yes, truly, politics, even that strange creature! Into all this, those who understand the times ought to introduce the fruits of Spiritual Science.

Zwölfter Vortrag

Ich habe gestern aus der Wissenschaft heraus, die man nennen muß die Wissenschaft der Initiation, zwei Bemerkungen gemacht, an die ich Sie erinnern will, weil wir daran anknüpfen müssen. Zunächst sagte ich mit Bezug auf das Mysterium von Golgatha: Die tiefsten Wahrheiten, die sich auf dieses Mysterium von Golgatha beziehen, müssen nach der Natur der Sache solche sein, welche nicht durch äußere sinnenfällige, historische Zeugnisse belegt werden können. Wer einen Beweis für die Tatsachen, die sich mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha abgespielt haben, auf äußerem historischem Wege sucht, so wie man nach historischen Zeugnissen für andere Tatsachen sucht, der wird solche Zeugnisse nicht finden können, weil das Mysterium von Golgatha sich so in die Menschheit hineinstellen soll, daß der Zugang zu seinen Wahrheiten sich zuletzt auf übersinnlichem Wege vermittelt. Die Menschen sollen sich gewissermaßen gewöhnen, wenn ich mich trivial ausdrücken darf, das Wichtigste im Erdendasein so zu haben, daß sie sich ihm nicht auf sinnlichem, sondern nur auf übersinnlichem Wege nähern können. Das zweite, was ich gestern gesagt habe, ist dieses, daß der Mensch mit jenem Verständnisse, das ihm nach seiner Entwickelung zugeteilt ist als Erdenwesen, eigentlich bis zu seinem Tode - also wohlgemerkt: selbst bis zu seinem Tode - nicht so weit kommt, daß er aus seinem eigenen, innerhalb der Sinnenwelt sich entwickelnden Verständnisse zu einem Begreifen des Mysteriums von Golgatha kommen könnte. Ich habe gesagt: Erst nach dem Tode, erst post mortem entwickelt sich im Menschen, also im Menschen während seines Aufenthaltes in der übersinnlichen Welt, dasjenige Verständnis beziehungsweise die Kräfte zu demjenigen Verständnis, welches den vollen Aufschluß geben kann über das Mysterium von Golgatha. Deshalb sagte ich gestern etwas, was ganz selbstverständlich von der äußeren Welt als eine Absurdität hingestellt werden wird, als eine paradoxe Sache hingestellt werden wird. Ich sagte, daß eigentlich selbst die Zeitgenossen Christi erst im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert, nachdem das Mysterium von Golgatha abgelaufen war, zum Verständnisse kommen konnten - also erst in ihrem jenseitigen Leben -, und daß dann dasjenige, was geschrieben worden ist in diesen Jahrhunderten über das Mysterium von Golgatha, unter der Inspiration derjenigen Menschen geschrieben worden ist, die Zeitgenossen gewesen waren und aus der geistigen Welt, aus der übersinnlichen Welt heraus inspirierend auf die richtigen Schriftsteller des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts gewirkt haben.

Nur in scheinbarem Widerspruch damit steht, daß die Evangelien, die ja Inspirationsbücher sind, wie Sie aus meiner Darstellung im «Christentum als mystische Tatsache» entnehmen können, Inspirationsschriften vom Christentum sind. Die inspirierten Evangelien konnten nur deshalb die Wahrheit über das Christentum äußern, weil sie, wie ich ja auch schon öfter betont habe, nicht aus der ureigenen Wesenheit vom Menschen heraus geschrieben worden sind, sondern noch mit dem letzten Reste der atavistisch-hellseherischen Weisheit über das Mysterium von Golgatha handelten.

Das, was ich so über die Beziehung der Menschheit zu dem Mysterium von Golgatha sagte, ist herausgeschöpft aus der Wissenschaft der Initiation selbst. Wenn man so etwas dann aus dieser übersinnlichen Erkenntnis heraus erkundet hat, dann kann man ja wohl fragen: Wie nimmt sich so etwas aus, wenn man damit vergleicht die Tatsachen des äußeren geschichtlichen Lebens? - Daher will ich im Beginne unserer heutigen Betrachtungen, als den besonders charakteristischen Fall - zunächst nur wie eine Frage, deren Antwort sich uns ergeben soll am Ende der heutigen Betrachtungen -, einen typischen Kirchenschriftsteller des 2. Jahrhunderts hervorheben. Ich könnte ebensogut, müßte aber dann die ganze Betrachtung selbstverständlich in anderer Form hier vor Ihnen vorbringen, Clemens von Alexandrien, könnte Origenes, ich könnte irgendeinen anderen Kirchenschriftsteller wählen. Ich wähle einen, der oft genannt wird: Tertullian. Ich möchte an der Persönlichkeit des Tertullianus die Frage aufwerfen: Wie verhielt sich der äußere Verlauf des christlichen Lebens zu diesen übersinnlichen Tatsachen, von denen ich gestern gesprochen habe, deren wesentlichsten Inhalt ich Ihnen heute wiederholt habe?

Tertullian ist eine sehr merkwürdige Persönlichkeit. Derjenige, der so die Dinge hört über Tertullianus, die gewöhnlich gesagt werden ja, der kommt zu nicht viel mehr als zu einem Wissen, welches davon beherrscht wird, daß Tertullianus derjenige gewesen sein soll, der den Glauben an die Wesenheit des Christus, an den Opfertod, an die Auferstehung, dadurch gerechtfertigt habe, daß er gesagt haben soll: Credo, quia absurdum est - Ich glaube, gerade weil es absurd ist, weil es der Vernunft nicht einleuchtet. - Die Worte: Credo, quia absurdum est - finden sich im ganzen Tertullianus nicht. Sie finden sich ebenso nicht im ganzen Schrifttum der übrigen Kirchenväter; sie sind rein erfunden, aber sie sind dasjenige, wodurch sich die Meinung der späteren Zeit über Tertullian bis heute oftmals zum Dogma gemacht hat. Wenn man dagegen an Tertullianus selbst herantritt - man braucht wahrhaftig nicht sein Anhänger zu werden -, dann bekommt man, je genauer man die Persönlichkeit des Tertullianus kennenlernt, immer mehr und mehr Respekt vor diesem merkwürdigen Mann. Vor allen Dingen bekommt man Respekt davor, wie Tertullianus die lateinische Sprache, diese lateinische Sprache, die ja ein Ausdruck der abstraktesten menschlichen Denkweise ist, diese lateinische Sprache, die auch schon zu seiner Zeit bei den andern Schriftstellern geworden ist der Ausdruck für das durch und durch prosaische Römertum, mit einem wahren Feuergeist handhabt: er bringt Temperament, er bringt Beweglichkeit, er bringt Empfindung und eine heilige Leidenschaft in die Art seiner Darstellung hinein. Und obzwar er ein typischer Römer ist, der sich so abstrakt ausdrückt wie nur irgendein Römer gegenüber dem, was man oftmals wirklich nennt, obzwar er nach der Anschauung der griechisch gebildeten Leute der damaligen Zeit nicht einmal ein besonders gebildeter Mensch ist, schreibt er mit Eindringlichkeit, mit innerer Kraft, schreibt er so, daß er aus der abstrakten römischen Sprache heraus geradezu der Schöpfer der christlichen Sprechweise geworden ist. Und die Art und Weise, wie er spricht, dieser Tertullianus, die ist wahrhaftig eindringlich genug. In einer Art Schutzschrift für die Christen redet er, man darf sagen, so, daß das geschriebene Wort wirkt, wie wenn man es unmittelbar von einem von heiliger Leidenschaft ergriffenen Menschen gesprochen hörte. Es gibt solche Stellen, wo Tertullian Verteidiger der Christen wird, die, wenn sie angeschuldigt werden, unter einer Prozedur, die dem Foltern sehr ähnlich ist, nicht leugnen, sondern gestehen, daß sie Christen sind und woran sie glauben. Da sagt Tertullian: Überall sonst beschuldigt man diejenigen, die gefoltert werden, daß sie leugnen; bei den Christen macht man es umgekehrt: man erklärt sie für verrucht, wenn sie gestehen, was in ihrer Seele ist. Man will sie durch das Foltern nicht dazu zwingen, daß sie die Wahrheit sagen, was allein einen Sinn hätte; man will sie dazu zwingen, daß sie die Unwahrheit sagen, während sie die Wahrheit sagen. Und wenn sie die Wahrheit gestehen aus ihrer Seele heraus, so betrachtet man sie als Bösewichter.

Kurz, Tertullian war schon ein Mann, welcher einen feinen Sinn hatte für das Absurde im Leben. Und Tertullian war bereits ein Geist, der zusammengewachsen war mit dem, was sich entwickelt hatte als christliches Bewußtsein und christliche Weisheit, ein feiner Beobachter des Lebens. So ist es wirklich etwas Bedeutsames, wenn er solch ein Wort hinwirft: Ihr habt Sprichwörter, ihr sagt im Leben sehr häufig aus unmittelbarstem Empfinden der Seele heraus: Gott befohlen, Gott will es - und so weiter. Das aber ist Christenglaube: die Seele bekennt sich, wenn sie gerade unbewußt sich ausspricht, als eine Christin. — Tertullian ist auch ein Mann mit unabhängigem Geist. Tertullian ist ein Mann, welcher den Römern, zu welchen er selber gehört, sagt: Betrachtet den Christen-Gott und überlegt euch dann, was ihr empfinden könnt über wahre Religiosität. Und ich frage euch, ob dasjenige, was ihr als Römer in die Welt einführt, wahrer Religiosität entspricht, oder ob dasjenige wahrer Religiosität entspricht, was die Christen wollen. Ihr führt Krieg und Mord und Totschlag in die Welt ein; das wollen die Christen gerade nicht. Eure Heiligtümer sind Gotteslästerungen, weil sie Siegeszeichen sind, und Siegeszeichen sind keine Heiligtümer, sondern Zeichen der Heiligtumschändung. - Das sagte Tertullian seinen Römern! Er war ein Mann mit Unabhängigkeitsgefühl, und hinblickend auf das Treiben Roms sagte er: Betet man vielleicht, indem man naturgemäß zum Himmel schaut, oder indem man zum Kapitol schaut? - Dabei war Tertullian keineswegs ein Mann, der aufging im abstrakten Römertum, denn er war tief durchdrungen von der Anwesenheit des Übersinnlich-Wesenhaften in der Welt. Jemanden, der auf der einen Seite so unabhängig und frei und zugleich so aus dem Übersinnlichen heraus spricht wie Tertullian, den soll man suchen, selbst innerhalb der damaligen Zeit, wo das Übersinnliche den Menschen noch näher lag als später! Und Tertullian sagte nicht nur in rationalistischer Weise: Die Christen sagen die Wahrheit, ihr erklärt sie als Bösewichter -, während man doch nur dafür, daß die Menschen das Unwahre sagen unter der Folter, sie als Bösewichter erklären sollte. - Gewiß, das war rationalistisch, wenn auch mutig, aber Tertullian sagte noch andere Dinge; Tertullian sagte zum Beispiel: Wenn ihr nur wirklich hinschaut, ihr Römer, auf eure Götter, welche Dämonen sind, und diese Dämonen wirklich befragt, da werdet ihr die Wahrheit erfahren. Aber ihr wollt nicht von den Dämonen die Wahrheit erfahren. Stellt man einen von einem Dämon Besessenen, aus dem der Dämon redet, einem angeklagten Christen gegenüber und läßt ihn von dem Christen in der richtigen Weise befragen: der Dämon läßt sich als Dämon erkennen; und wenn auch mit Furcht, so wird er auch von dem Gotte, den der Christ anerkennt, sagen: Das ist der Gott, der nun in die Welt gehört! Tertullian ruft nicht nur das Zeugnis der Christen, sondern auch das Zeugnis der Dämonen an, indem er sagt, daß die Dämonen sich auch als Dämonen bekennen werden, wenn man sie nur befragt, angstlos befragt, und daß sie gerade so, wie es auch in den Evangelien beschrieben ist, den Christus Jesus als den wirklichen Christus Jesus anerkennen.

Es ist jedenfalls eine merkwürdige Persönlichkeit, die da im 2. Jahrhundert als ein Römer den Römern gegenübersteht. Auffallend wird uns diese Persönlichkeit, wenn wir nun sehen, wie sie sich zu dem Mysterium von Golgatha verhält. Die Worte, die Tertullianus über das Mysterium von Golgatha gesprochen hat, sie sind etwa die folgenden: Gekreuzigt ist Gottes Sohn. Wir schämen uns nicht, weil es schmählich ist. Gestorben ist Gottes Sohn; es ist völlig glaubhaft, weil es töricht ist. - Die Worte bei Tertullian heißen: Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Glaubhaft ist es, völlig glaubhaft ist es, weil es töricht ist. - Also: Gestorben ist Gottes Sohn; es ist völlig glaubhaft, weil es töricht ist. Und begraben ist er, auferstanden, es ist gewiß, weil es unmöglich ist. - Aus diesem Worte: Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est - aus diesem Worte ist das andere Unwahre geprägt worden: Credo, quia absurdum est.

Verstehen wir recht das Wort, das da Tertullianus ausspricht von dem Mysterium von Golgatha. Tertullianus sagt: Gekreuzigt ist Gottes Sohn. Wenn wir Menschen hinschauen auf diese Kreuzigung, so schämen wir uns dessen nicht, weil es schmählich ist. - Was meint er damit? Er meint damit, daß das Beste, was auf der Erde passieren konnte, schmählich sein muß, weil es die Art der Menschen ist, das Schmähliche zu tun, nicht das Vorzügliche zu tun. Würde irgend etwas, meint Tertullian, als eine schönste Tat hingestellt werden, von den Menschen getane schönste Tat, so könnte sie nicht die vorzüglichste für das Erdengeschehen sein. Die vorzüglichste Tat für das Erdengeschehen wird schon diejenige sein, die dem Menschen Schande macht, nicht Ruhm bringt; das meint er damit.

Weiter: Gestorben ist Gottes Sohn. Es ist völlig glaubhaft, weil es töricht ist. - Gestorben ist Gottes Sohn; es ist völlig glaubhaft, weil die menschliche Vernunft es töricht findet. Würde die menschliche Vernunft es gescheit finden, so würde es nicht glaubhaft sein, denn dasjenige, was die menschliche Vernunft gescheit findet, kann nicht das Höchste sein, kann nicht das Höchste der Erde sein. Denn die menschliche Vernunft ist nicht so hoch mit ihrer Gescheitheit, daß sie gerade an das Höchste gerät, sondern sie gerät an das Höchste, wenn sie töricht wird.

Begraben ist er, auferstanden. Es ist gewiß, weil es unmöglich ist. — Innerhalb der Naturerscheinungen ist es unmöglich, daß ein Toter aufersteht; aber das Mysterium von Golgatha hat nach des Tertullianus Meinung mit den Naturerscheinungen nichts zu tun. Würde man irgend etwas als Naturerscheinung bezeichnen müssen, so würde es nicht das Wertvollste der Erde sein. Dasjenige, was das Wertvollste der Erde ist, darf keine Naturerscheinung sein, muß also innerhalb des Reiches der Natur unmöglich sein. Gerade deshalb ist er begraben worden und auferstanden, und es ist deshalb gewiß, weil es unmöglich ist.

Zunächst möchte ich diesen Tertullianus insbesondere mit diesen in seinem Buche «De carne Christi» stehenden Worten, die ich eben angeführt habe, wie eine Frage hinstellen. Ich versuchte ihn zu charakterisieren, erstens als einen freien, unabhängigen Geist, zweitens als einen solchen Geist, der in unmittelbarer Umgebung der Menschen auch das Dämonisch-Übersinnliche sieht. Aber ich führte Ihnen zu gleicher Zeit drei seiner Sätze vor, wegen welcher Tertullianus von allen gescheiten Menschen als ein Tropf eigentlich angesehen werden müßte.

Es ist allerdings bei solchen Dingen immer merkwürdig, daß die Menschen einseitig urteilen; wenn sie so einen noch dazu falschen Satz aufbringen, wie Credo, quia absurdum est, dann beurteilen sie danach einen ganzen Menschen. Es ist aber eben nötig, daß man die drei Sätze, die ja allerdings nicht so ohne weiteres einleuchten Tertullianus will auch gar nicht so ohne weiteres einleuchten -, zusammenhält erstens mit der unabhängigen Geistigkeit des Tertullianus, dann zusammenhält mit seinem restlosen Bewußtsein von dem Mitwirken der übersinnlichen Welt innerhalb der menschlichen Umgebung.

Und jetzt wollen wir dasjenige vor unsere Seele hinstellen, was geeignet ist, einigermaßen wiederum von einem andern Gesichtspunkte aus Licht zu verbreiten über das Mysterium von Golgatha. Dasjenige, was über das Mysterium von Golgatha Licht zu verbreiten geeignet ist, sind zwei Erscheinungen im Leben der Menschheit, von denen ich schon einige Worte in der vorgestrigen Betrachtung gesprochen habe: die eine Erscheinung ist der Tod, die zweite Erscheinung die Vererbung. Der Tod, der mit dem Ende des Lebens zusammenhängt, die Vererbung, die mit der Geburt zusammenhängt. Hinsichtlich des Todes und der Vererbung ist es wichtig, daß man klar sieht mit Bezug auf das Menschenleben und auf die menschliche Wissenschaft. Aus alledem, was ich Ihnen nun seit Wochen darstelle, können Sie nämlich das Folgende entnehmen: Wenn der Mensch auf seine Umgebung hinblickt mit seinen Sinnen und das Sinnliche mit seinem Verstande sich begreiflich machen will, dann treten unter den Erscheinungen der Sinne ihm auch entgegen die Erscheinungen der Vererbung: daß gewissermaßen die Eigenschaften der Vorfahren in den Nachkommen spuken und der Mensch aus dem Unterbewußten dieser vererbten Kräfte heraus handelt. Dasjenige, was mit dem Mysterium der Geburt zusammenhängt, alle diese verschiedenen vererbten Merkmale, wir studieren sie oftmals, wenn wir nicht einmal an diese vererbten Merkmale denken: wenn wir zum Beispiel Völkerkunde treiben, reden wir ja, ohne daß wir darauf aufmerksam sind, immer von vererbten Merkmalen. Man kann nicht ein Volk studieren, ohne daß man eigentlich alles, was man studiert, im Kreise der vererbten Merkmale sieht. Wenn Sie von irgendeinem Volke, von den Russen, von den Engländern, von den Deutschen und so weiter reden, so reden Sie von denjenigen Eigenschaften, die in das Gebiet der Vererbung gehören, die der Sohn immer vom Vater, der Vater vom Großvater und so weiter erwirbt. Das Gebiet der Vererbung, das mit dem Mysterium der Geburt zusammenhängt, ist eben ein weites, und wir sprechen, indem wir von dem äußeren Leben, in das der Mensch hineingestellt ist, reden, vielfach von den Tatsachen, von den Kräften der Vererbung, ohne daß wir uns dessen immer bewußt sind. Daß das Mysterium des Todes sich hineinstellt in das Sinnenleben der Menschen, das ist ja jetzt eine immerdar vor Augen tretende Tatsache, so daß man nicht viele Worte darüber zu machen braucht. Aber wenn man nun, ich möchte sagen, rückwärts das menschliche Erkenntnisvermögen betrachtet, so zeigt sich ein anderes. Es zeigt sich nämlich, daß dieses menschliche Erkenntnisvermögen geeignet ist, vieles in der Naturordnung zu begreifen, aber es erklärt sich dieses menschliche Erkenntnisvermögen für souverän und will a/les begreifen, was in diese Naturordnung sich hineinstellt. Nun ist dieses menschliche Erkenntnisvermögen niemals geeignet, die Tatsache der Vererbung, die mit dem Mysterium der Geburt zusammenhängt, und die Tatsache des Todes zu begreifen. Und die eigentümliche Erscheinung tritt auf im Menschenleben, daß die ganze menschliche Anschauung durchsetzt ist von falschen Begriffen, weil diese Anschauung Erscheinungen zur Sinneswelt rechnet, die zwar in der Sinneswelt sich kundgeben, die aber ihrem ganzen Wesen nach geistiger Art sind. Wir zählen den Menschentod - mit dem Tod der Tiere und der Pflanzen ist es etwas anderes, ich habe vorgestern darauf aufmerksam gemacht - unter die Erscheinungen, die sich in der Sinneswelt abspielen, weil es so zu sein scheint. Aber dadurch erreichen wir nicht, daß wir etwas erfahren können über den Menschentod. Niemals würde eine Naturwissenschaft etwas sagen können über den Menschentod, sondern wir erreichen nur das, daß wir uns unsere ganze menschliche Anschauung in ein Scheinbild verwandeln, denn wir mischen überall die Tatsachen des Todes hinein. Und wir erfahren über die Natur in ihrer Wahrheit nur dann etwas, wenn wir den Tod auslassen und wenn wir die Vererbungsmerkmale auslassen. Das Eigentümliche der menschlichen Erkenntnis ist, daß sie verdorben wird - wenn ich mich des Ausdruckes bedienen darf -, zum Scheinbild gemacht wird, weil sie glaubt, sie könne sich über die ganze Sinneswelt auslassen, also auch über Tod und Geburt; und weil sie in ihre Auffassung der Natur Tod und Geburt hineinmischt, verdirbt sie sich ihre ganze Anschauung über die Sinneswelt. Man gelangt niemals zu einer Anschauung darüber, was der Mensch als Sinneswesen ist, wenn man die Eigenschaften der Vererbung, die ja mit der Geburt zusammenhängen, mit zu der Sinneswelt rechnet. Man verdirbt sich das ganze Bild des Menschen — ich habe drei Strömungen dargestellt, die gerade Linie, die normale Entwickelung, die seitliche luziferische und die seitliche ahrimanische -, die ganze Entwickelung des Menschen, die eben gerade fortläuft, wenn man Geburt und Tod zum Wesen des Menschen, insofern der Mensch der Sinneswelt zugehört, hinzurechnet.

So sonderbar steht es mit dem menschlichen Erkenntnisvermögen. Dieses menschliche Erkenntnisvermögen wird unter der Anleitung der Natur selber dazu getrieben, Falsches zu denken, weil es, wenn es in Wahrheit denken könnte, sich aus der Natur ein Bild heraussondern müßte, in dem keine Vererbung und kein Tod im Menschenleben drinnen ist. Man müßte abstrahieren von Tod und Vererbung; man müßte auch nichts geben auf Tod und Geburt und müßte, abgesehen von diesen, sich ein Bild machen; dann würde man ein Naturbild bekommen. In der Goetheschen Weltanschauung haben die vererbten Merkmale und der Tod keinen Platz. Sie gehen nicht hinein, sie passen nicht hinein. Das ist das Eigentümliche gerade der Goetheschen Weltanschauung: Sie können nichts mit Tod und Vererbung innerhalb der Goetheschen Weltanschauung machen. Deshalb ist sie gerade so gut, und deshalb kann man sie als ein wahres Naturbild der Wirklichkeit annehmen, weil Tod und Vererbung darin keinen Platz haben.

Nun hat man bis in die Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha noch aus gewissen geistigen Untergründen heraus naturgemäßer über Tod und Vererbung gedacht. Die semitische Bevölkerung betrachtete die vererbten Merkmale als eine unmittelbare Fortwirkung des Gottes Jahve; man versteht die Jahve-Anschauung nur, wenn man dieses weiß. Sie stellte heraus das, was sich auf die Vererbung bezog - wenigstens da, wo man noch die Jahve-Anschauung gut verstanden hat -, aus der bloßen Natur, und sah darinnen unmittelbar ein Fortwirken Jahves. Der Gott Abrahams, der Gott Isaaks, der Gott Jakobs, das war nichts anderes als die fortwirkenden, vererbten Merkmale. Und die griechische Weltanschauung wiederum suchte, wenn ihr das auch in ihrer Dekadenz wenig gelang, etwas in der Menschennatur zu erfassen, was in dem Menschen auch zwischen Geburt und Tod lebt, was aber mit dem Tod nichts zu tun hat, suchte etwas herauszuheben aus der Summe der Erscheinungen, in das der Tod sich nicht hineinmischen kann. Die griechische Weltanschauung hatte einen gewissen Horror vor dem Begreifen des Todes; gerade weil sie auf das Sinnliche hingerichtet war, wollte sie den Tod nicht begreifen, da sie instinktiv spürte: Wenn man den Blick rein auf die Sinneswelt richtet — wie Goethe es wieder getan hat -, dann ist der Tod ein Fremdling. Er paßt nicht hinein in die Sinneswelt, er ist ein Fremdling.

Nun aber entstanden gewisse andere Anschauungen daraus, und dieses Anderswerden gewisser alter Anschauungen, das trat gerade ganz besonders charakteristisch hervor bei den tonangebenden Völkern und Menschen, als sich die Zeit dem Mysterium von Golgatha näherte. Die Menschen — wenn ich mich einmal populär ausdrücken will — verloren immer mehr die Möglichkeit, atavistisch hineinzuschauen in die geistige Welt; dadurch kamen sie immer mehr und mehr zu dem Glauben, daß Geburt und Tod oder Vererbung und Tod auch zu der Sinneswelt gehören. Sie gehen ja in der Sinneswelt herum, und zwar in sehr handgreiflicher Weise, möchte ich sagen, Vererbung und Tod. Die Menschen kamen immer mehr und mehr zu der Anschauung, daß Vererbung und Tod zu der Sinneswelt gehören. Und das nistete sich ein in die ganze menschliche Anschauung. Die ganze menschliche Anschauung wurde schon Jahrhunderte vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha durchdrungen von dem Glauben, daß Vererbung und Tod mit der Sinneswelt irgend etwas zu tun haben. Dadurch bildete sich etwas sehr, sehr Merkwürdiges aus. Sie werden es nur begreifen, wenn Sie den Geist von dem, was ich in diesen Tagen gesagt habe, in der richtigen Weise auf sich wirken lassen.

Die Tatsache der Vererbung, man sah sie, indem man sie in die Naturerscheinungen hereinrückte. Man glaubte, sie sei eine Naturerscheinung; immer mehr und mehr wurde der Glaube verbreitet, die Vererbung sei eine Naturerscheinung. Jede solche Tatsache, die auftritt im Leben, ruft ihren polarischen Gegensatz hervor; Sie können sich im menschlichen Leben gar nicht einer Tatsache hingeben, ohne daß diese Tatsache ihren Gegensatz hervorruft. Das Leben der Menschen verläuft eben im Gleichgewicht von Gegensätzen. Das ist eine Grundbedingung aller Erkenntnis, daß man anerkennt, daß das Leben in Gegensätzen verläuft, und nur der Gleichgewichtszustand zwischen Gegensätzen angestrebt werden kann. Was war deshalb die Folge dieses Glaubens, daß die Vererbung hereinfällt in die Naturerscheinungen, zu den Naturerscheinungen gehöre? Die Folge davon war eine furchtbare Verunglimpfung des menschlichen Willens. Diese Verunglimpfung des menschlichen Willens, sie besteht darinnen, daß man - weil der Gegensatz sich ausbildete - eine Tatsache der Vorzeit, die wir in der Geheimwissenschaft kennen als den Einfluß der luziferisch-ahrimanischen Geister, in den menschlichen Willen hereinrückte, und eine Tatsache, die man eigentlich auf dem Naturfeld suchte, so wirksam hat in der menschlichen Seele, daß es einen hineintrieb in eine moralische Weltanschauung. Weil man die Vererbung herausstellte in die Naturerscheinungen und sie auf diese Weise verkannte, bildete sich der Gegensatz heraus: Der Glaube, daß durch den menschlichen Willen einstmals das geschehen sei, was dann als Erbsünde durch die Welt geht. Es wurde gerade durch die falsche Einreihung der Vererbung in die Naturerscheinungen das Grundübel erzeugt, die Erbsünde auf das Moralfeld zu schieben.

Damit war auch das Denken der Menschen verdorben; denn es kam dieses Denken nicht dazu, den richtigen Glauben anzunehmen, daß so, wie sich gewöhnlich die Menschen die Erbsünde vorstellen, die ganze Vorstellung eine Gotteslästerung ist, eine furchtbare Gotteslästerung. Ein Gott, der so, wie es sich die meisten Menschen vorstellen, man möchte sagen, rein aus Ambition heraus zuläßt, daß im Paradiese das geschieht, was gewöhnlich vom Paradiese erzählt wird, der das nicht aus solchen Intentionen heraus tut, wie es in der «Geheimwissenschaft im Umriß» dargestellt wird, sondern so, wie das gewöhnlich dargestellt wird, der wäre wahrhaftig kein hoher Gott. Und dem Gotte diese Ambition beizulegen, ist eine Gotteslästerung. Nur dann, wenn man dazu kommt, die vererbten Merkmale, dasjenige, was sich von dem Vorfahren auf den Nachkommen vollzieht, nicht ins moralische Licht zu stellen, sondern selbst als sinnenfällige Tatsache schon im übersinnlichen Lichte zu sehen, nur wenn man hinschaut auf Übersinnliches und nicht erst eine moralische Deutung unternimmt, wenn man im übersinnlichen Lichte das schaut, was man nicht mit rabbinischer Theologie in eine moralische Weltinterpretation umsetzen soll, nur dann kommt man auf das, um was es sich auf diesem Gebiete handelt. Die rabbinische Theologie wird immer durch den Verstand uminterpretieren dasjenige, was sich als Vererbungskräfte in der Sinneswelt ausbreitet, und wofür man sich schulen sollte durch Geistanschauung, damit man schon in den vererbten Merkmalen in der Sinneswelt den Geist entdeckt. Das ist das, worauf es ankommt. Und den Hauptwert lege ich darauf, daß Sie einsehen: Ohne dieses Mysterium von Golgatha wäre die Menschheit in der Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha dazu gekommen, den Geist zu verleugnen, weil sie abgekommen wäre davon, für die Vererbungsmerkmale, die innerhalb der Sinneswelt sind, den Geist anzuerkennen, weil die Menschen dazu gekommen sind, immer mehr und mehr rabbinistische sowohl wie sozialistische Interpretationen an die Stelle der Geistanschauung zu setzen. Darauf beruht ungeheur viel, daß man sich genötigt sieht zu sagen: Du begreifst nichts in der Sinneswelt, wenn du dich nicht ausstattest für dasjenige, was in der Sinneswelt schon ein übersinnlicher Fremdling ist, weil es geistige Zusammenhänge hat. Auf die Vererbungszusammenhänge muß man mit der geistigen, mit der übersinnlichen Anschauung hinweisen. Der Verstand aber, der umgesetzt hat das Sinnliche, das schon ein Übersinnliches, ein Geistiges ist, in ein verstandesmäßig aufgefaßtes Moralisches, dieser Geist, der ist derjenige, dem der Geist Christi, der Geist des Mysteriums von Golgatha entgegensteht. Das mit Bezug auf die Vererbung und mit Bezug auf den Tod.

Gewiß, gerade die Kirchenväter konnten konstatieren, daß auch unter den Heiden die Menschen zahlreich waren, die von der Unsterblichkeit überzeugt waren. Aber um was handelt es sich denn dabei? Nun, in alten Zeiten hatte es sich dabei darum gehandelt, daß man erkannt hat: Der Tod ist in der Sinneswelt schon eine übersinnliche Erscheinung. Man hatte sich schon zur Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha die Weltanschauung dadurch verdorben, daß man den Tod als eine sinnliche Erscheinung genommen hat und dadurch die Todeskräfte auch ausbreitete über die übrige Sinneswelt. Der Tod muß als ein Fremdling innerhalb der Sinneswelt angesehen werden. Dann nur kann reine Wissenschaft von der Naturordnung entstehen.

Dazu ist gekommen dasjenige, was manche Philosophen des ausgehenden Altertums über die Unsterblichkeit ersonnen haben. Sie haben sich gewendet an das Unsterbliche im Menschen. Daran haben sie sich mit Recht gewendet, denn sie haben sich gesagt: Der Tod ist da in der Sinneswelt.- Das haben sie aber aus einer korrumpierten Weltanschauung heraus gesagt; denn aus einer nichtkorrumpierten Weltanschauung heraus hätten sie sagen müssen: Der Tod ist nicht da in der Sinneswelt, er tritt nur scheinbar in die Sinneswelt herein. - Und sie stellten allmählich die Sinneswelt so vor, daß der Tod darin Platz hat. Damit verdirbt man sich aber alle andern Dinge. Selbstverständlich verdirbt man sich alle andern Dinge, wenn man sie sich so vorstellt, daß der Tod einen Platz darin hat. Wenn sie sich aber aus einer korrumpierten Weltanschauung heraus das sagten, dann mußten sie sich noch etwas anderes sagen, dann mußten sie sich sagen: Wir müssen uns an irgend etwas wenden, das dem Tod widerspricht, an ein Übersinnliches, das dem Tod widerspricht. - Ja, dadurch, daß die Menschen im ausgehenden Altertum aus einer korrumpierten Weltanschauung heraus sich an das unpersönlich Geistige gewendet haben, war diese unsterbliche geistige Welt - wenn sie das auch anders genannt haben - die luziferische Welt. Wie der Mensch die Dinge benennt, darauf kommt es nicht an, sondern darauf kommt es an, was wirklich in seinen Vorstellungen kraftet: und so war es die luziferische Welt. Und wie auch die Worte anders lauteten, die Philosophen des ausgehenden Heidentums hatten eigentlich in allen ihren Interpretationen nichts anderes gesagt, als: Wir wollen als Seelen, indem wir dem Tod entgehen, zu Luzifer uns flüchten, der uns aufnimmt, so daß wir die Unsterblichkeit haben. Wir sterben ins Reich des Luzifer hinein. - Das war der wahre Sinn.

Die Nachzügler der Kräfte, welche in der menschlichen Erkenntnis aus all diesen Voraussetzungen heraus, die ich Ihnen heute gesagt habe, walten, die sieht man noch heute walten. Denn was müssen Sie sich denn eigentlich sagen, wenn Sie die Worte, die ich heute aus der Initiationsweisheit heraus wiederum zu Ihnen gesprochen habe, ernst nehmen? Sie müssen sagen: Es gibt des Menschen Ursprung und es gibt sein Ende. Beide dürfen nicht mit dem, was der Mensch als Verstand hat, der für die Natur taugt, ergriffen werden. Man kommt zu einer falschen Anschauung sowohl über das Übersinnliche wie auch über das Sinnliche, wenn man Geburt und Tod in das Sinnliche hineinmischt, wohinein sie nicht gehören, weil sie Fremdlinge sind. Man verdirbt sich beides: Man verdirbt sich die Geistauffassung und verdirbt sich die Naturauffassung. Was ist die Folge? Nun, eine der Folgen zum Beispiel ist diese: Es gibt eine Anthropologie, die den Ursprung des Menschen auf sehr niedrige Wesen zurückführt und ganz naturwissenschaftlich handelt, sehr gescheit dabei handelt. Gehen Sie durch alle diese Anthropologien, die den Menschenursprung zurückführen auf niedrige Wesen, die sie sich so vorstellen, als ob dasjenige, was heute unter den wilden Völkern noch heimisch ist, am Ausgange des Menschengeschlechts gewesen wäre! — Man urteilt naturwissenschaftlich ganz richtig, wenn man solch eine Vorstellung hat. Aber die Schlußfolgerung, die man daraus ziehen sollte, ist nämlich die folgende: Gerade weil das naturwissenschaftlich so richtig ist — vor der Naturwissenschaft richtig ist, die da glaubt, daß Geburt und Tod in die Sinneswelt gehören —, deshalb ist es falsch, deshalb war es anders am wirklichen Ursprung des Menschen. Und als Kant und Laplace ihre Theorie ausgedacht haben, haben sie aus der Narturwissenschaft heraus ihre Kant-Laplacesche Theorie gebildet. Man kann scheinbar nichts dagegen einwenden, aber gerade deshalb war es anders, weil die KantLaplacesche Theorie vom Standpunkt der heutigen Naturwissenschaft richtig ist. Sie kommen zu dem Richtigen, wenn Sie sowohl für den Menschenursprung und das Menschenziel, wie für den Erdenursprung und das Erdenziel als richtig anerkennen das Gegenteil von dem, was naturwissenschaftlich in dem heutigen Sinne richtig ist. Anthroposophie wird um so mehr das Richtige sagen über den Erdenursprung, je mehr sie im Widerspruche steht mit dem, was [darüber] aus einer im heutigen Sinne richtigen Naturwissenschaft gesagt werden kann. Daher steht Anthroposophie auch [wiederum] nicht im Widerspruch mit der heutigen Naturwissenschaft! Sie läßt die Naturwissenschaft gelten, aber sie erweitert sie nicht über ihre Grenzen hinaus, sondern sie zeigt gerade diejenigen Punkte auf, wo übersinnliche Anschauung eingreifen muß. Anthropologie wird, je logischer sie ist, je richtiger sie ist in bezug auf die heutige, dem Menschen notwendige und eingeborene Naturordnung, um so mehr das nicht sagen, was nicht war am Ausgangspunkte des Menschendaseins und der Erde! Und um so weniger wird die Naturwissenschaft das treffen, was den Tod betrifft, je mehr sie aus ihren Vorstellungen heraus über den Tod phantasiert.

Aber dies wäre zunächst ohne das Mysterium von Golgatha menschliches Erdenschicksal geworden: daß gerade über die wichtigsten Dinge aus einer korrumpierten Weltanschauung hätte gedacht werden müssen; denn das hing durchaus nicht etwa von dem menschlichen Willen ab, durchaus nicht etwa von einer menschlichen Schuld ab, sondern das hing lediglich an der menschlichen Entwickelung. Der Mensch kam einfach im Laufe seiner Entwickelung dahin, diesen Fleisch- und Blut- und Knochenzusammenhang, in dem er drinnensteckt, für sich selbst zu halten. Ein alter Ägypter würde ja zunächst in der älteren, besseren ägyptischen Zeit furchtbar komisch berührt gewesen sein, wenn jemand behauptet hätte, das, was da herumwandelt auf zwei Beinen, [was] aus Blut und Fleisch und Knochen besteht, das sei ein Mensch. Aber diese Dinge hängen nicht ab von theoretischen Erwägungen, diese Dinge kann man nicht ausspintisieren oder entspintisieren; sondern es wurde nach und nach für den Menschen eine selbstverständliche Eigenschaft, das Gebilde aus Fleisch und Blut und Knochen, das in Wahrheit ein Abbild ist aller Hierarchien, für sich selbst anzusehen. Es wurde so sehr Irrtum über diese Sache verbreitet, daß kurioserweise bei einzelnen, die auf den Irrtum daraufkamen, ein Hineintapsen in einen noch größeren Irrtum stattfand.

AltName

Gewiß, einige kamen schon darauf - aber sie kamen auf eine ahrimanisch-luziferische Art darauf -, daß der Mensch nicht das ist, was da aus Fleisch und Blut und Knochen besteht. Sie sagten: Wenn wir etwas Besseres sind als diese Zusammenfügung aus Fleisch und Blut und Knochen, dann wollen wir vor allen Dingen das Fleischliche verachten, dann wollen wir den Menschen als etwas Höheres ansehen, dann wollen wir den sinnlichen Menschen von uns abtun! — Nun ist aber gerade dieses Bild aus Fleisch und Blut und Knochen mit dem Ätherleib und Astralleib zusammen, so wie es der Mensch sieht, ein Scheingebilde. In Wirklichkeit ist es das reinste Ebenbild der Gottheit. Nicht weil wir den Teufel sehen sollen in der Welt, ist es - wie ich auseinandergesetzt habe - ein Irrtum, sondern weil wir den Gott sehen sollen in unserer eigenen Welt in uns, deshalb ist es ein Irrtum, sich zu identifizieren mit der sinnlichen Natur. Das ist auch ganz falsch, sich zu sagen: Ja, ich bin nun ein ganz hohes Wesen, ein furchtbar hohes Wesen, eine furchtbar hohe Seele, und da (Zeichnung) ist diese minderwertige, gräßliche Umgebung. - So ist es nicht, sondern die Sache ist so: Da sind die Reiche der höheren Hierarchien, alle göttlichen Wesenheiten (siehe Zeichnung $. 248); die haben als ihr Götterziel betrachtet, ein Gebilde zusammen zu formen (blauer Kreis), das ihr Abbild ist. Dieses Gebilde präsentiert sich äußerlich als der sichtbare Menschenleib. Und in dieses Gebilde, das ein Abbild ist der Gottheit und das verleumdet wird, jämmerlich verleumdet wird, wenn man es für niedrig erachtet, in dieses Gebilde haben hineingelegt die Geister der Form das menschliche Ich, die jetzige Seele, die das Baby ist unter den menschlichen Gliedern, wie ich oftmals gesagt habe (Punkt im blauen Kreis).

AltName

Wäre also das Mysterium von Golgatha nicht gekommen, dann hätte der Mensch nur falsche Anschauungen gewinnen können über Vererbung und über den Tod, und diese falschen Anschauungen, die würden immer höher und höher sich gesteigert haben. Jetzt treten sie manchmal in atavistischer Weise auf — wie in manchen sozialistischen Gruppen heute eine Weltanschauung vertreten wird, die ein Atavismus ist —, in solchen Anschauungen, die den Tod und die Geburt hinzurechnen zu den sinnlichen Erscheinungen. Und in der weiteren Entwickelung der Menschheit müßte das liegen, daß vor dem Menschen sich überhaupt das Tor zuschlösse in die übersinnliche Welt, und was er in der sinnlichen Welt schon finden kann vom Übersinnlichen, Vererbung und Tod, das würden seine Verführer werden, die gerade heimtückisch auftreten, indem sie sagen: Wir sind sinnlich — während sie es gar nicht sind. Nur wenn wir einer Natur nicht glauben, die uns den Tod und die Geburt vorspiegelt, dann kommen wir auf die Wahrheit. So paradox ist der Mensch nun einmal in die Welt hineingestellt.

In den Menschen mußte eingepflanzt werden etwas, was dieser Entwickelung das Gleichgewicht halten konnte, was den Menschen hinwegführen konnte von diesem Glauben, daß Vererbung und Tod im Menschenleben sinnliche Erscheinungen sind. Dazu mußte etwas vor ihn hingestellt werden, was ihm klarmachte: Tod und Vererbung sind übersinnliche, sind nicht sinnliche Erscheinungen. Deshalb muß dasjenige Ereignis, welches wiederum dem Menschen die Wahrheit anweist über diese Dinge, nicht für die gewöhnlichen Menschenkräfte erreichbar sein, denn die sind ja auf dem Wege zur Korruption und müssen durch einen kräftigen entgegengesetzten Anstoß zurechtgerückt werden. Und dieser entgegengesetzte Anstoß war das Mysterium von Golgatha, indem es sich hingestellt hat in die Menschheitsentwikkelung als etwas, was übersinnlich ist, so daß für den Menschen ferner die Wahl liegt: Entweder glaubst du an dieses Übersinnliche, näherst dich ihm aber nun erkennend auf übersinnliche Weise, oder du verfällst in alle jene Anschauungen, die sich ergeben müssen, wenn du Tod und vererbte Merkmale als der Sinnenwelt angehörig betrachtest. - Daher sind Ingredienzien einer wahren Anschauung über das Mysterium von Golgatha die beiden Grenztatsachen dieses Mysteriums von Golgatha: die Auferstehung, die nicht gedacht werden kann ohne ihren Zusammenhang mit der Conceptio immaculata, geboren nicht in der Art, wie durch die Geburt eine Tatsache der Menschheit vorgespiegelt wird, sondern auf übersinnliche Weise, und durch den Tod gegangen auf übersinnliche Weise. Das sind die beiden Grundtatsachen, die das Christus Jesus-Leben begrenzen müssen. Niemand versteht die Auferstehung, die sein soll die Vorstellung, welche hingestellt wird als die wahre Vorstellung gegenüber der falschen Vorstellung, daß der Tod der Sinneswelt angehört, niemand versteht diese Auferstehung, wenn er nicht ihr Korrelat ebenso annimmt, die Conceptio immaculata, die unbefleckte Empfängnis, die Geburt als eine übersinnliche Tatsache. Die Menschen wollen das verstehen, Auferstehung und Conceptio immaculata, und die neueren protestantischen Theologen wollen sogar schon innerhalb der Theologie mit dem gewöhnlichen Menschenverstand, der aber nur ein Schüler der Sinneswelt ist, und zwar der korrumpierten Sinnesanschauung, die sich herausgebildet hat seit dem Mysterium von Golgatha, diese Tatsache begreifen. Und wenn sie sie nicht begreifen können, werden sie Harnackianer oder etwas ähnliches, leugnen die Auferstehung ab, machen allerlei Redensarten darüber. Nun, und die Conceptio immaculata, die betrachten sie überhaupt schon als etwas, wovon ein vernünftiger Mensch nicht reden kann.

Dennoch, es hängt innig zusammen mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha, daß im Mysterium von Golgatha enthalten ist die Metamorphose des Todes, das heißt seine Metamorphosierung aus einer sinnlichen Tatsache in eine übersinnliche Tatsache, und die Metamorphose der Vererbung, das heißt, daß dasjenige, was uns die Sinneswelt vorspiegelt über die Vererbung, die mit dem Mysterium der Geburt zusammenhängt, ins Übersinnliche hinübergesetzt wird in der Conceptio immaculata.

Was auch immer Irrtümliches, Unzulängliches über diese Dinge gegesagt worden ist, die Aufgabe der Menschen ist nicht, unverständig diese Dinge hinzunehmen, sondern sich solche übersinnlichen Erkenntnisse anzueignen, daß sie diese Dinge, die im Sinnlichen nicht begriffen werden können, durch das Übersinnliche begreifen lernen. Wenn Sie sich die verschiedenen Zyklen, in denen über diese Dinge gesprochen worden ist, wenn Sie insbesondere auch an den Inhalt des von mir besprochenen fünften Evangeliums denken, dann werden Sie eine Reihe von Wegen finden, diese beiden Dinge zu verstehen, aber nur zu verstehen auf übersinnlichem Wege. Denn es ist recht, daß - solange der Verstand der Schüler der Sinnlichkeit bleibt, so wie es heute den Menschen in der Weltanschauung erscheinen muß - der Mensch diese Tatsache nicht begreifen kann. Gerade wenn die höchsten Tatsachen des Erdenlebens solche sind, daß der Verstand, der der Schüler der Sinnlichkeit ist, sie nicht begreifen kann, gerade dann sind sie wahr. Es ist daher gar nicht zu verwundern, wenn die Wissenschaft der Initiation von der sogenannten äußeren Wissenschaft bekämpft wird, denn sie spricht ja von den Dingen, die ganz selbstverständlich — gerade weil sie nicht in Widerspruch mit wahrer Naturwissenschaft stehen - jener Naturordnung widersprechen müssen, die aus der korrumpierten Naturanschauung kommt. Und vielfach ist auch die Theologie verfallen, wenn auch nach einer andern Richtung hin, der korrumpierten Naturanschauung. Und wenn Sie das andere nehmen, was ich gestern ausgesprochen habe, daß der Mensch erst nach dem Tode zu einer richtigen Anschauung des Mysteriums von Golgatha kommen kann, so werden Sie das nicht mehr unbegreiflich finden, wenn Sie sich überlegen, daß der Mensch durch den Tod, durch die Pforte des Todes in eine Welt eintritt, in der ihm nicht mehr vorgegaukelt werden kann, daß der Tod zur Sinneswelt gehört, denn er sieht den Tod von der andern Seite - ich habe diese Dinge oftmals geschildert - und er lernt immer mehr und mehr den Tod von der andern Seite betrachten. Dadurch aber wird er immer reifer, auch das Mysterium von Golgatha zu betrachten in seiner wahren Gestalt. Und so muß man sagen: Wäre das Mysterium von Golgatha nicht gekommen — aber das, was man so sagt, ist nur zu begreifen in übersinnlicher Erkenntnis -, dann würden die Menschen sterben. Es würde auch das Böse in der Welt sein, es würde auch Weisheit in der Welt sein. Aber da die Menschen durch ihre Entwickelung einer korrumpierten Naturanschauung verfallen mußten, mußten sie über den Tod eine falsche Anschauung haben. Dadurch wenden sie sich, indem sie sich an die Unsterblichkeit wenden wollen, an Luzifer, und sie verfallen Luzifer gerade, wenn sie sich an den Geist wenden wollen. Sie werden wie das liebe Vieh, wenn sie sich nicht an den Geist wenden, und sie werden dem Luzifer verfallen, wenn sie sich an den Geist wenden. Die Welt nach vorne sehen: man will unsterblich in Luzifer sein; nach rückwärts sehen: man interpretiert die Welt um, indem man dasjenige, was schon als Vererbungsmerkmal übersinnlich ist, ins Moralische umsetzt und dadurch die mittelalterliche Gotteslästerung fabriziert von der Erbsünde.

Vor allen diesen Dingen bewahrt die wirkliche Hingabe an das Mysterium von Golgatha. Sie stellt eine wahre Anschauung, auf übersinnlichem Wege gewonnene wahre Anschauung über Geburt und Tod in die Welt herein. Und die Menschen sollen durch eine solche wahre Anschauung geheilt werden von der falschen, von der korrumpierten Anschauung. Daher ist der Christus Jesus auch der Heilende, der Heiland. Daher wirkt er — weil die Menschen sich nicht etwa bloß aus Nichtsnutzigkeit heraus den Weg einer korrumpierten Weltanschauung gewählt haben, sondern durch ihre Entwickelung, durch ihre Natur dazu gekommen sind -, daher wirkt er auch heilend, daher ist er wirklich nicht nur der Lehrer, sondern der Arzt der Menschheit.

Diese Dinge, sie muß man bedenken - aber wie gesagt, immer wieder muß ich es wiederholen: was nur durch übersinnliche Erkenntnis angeschaut werden kann -, wenn man sich frägt: Zu welchen Erkenntnissen mögen denn die Seelen gekommen sein, die im 2. christlichen Jahrhundert solch einen Geist inspiriert haben wie Tertullian? Wir müssen hinschauen auf die Toten, die vielleicht Zeitgenossen des Christus Jesus waren und solch einen Tertullian inspiriert haben. Gewiß, weil viel Erkenntniskorruption in der Welt war, kam manches verkehrt, getrübt, in dieser oder jener getrübten Nuance heraus. Aber hören wir durch die Worte eines Tertullian hindurch die dazumal toten, aber inspirierenden Zeitgenossen Christi, dann begreifen wir solche Worte wie die des Tertullian, dann begreifen wir, daß er sagen konnte so etwas wie: Gekreuzigt ist Gottes Sohn. Wir schämen uns des nicht, weil es schmählich ist. - Die Menschen mußten durch korrumpierte Anschauung in das Schmähliche hineinkommen; dasjenige, was der Sinn der Erde im höchsten Maße ist, das wird sich im Menschenleben zeigen als eine schmähliche Tat. Gestorben ist Gottes Sohn. Es ist völlig glaubhaft, weil es töricht ist, Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. —- Weil es für das, was der Mensch selbst bis an sein Lebensende im Physischen durch seinen gewöhnlichen Verstand erreichen kann, Torheit ist, so ist es gerade dasjenige, was wahr ist in dem Sinne, wie ich Ihnen das heute auseinandergesetzt habe. Und begraben ist er und auferstanden, es ist gewiß, weil es unmöglich ist — weil innerhalb der korrumpierten Naturanschauung es das gar nicht gibt.

Wenn Sie die Worte des Tertullian im übersinnlichen Sinne nehmen als inspiriert von den damals lange toten Zeitgenossen Christi, so werden Sie sich vielleicht sagen: Ja, gewiß, aufgenommen hat es der Tertullian so, wie er sie durch seine Seelenbeschaffenheit aufnehmen konnte! — aber Sie werden ihren inspirierten Ursprung ahnen können. Es konnte freilich zu solchem Ursprung den Zugang nur gewinnen ein Mann, der so gründlich mit seinem inneren Wissen im Übersinnlichen drinnenstand, daß er von den Dämonen als Zeugen des Göttlichen sprach wie von Menschenzeugen; denn Tertullian sprach davon, daß die Dämonen selber sagen, sie seien Dämonen, und daß sie den Christus anerkennen. Das war die Vorbedingung dazu, daß Tertullian überhaupt etwas wahrnehmen konnte, was ihm eininspiriert wurde.

Für diejenigen, die im falschen Sinne Christen sein wollen, hat die Sache etwas sehr, sehr Unbehagliches, etwas recht Unbehagliches. Denn denken Sie einmal, wenn selbst die Dämonen die Wahrheit aussagen und auf den wahren Christus hindeuten, da könnten sie am Ende einmal, die Dämonen, von einem Jesuiten befragt werden! Es könnte einmal irgend jemand, von dem der Jesuit behauptet, daß er mit Dämonen in Berührung steht, ins Gespräch gezogen werden von diesen Dämonen über den wirklichen Ursprung des jesuitischen Christus, und der Dämon könnte dann sagen: Deiner ist nicht der Christus, sondern der des andern ist es. - Sie begreifen die jesuitische Angst vor der geistigen Welt! Sie begreifen, daß es etwas sehr Beängstigendes hat, wenn man der Gefahr ausgesetzt werden könnte, daß aus irgendeinem Winkel der übersinnlichen Welt man desavouiert würde! Dann könnte man als Kronzeugen den Tertullian bringen und könnte sagen: Ja, sieh mal, lieber Jesuit, der Dämon, der sagt selber, daß dein Gott der falsche ist, und der Tertullian, den du doch anerkennen mußt als einen richtigen Kirchenvater, sagt, daß gerade Dämonen die Wahrheit über sich und über den Christus sagen, wie es auch in der Bibel steht. — Kurz, die Sache wird sehr brenzlig, sobald es von der übersinnlichen Welt, wenn auch nur in einer unberechtigten Form, zugegeben wird, daß Dämonen für die Wahrheit zeugen. Denn selbst wenn man den Luzifer zitieren würde: über den Christus würde er nicht die Unwahrheit sagen! Aber es könnte herauskommen, daß etwas anderes die Unwahrheit über den Christus ist.

Initiationswahrheiten klingen manchmal anders als dasjenige, was die Menschen bequem finden, anzuerkennen. Allerdings führt das dazu, daß vieles in die Kreuz und Quer geht, wenn versucht wird, Initiationswahrheiten heute in die äußere Welt einzuführen, insbesondere dann, wenn solche Initiationswahrheiten eingeführt werden müssen in die unmittelbare Wirklichkeit. Ja, sobald das Feld sich eröffnet, wo aus dem Übersinnlichen heraus gesprochen wird, da kommen zuweilen recht merkwürdige Konflikte zustande, wenn dem entgegengehalten wird dasjenige, was nicht aus dem Übersinnlichen herausquillt!

Wir können das schon oftmals auf das gewöhnliche Leben anwenden. Ich habe es mit einer gewissen Befriedigung empfunden, daß einer Anregung, die ich nur für mich gesagt habe innerhalb der Lehreund Dinge, die ich innerhalb der Lehre sage, sage ich als meine Überzeugung, die für niemanden unmittelbar etwas Bindendes haben soll -, daß einer Anregung Folge gegeben worden ist und dieser Bau aus den ganzen Bedingungen unseres Zeiterlebens heraus «Goetheanum» genannt worden ist. Ich sage, selbst mit Zuziehung gewisser übersinnlicher Impulse erscheint mir dasals etwas Richtiges und Gutes. Verlangte aber von mir selber jemand verstandesmäßig alle Gründe dafür, ich solle sie ihm herzählen am Daumen und an den übrigen Fingern, so würde ich mir selbst höchst philiströs vorkommen, wenn ich alle möglichen verstandesmäßigen Gründe aufzählen sollte für dasjenige, was aus einer tiefen Notwendigkeit heraus empfunden wird; sowohl alle Gründe für wie gegen würden mir wie rechte Talmiweisheit vorkommen. So wie in diesem Falle ist man oftmals, wenn man gerade für den Willen übersinnliche Impulse geltend macht. Die Menschen sagen oftmals: Das verstehe ich nicht, das begreife ich nicht. - Nun, kommt es denn schon furchtbar viel darauf an, daß der andere oder man selber die Sache begreife? Denn was heißt «begreifen»? Begreifen heißt ja nichts anderes, als, die Sache in das Licht gestellt sehen, wo die Gedanken ruhen, die man seit Jahrzehnten bequem für sich passend gefunden hat. Sonst heißt es ja weiter nichts, das, was die Menschen so «verstehen» nennen! Was man selber verstehen nennt, heißt oftmals nicht viel gegenüber den Wahrheiten, die aus der übersinnlichen Welt heraus eröffnet werden. Es ist gerade bei den übersinnlichsten Gebieten, wenn sie unmittelbar nicht bloß Lehre sind, sondern in den Willen hereingreifen sollen, in die Tatenwelt hereingreifen sollen, immer etwas Mißliches, wenn man nach Menschenverstand befragt wird: Warum, warum, warum ist das und das der Fall? Oder: Wie kann man dies und dies und dies verstehen? In dieser Beziehung müßte man sich gewöhnen, gewisse Dinge der übersinnlichen Welt in Parallele zu stellen mit dem, was man ja für die Naturtatsachen fortwährend zugibt, aber nur in Parallele. Ich weiß nicht - wenn Sie hier hinausgehen, und der Flock oder Wolf oder wie der Hund hier heißt, Sie beißt, und Sie vorher nicht gebissen waren, aber nachher gebissen sind -, ob Sie dann die Frage stellen: Warum hat der mich gebissen? Oder: Wie kann ich das verstehen? — Was ist das für ein Verständniszusammenhang? Sie werden sich es durch die Tatsache erzählen lassen. So handelt es sich eben darum, daß eben auch gewisse übersinnliche Dinge erzählt werden müssen. Und daß ihrer viele sind, das können Sie aus dem entnehmen, was ich heute angedeutet habe, daß in der Sinneswelt zwei Scheine sind, die ihre eigene Wesenheit verhüllen: der Tod und die Geburt des Menschen, die eigentlich Übersinnliches in die Sinnenwelt hereintragen, Fremdlinge sind in der Sinneswelt, sich aber maskieren und sich für sinnliche Erscheinungen ausgeben und dadurch ihre falsche Maske auch über die übrige Natur ausbreiten, so daß die übrige Natur auch von dem heutigen Menschen falsch gesehen werden muß.

Diese Dinge gründlich zu verstehen, gründlich in seine Erkenntnisgesinnung aufzunehmen, das gehört zu den Anforderungen des Menschenlebens in der Zukunft, insbesondere zu den Anforderungen, die von den Zeitgeistern selber an diejenigen gestellt werden, die Erkenntnis für die Zukunft suchen wollen, die auf irgendeinem Gebiete Willen entfalten wollen. Insbesondere müßten ergriffen werden die geistigen Kulturzweige, Theologie, Medizin, Jurisprudenz, Philosophie, Naturwissenschaft, Technik selbst und soziales Leben und sogar Politik; Politik, ja, ja, wahrhaftig, auch dieses sonderbare Gebilde! In all das müßte eingeführt werden von denjenigen, welche die Zeit verstehen, das, was aus der Geisteswissenschaft folgt.

Twelfth Lecture

Yesterday I made two remarks from the science that must be called the science of initiation, which I would like to remind you of because we need to follow up on them. First, with reference to the mystery of Golgotha, I said that the deepest truths relating to this mystery must, by their very nature, be such that they cannot be proven by external, sensory, historical evidence. Anyone who seeks proof of the facts that took place in the mystery of Golgotha by external historical means, just as one seeks historical evidence for other facts, will not be able to find such evidence, because the mystery of Golgotha is to be placed within humanity in such a way that access to its truths is ultimately mediated by supersensible means. People must, so to speak, accustom themselves, if I may express it trivially, to having the most important thing in earthly existence in such a way that they cannot approach it through the senses, but only through supersensible means. The second thing I said yesterday is this: with the understanding that is assigned to him as an earthly being according to his development, man does not actually reach the point, until his death—mark well: until his death—where he can come to a comprehension of the mystery of Golgotha out of his own understanding, which has developed within the sensory world. I said that only after death, only post mortem, does the understanding, or rather the powers of understanding, develop in human beings, that is, in human beings during their stay in the supersensible world, which can give full explanation of the mystery of Golgotha. That is why I said something yesterday that will naturally be regarded by the outer world as an absurdity, as a paradox. I said that even Christ's contemporaries could only come to understand this in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, after the mystery of Golgotha had taken place — that is, only in their afterlife — and that what was written about the mystery of Golgotha in those centuries was written under the inspiration of those who had been contemporaries and who, from the spiritual world, from the supersensible world.

Only in apparent contradiction to this is the fact that the Gospels, which are books of inspiration, as you can see from my account in Christianity as Mystical Fact, are inspirational writings of Christianity. The inspired Gospels could only express the truth about Christianity because, as I have often emphasized, they were not written from the inherent nature of human beings, but still dealt with the last remnants of atavistic clairvoyant wisdom about the mystery of Golgotha.

What I have said about the relationship of humanity to the mystery of Golgotha is drawn from the science of initiation itself. Once one has explored something like this from this supersensible knowledge, one may well ask: How does something like this appear when compared with the facts of outer historical life? Therefore, at the beginning of our present considerations, I would like to highlight a typical church writer of the second century as a particularly characteristic case—at first only as a question, the answer to which will become clear at the end of today's considerations. I could just as well, but then I would of course have to present the entire consideration in a different form here before you, choose Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or any other church writer. I choose one who is often mentioned: Tertullian. I would like to raise the question of Tertullian's personality: How did the external course of Christian life relate to these supernatural facts of which I spoke yesterday, the essential content of which I have repeated to you today?

Tertullian is a very remarkable personality. Those who hear the things that are usually said about Tertullianus come to know little more than that Tertullianus is said to have been the one who justified belief in the divinity of Christ, in his sacrificial death, and in his resurrection by saying: Credo, quia absurdum est – I believe because it is absurd, because it does not make sense to reason. The words Credo, quia absurdum est are not found anywhere in Tertullian's writings. Nor are they found in the writings of any of the other Church Fathers; they are purely invented, but they are what has often led later generations to turn their opinion of Tertullian into dogma. If, on the other hand, one approaches Tertullian himself—one need not become his follower—then the more one gets to know Tertullian's personality, the more one gains respect for this remarkable man. Above all, one gains respect for the way Tertullian handles the Latin language, this Latin language, which is an expression of the most abstract human way of thinking, this Latin language, which even in his time had become the expression of thoroughly prosaic Romanism among other writers, with a true fiery spirit: he brings temperament, he brings agility, he brings feeling and a holy passion into his style of presentation. And although he is a typical Roman, who expresses himself as abstractly as any Roman does about what is often really called, although he is not even a particularly educated man in the view of the Greek-educated people of his time, he writes with such force, with inner strength, he writes in such a way that, out of the abstract Roman language, he has become the very creator of Christian speech. And the way in which he speaks, this Tertullian, is truly forceful enough. In a kind of protective writing for Christians, he speaks in such a way that the written word has the effect of being spoken directly by a person seized by holy passion. There are passages where Tertullian becomes the defender of Christians who, when accused, do not deny but confess that they are Christians and what they believe in, under a procedure very similar to torture. Tertullian says: Everywhere else, those who are tortured are accused of denying; with Christians, it is the opposite: they are declared wicked when they confess what is in their souls. They do not want to force them to tell the truth through torture, which would be the only thing that would make sense; they want to force them to tell untruths while they are telling the truth. And when they confess the truth from their souls, they are considered evil men.

In short, Tertullian was already a man who had a keen sense of the absurdity of life. And Tertullian was already a mind that had grown together with what had developed as Christian consciousness and Christian wisdom, a keen observer of life. So it is really significant when he throws out such a word: You have proverbs, you very often say in life out of the most immediate feeling of the soul: God wills it, God wants it—and so on. But this is Christian faith: the soul professes itself to be Christian when it speaks unconsciously. — Tertullian is also a man with an independent spirit. Tertullian is a man who says to the Romans, to whom he himself belongs: Look at the Christian God and then consider what you can feel about true religiosity. And I ask you whether what you, as Romans, introduce into the world corresponds to true religiosity, or whether what the Christians want corresponds to true religiosity. You introduce war, murder, and manslaughter into the world; that is precisely what Christians do not want. Your shrines are blasphemies because they are signs of victory, and signs of victory are not shrines, but signs of desecration. - That is what Tertullian said to his fellow Romans! He was a man with a sense of independence, and looking at the goings-on in Rome, he said: Does one pray by looking naturally toward heaven, or by looking toward the Capitol? Tertullian was by no means a man who reveled in abstract Romanism, for he was deeply imbued with the presence of the supernatural and essential in the world. Even in those days, when the supernatural was closer to people than it was later, it would be difficult to find someone as independent and free as Tertullian, who spoke so much from the supernatural. And Tertullian did not just say in a rationalistic way: Christians speak the truth, you declare them to be evil—when it is only those who speak untruth under torture who should be declared evil. Certainly, that was rationalistic, albeit courageous, but Tertullian said other things as well; Tertullian said, for example: If you only really look, you Romans, at your gods, who are demons, and really question these demons, you will learn the truth. But you do not want to learn the truth from the demons. If you place a person possessed by a demon, through whom the demon speaks, opposite an accused Christian and allow the Christian to question him in the right way, the demon will reveal himself as a demon; and even if with fear, he will also say of the God whom the Christian acknowledges: This is the God who now belongs to the world! Tertullian invokes not only the testimony of Christians, but also the testimony of demons, saying that demons will also confess themselves to be demons if they are questioned, fearlessly questioned, and that they will acknowledge Christ Jesus as the real Christ Jesus, just as it is described in the Gospels.

In any case, it is a remarkable personality who stands before the Romans in the 2nd century as a Roman. This personality becomes striking when we see how he relates to the mystery of Golgotha. The words that Tertullian spoke about the mystery of Golgotha are roughly the following: The Son of God was crucified. We are not ashamed, because it is shameful. The Son of God died; it is completely believable because it is foolish. - Tertullian's words are: Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. It is believable, completely believable, because it is foolish. - So: The Son of God died; it is completely believable because it is foolish. And he is buried, risen, it is certain because it is impossible. - From these words: Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est - from these words the other falsehood has been coined: Credo, quia absurdum est.

Let us understand correctly the words that Tertullian speaks about the mystery of Golgotha. Tertullian says: God's Son was crucified. When we humans look at this crucifixion, we are not ashamed of it because it is shameful. What does he mean by this? He means that the best thing that could have happened on earth must be shameful because it is the nature of humans to do shameful things, not excellent things. If anything, says Tertullian, were to be presented as the most beautiful deed, the most beautiful deed done by human beings, it could not be the most excellent for earthly events. The most excellent deed for earthly events will already be that which brings shame upon human beings, not glory; that is what he means by this.

Next: God's Son died. It is completely believable because it is foolish. - God's Son has died; it is completely believable because human reason finds it foolish. If human reason found it wise, it would not be believable, for what human reason finds wise cannot be the highest, cannot be the highest thing on earth. For human reason is not so high in its wisdom that it reaches the highest, but it reaches the highest when it becomes foolish.

He is buried, risen. It is certain because it is impossible. — Within the phenomena of nature, it is impossible for a dead man to rise; but according to Tertullian, the mystery of Golgotha has nothing to do with the phenomena of nature. If one had to describe anything as a phenomenon of nature, it would not be the most valuable thing on earth. That which is the most valuable thing on earth cannot be a natural phenomenon; it must therefore be impossible within the realm of nature. That is precisely why he was buried and rose again, and that is why it is certain, because it is impossible.

First of all, I would like to present Tertullian in particular with these words from his book “De carne Christi,” which I have just quoted, as a question. I tried to characterize him, first as a free, independent spirit, and second as a spirit who also sees the demonic and supernatural in the immediate surroundings of human beings. But at the same time, I presented you with three of his statements, because of which Tertullian should actually be regarded by all intelligent people as a fool.

It is always strange in such matters that people judge one-sidedly; when they come up with such a false statement as Credo, quia absurdum est, they judge a whole person on that basis. But it is necessary to consider the three statements, which are certainly not immediately obvious – Tertullian does not intend them to be immediately obvious – in conjunction with Tertullian's independent spirituality and his complete awareness of the influence of the supernatural world within the human environment.

And now let us place before our soul that which is suitable for shedding some light on the mystery of Golgotha from another point of view. What is suitable for shedding light on the mystery of Golgotha are two phenomena in the life of humanity, about which I already said a few words in yesterday's meditation: the first phenomenon is death, the second is heredity. Death, which is connected with the end of life, and heredity, which is connected with birth. With regard to death and heredity, it is important to see clearly in relation to human life and human science. From everything I have been presenting to you for weeks now, you can deduce the following: When human beings look at their environment with their senses and try to comprehend the sensory world with their intellect, they encounter, among the phenomena of the senses, the phenomena of heredity: that, in a sense, the characteristics of their ancestors haunt their descendants and that human beings act out of the subconscious of these inherited forces. We often study all these different inherited characteristics, which are connected with the mystery of birth, without even thinking about these inherited characteristics: when we study ethnology, for example, we always talk about inherited characteristics without being aware of it. You cannot study a people without seeing everything you study in the context of inherited characteristics. When you talk about any people, about Russians, English, Germans, and so on, you are talking about those characteristics that belong to the realm of heredity, which the son always acquires from the father, the father from the grandfather, and so on. The realm of heredity, which is connected with the mystery of birth, is a vast one, and when we speak of the outer life into which human beings are placed, we often speak of the facts, of the forces of heredity, without always being aware of it. That the mystery of death is part of human sensory life is now an ever-present fact, so that there is no need to say much about it. But if we now look back, so to speak, at human cognitive ability, something else becomes apparent. Namely, it shows that this human faculty of cognition is capable of understanding much in the natural order, but it declares itself to be sovereign and wants to understand everything that comes into this natural order. Now, this human faculty of cognition is never capable of understanding the fact of heredity, which is connected with the mystery of birth, and the fact of death. And the peculiar phenomenon arises in human life that the whole human view is permeated with false concepts, because this view counts phenomena as belonging to the sensory world, which indeed manifest themselves in the sensory world, but which are spiritual in their whole essence. We count human death — which is something different from the death of animals and plants, as I pointed out the day before yesterday — among the phenomena that take place in the sensory world because it appears to be so. But this does not enable us to learn anything about human death. Natural science could never say anything about human death; all we achieve is to transform our entire human perception into an illusion, because we mix the facts of death into everything. And we only learn anything about nature in its truth when we leave death out of the picture and when we leave out the characteristics of heredity. The peculiarity of human knowledge is that it is corrupted — if I may use the expression — turned into an illusion, because it believes it can express itself about the entire sensory world, including death and birth; and because it mixes death and birth into its conception of nature, it corrupts its entire view of the sensory world. One never arrives at a view of what the human being is as a sensory being if one includes the characteristics of heredity, which are connected with birth, in the sensory world. One spoils the whole picture of the human being — I have described three currents, the straight line, the normal development, the lateral Luciferic and the lateral Ahrimanic — the whole development of the human being, which proceeds in a straight line, if one adds birth and death to the essence of the human being, insofar as the human being belongs to the sensory world.

Such is the strange state of human knowledge. Under the guidance of nature itself, human knowledge is driven to think falsely, because if it could think truthfully, it would have to extract from nature a picture in which there is no inheritance and no death in human life. One would have to abstract from death and heredity; one would also have to disregard death and birth and, apart from these, form a picture; then one would obtain a picture of nature. In Goethe's worldview, inherited characteristics and death have no place. They do not fit in, they do not belong there. This is precisely what is unique about Goethe's worldview: you cannot do anything with death and heredity within Goethe's worldview. That is precisely why it is so good, and why it can be accepted as a true picture of nature and reality, because death and heredity have no place in it.

Now, until the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, people naturally thought about death and heredity from certain spiritual backgrounds. The Semitic population regarded inherited characteristics as a direct continuation of the god Yahweh; one can only understand the Yahweh view if one knows this. It emphasized what related to heredity—at least where the view of Yahweh was still well understood—as coming from pure nature, and saw in this the direct continuing influence of Yahweh. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, was nothing other than the continuing, inherited characteristics. And the Greek worldview, in turn, sought, albeit with little success in its decadence, to grasp something in human nature that lives in human beings even between birth and death, but which has nothing to do with death; it sought to extract something from the sum of appearances in which death cannot interfere. The Greek worldview had a certain horror of understanding death; precisely because it was focused on the sensual, it did not want to understand death, since it instinctively felt that if one directs one's gaze purely toward the sensory world — as Goethe did again — then death is a stranger. It does not fit into the sensory world; it is a stranger.

Now, however, certain other views arose from this, and this change in certain old views became particularly characteristic of the leading peoples and individuals as the time of the mystery of Golgotha approached. People — if I may express myself in popular terms — increasingly lost the ability to look at the spiritual world in an atavistic way; as a result, they came to believe more and more that birth and death, or heredity and death, also belong to the sensory world. They walk around in the sensory world, and in a very tangible way, I would say, heredity and death. People increasingly came to believe that heredity and death belong to the sensory world. And this became ingrained in the entire human view of the world. Centuries before the Mystery of Golgotha, the entire human view of the world was permeated by the belief that heredity and death had something to do with the sensory world. This gave rise to something very, very strange. You will only understand this if you allow the spirit of what I have said these days to work on you in the right way.

The fact of heredity was seen by placing it within natural phenomena. It was believed to be a natural phenomenon; the belief that heredity was a natural phenomenon became more and more widespread. Every fact that occurs in life brings forth its polar opposite; you cannot devote yourself to any fact in human life without that fact bringing forth its opposite. Human life proceeds in a balance of opposites. It is a fundamental condition of all knowledge that one recognizes that life proceeds in opposites and that only a state of balance between opposites can be strived for. What, then, was the consequence of this belief that heredity falls within the realm of natural phenomena, that it belongs to natural phenomena? The consequence was a terrible denigration of the human will. This denigration of the human will consists in the fact that because the opposition developed, a fact of the past, which we know in esoteric science as the influence of the Luciferic-Ahrimanic spirits, was brought into the human will, and a fact that was actually sought in the natural realm has such an effect in the human soul that it drove people into a moral worldview. Because heredity was emphasized in natural phenomena and thus misunderstood, the opposition arose: the belief that what then passed through the world as original sin had once been brought about by the human will. It was precisely through the false classification of heredity as a natural phenomenon that the fundamental evil was created, namely, to shift original sin into the moral realm.

This also corrupted people's thinking, for it did not lead them to accept the correct belief that the whole idea of original sin, as people usually imagine it, is blasphemy, terrible blasphemy. A God who, as most people imagine, allows what is usually told about Paradise to happen in Paradise purely out of ambition, who does not do this out of intentions such as those described in “The Secret Science in Outline,” but as it is usually described, would truly not be a high God. And to attribute this ambition to God is blasphemy. Only when one comes to view the inherited characteristics, that which is passed on from ancestors to descendants, not in a moral light, but as a fact that is already evident in the supersensible light, only when one looks at the supersensible and does not first attempt a moral interpretation, when one sees in the supersensible light that which is not to be translated into a moral interpretation of the world by rabbinical theology, only then does one arrive at what is at stake in this field. Rabbinical theology will always reinterpret through the intellect that which spreads as hereditary forces in the sensory world, and for which one should train oneself through spiritual contemplation, so that one may already discover the spirit in the inherited characteristics in the sensory world. That is what matters. And I place the main value on your understanding that Without this mystery of Golgotha, humanity would have come to deny the spirit during the time of the mystery of Golgotha, because it would have strayed from recognizing the spirit in the hereditary characteristics that are within the sensory world, because people came to replace spiritual intuition more and more with rabbinical and socialist interpretations. There is so much behind this that one is compelled to say: You understand nothing in the sensory world unless you equip yourself for that which is already a supersensible stranger in the sensory world because it has spiritual connections. One must point to the connections of heredity with spiritual, supersensible perception. But the intellect, which has transformed the sensory, which is already supersensible, spiritual, into something moral that can be grasped by the intellect, this spirit is the one that stands in opposition to the spirit of Christ, the spirit of the mystery of Golgotha. This is in relation to heredity and in relation to death.

Certainly, the Church Fathers were able to state that even among the pagans there were many people who were convinced of immortality. But what is this about? Well, in ancient times it was recognized that death is already a supersensible phenomenon in the sensory world. Even at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, people had corrupted their worldview by taking death as a sensory phenomenon and thereby spreading the forces of death over the rest of the sensory world. Death must be regarded as a stranger within the sensory world. Only then can pure science of the natural order arise.

Added to this is what some philosophers of late antiquity conceived about immortality. They turned to the immortal in human beings. They were right to do so, for they said to themselves: Death is present in the sensory world. But they said this out of a corrupt worldview; for out of an uncorrupted worldview they would have had to say: Death is not present in the sensory world; it only appears to enter the sensory world. And they gradually imagined the sensory world in such a way that death had a place in it. But in doing so, they corrupted all other things. Of course, one corrupts all other things when one imagines them in such a way that death has a place in them. But if they said this out of a corrupt worldview, then they had to say something else, they had to say: We must turn to something that contradicts death, to something supersensible that contradicts death. Yes, because people in late antiquity, out of a corrupt worldview, turned to the impersonal spiritual, this immortal spiritual world—even if they called it something else—was the Luciferic world. It does not matter how people name things; what matters is what really powers their ideas: and so it was the Luciferic world. And even though the words were different, the philosophers of late paganism had actually said nothing else in all their interpretations but: As souls, by escaping death, we want to flee to Lucifer, who will take us in so that we may have immortality. We die into the realm of Lucifer. That was the true meaning.

The stragglers of the forces that prevail in human knowledge out of all these premises I have told you today can still be seen prevailing today. For what must you actually say to yourselves if you take seriously the words I have spoken to you today out of the wisdom of initiation? You must say: There is the origin of man and there is his end. Neither can be grasped with what man has as intellect, which is suited to nature. One arrives at a false view of both the supersensible and the sensible when one mixes birth and death into the sensible, where they do not belong because they are foreign. One corrupts both: one corrupts one's conception of the spirit and one corrupts one's conception of nature. What is the consequence? Well, one of the consequences, for example, is this: there is an anthropology that traces the origin of man back to very low beings and acts in a completely scientific manner, acting very cleverly in doing so. Go through all these anthropologies that trace the origin of man back to low beings, which they imagine as if what is still native to wild peoples today had been the beginning of the human race! — One judges quite correctly from a scientific point of view if one has such an idea. But the conclusion that should be drawn from this is the following: Precisely because this is scientifically correct—correct from the standpoint of natural science, which believes that birth and death belong to the sensory world—it is therefore false, and therefore it was different at the real origin of man. And when Kant and Laplace devised their theory, they formed their Kant-Laplace theory out of natural science. There seems to be no objection to this, but it was different precisely because the Kant-Laplace theory is correct from the standpoint of modern natural science. You arrive at the correct conclusion if you recognize as correct for the origin and goal of human beings, as well as for the origin and goal of the earth, the opposite of what is scientifically correct in the modern sense. Anthroposophy will say the more correct thing about the origin of the earth the more it contradicts what can be said [about it] from a scientific standpoint that is correct in the modern sense. Therefore, anthroposophy is not in contradiction with modern natural science! It accepts natural science, but it does not extend it beyond its limits; rather, it points out precisely those points where supersensible perception must intervene. The more logical anthropology is, the more correct it is in relation to the natural order that is necessary and innate to human beings today, the less it will say what was not the case at the beginning of human existence and of the earth! And the more natural science fantasizes about death based on its own ideas, the less it will be able to grasp what death is.

But without the mystery of Golgotha, this would have been the fate of humanity on earth: that precisely the most important things would have had to be thought about from a corrupt worldview; for this did not depend at all on human will, not at all on human guilt, but depended solely on human development. In the course of their development, human beings simply came to regard this combination of flesh, blood, and bones in which they are enclosed as their own. An ancient Egyptian in the older, better Egyptian times would have been terribly amused if someone had claimed that what was walking around on two legs, consisting of blood and flesh and bones, was a human being. But these things do not depend on theoretical considerations; these things cannot be spun out or unspun. Rather, it gradually became a self-evident characteristic for human beings to regard the structure of flesh and blood and bones, which is in truth a reflection of all hierarchies, as something belonging to themselves. Such error has been spread about this matter that, curiously, those individuals who have come upon the error have stumbled into an even greater error.

AltName

Certainly, some people did come to realize that human beings are not what they appear to be, a combination of flesh, blood, and bones. They said: If we are something better than this combination of flesh, blood, and bones, then we must above all despise the flesh, then we must regard human beings as something higher, then we must reject the sensual human being! — But this image of flesh, blood, and bones, together with the etheric body and astral body, as human beings see it, is an illusion. In reality, it is the purest image of the deity. It is not because we are supposed to see the devil in the world that it is a mistake, as I have explained, but because we are supposed to see God in our own world within us. That is why it is a mistake to identify with the sensual nature. It is also completely wrong to say to oneself: Yes, I am now a very high being, a terribly high being, a terribly high soul, and there (drawing) is this inferior, hideous environment. - That is not how it is, but rather the situation is as follows: There are the realms of the higher hierarchies, all divine beings (see drawing $. 248); they have set themselves the goal of forming a structure (blue circle) that is their image. This structure presents itself externally as the visible human body. And into this structure, which is an image of the deity and which is slandered, miserably slandered when it is considered low, into this structure the spirits of form have placed the human ego, the present soul, which is the baby among the human limbs, as I have often said (point in the blue circle).

AltName

If the mystery of Golgotha had not come, then human beings would have been able to gain only false views about heredity and death, and these false views would have become higher and higher. Now they sometimes appear in an atavistic way — as in some socialist groups today, where a worldview is held that is an atavism — in such views that add death and birth to the sensory phenomena. And in the further development of humanity, this would mean that the gate to the supersensible world would be closed to humans, and what they can already find in the sensory world of the supersensible, heredity and death, would become their seducers, who appear insidious by saying: We are sensory — when they are not at all. Only when we do not believe in a nature that presents us with death and birth do we arrive at the truth. Such is the paradox of the human being's place in the world.

Something had to be implanted in human beings that could keep this development in balance, that could lead them away from the belief that heredity and death are sensory phenomena in human life. To this end, something had to be placed before them that made it clear to them that death and heredity are supersensible, not sensory phenomena. Therefore, the event that teaches human beings the truth about these things must not be accessible to ordinary human powers, for these are on the path to corruption and must be set right by a powerful counter-impulse. And this opposing impulse was the mystery of Golgotha, in that it placed itself in human evolution as something supersensible, so that human beings are now faced with a choice: Either you believe in this supersensible, but now approach it in a supersensible way, or you fall into all those views that must arise if you regard death and inherited characteristics as belonging to the sensory world. Therefore, the ingredients of a true view of the mystery of Golgotha are the two limiting facts of this mystery of Golgotha: the resurrection, which cannot be conceived without its connection to the Conceptio immaculata, born not in the way that birth presents a fact of humanity, but in a supersensible way, and passing through death in a supersensible way. These are the two fundamental facts that must limit the life of Christ Jesus. No one understands the resurrection, which is supposed to be the true conception as opposed to the false conception that death belongs to the sensory world. No one understands this resurrection unless they also accept its counterpart, the immaculate conception, birth as a supersensible fact. People want to understand this, resurrection and Conceptio immaculata, and the newer Protestant theologians even want to understand this fact within theology using ordinary human understanding, which is, however, only a pupil of the sensory world, and indeed of the corrupted sensory perception that has developed since the mystery of Golgotha. And when they cannot understand it, they become Harnackians or something similar, deny the resurrection, and make all kinds of statements about it. Now, and the immaculate conception, they consider that to be something that a reasonable person cannot talk about at all.

Nevertheless, it is intimately connected with the mystery of Golgotha, because the mystery of Golgotha contains the metamorphosis of death, that is, its transformation from a sensual fact into a supersensible fact, and the metamorphosis of heredity, that is, that what the sensory world presents to us about heredity, which is connected with the mystery of birth, is transferred into the supersensible in the Conceptio immaculata.

Whatever erroneous or inadequate things have been said about these matters, it is not the task of human beings to accept them uncritically, but to acquire such supersensible knowledge that they learn to understand these things, which cannot be grasped in the senses, through the supersensible. If you consider the various cycles in which these things have been discussed, if you think in particular of the content of the fifth Gospel I have discussed, you will find a number of ways to understand these two things, but only to understand them in a supersensible way. For it is right that, as long as the intellect of the student remains sensual, as it must appear to people today in their worldview, human beings cannot comprehend this fact. Precisely because the highest facts of earthly life are such that the intellect, which is sensual, cannot comprehend them, they are true. It is therefore not at all surprising that the science of initiation is opposed by so-called external science, for it speaks of things that, quite naturally — precisely because they do not contradict true natural science — must contradict that natural order which comes from a corrupt view of nature. And in many cases theology has also fallen prey to the corrupt view of nature, albeit in a different direction. And if you take the other point I made yesterday, that human beings can only gain a true understanding of the mystery of Golgotha after death, you will no longer find this incomprehensible when you consider that through death, through the gate of death, enters a world where he can no longer be deluded into thinking that death belongs to the sensory world, for he sees death from the other side — I have often described these things — and he learns more and more to view death from the other side. Through this, however, he becomes ever more mature in viewing the mystery of Golgotha in its true form. And so we must say: If the mystery of Golgotha had not come—but what we say here can only be understood through supersensible knowledge—then human beings would die. There would also be evil in the world, and there would also be wisdom in the world. But since human beings, through their development, had to fall into a corrupt view of nature, they had to have a false view of death. As a result, in wanting to turn to immortality, they turn to Lucifer, and they fall into Lucifer's power precisely when they want to turn to the spirit. They become like dear cattle when they do not turn to the spirit, and they fall into Lucifer's power when they turn to the spirit. Looking forward in the world: one wants to be immortal in Lucifer; looking backward: one reinterprets the world by translating into morality that which is already supersensible as a hereditary trait, thereby fabricating the medieval blasphemy of original sin.

True devotion to the mystery of Golgotha protects us from all these things. It brings into the world a true view, a true view of birth and death gained through supersensible means. And through such a true view, people are to be healed of their false, corrupt view. That is why Christ Jesus is also the Healer, the Savior. That is why he works—because human beings have not chosen the path of a corrupt worldview out of uselessness, but have come to it through their development, through their nature—that is why he also works healing, that is why he is truly not only the teacher, but the physician of humanity.

These things must be considered — but as I have said, I must repeat again and again: what can only be seen through supersensible knowledge — when one asks oneself: What insights may the souls have come to that inspired such a spirit as Tertullian in the second Christian century? We must look to the dead who were perhaps contemporaries of Christ Jesus and inspired someone like Tertullian. Certainly, because there was much corruption of knowledge in the world, some things came out wrong, clouded, in this or that clouded nuance. But if we listen through the words of Tertullian to the then dead but inspiring contemporaries of Christ, then we understand words such as those of Tertullian, then we understand that he could say something like: God's Son is crucified. We are not ashamed of this because it is shameful. People had to come to the shameful through corrupted views; that which is the highest meaning of the earth will show itself in human life as a shameful deed. The Son of God died. It is completely believable because it is foolish, Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. —- Because it is foolish for man himself to achieve through his ordinary understanding in the physical realm until the end of his life, it is precisely that which is true in the sense that I have explained to you today. And he is buried and risen, it is certain, because it is impossible — because within the corrupt view of nature it does not exist at all.

If you take Tertullian's words in a supersensible sense as inspired by Christ's contemporaries, who had long since died, you may say to yourself: Yes, certainly, Tertullian took them up as he was able to take them up through his soul constitution! — but you will be able to sense their inspired origin. Of course, only a man who was so thoroughly immersed in the supersensible with his inner knowledge that he spoke of demons as witnesses of the divine as he would of human witnesses could gain access to such an origin; for Tertullian spoke of the demons themselves saying that they were demons and that they recognized Christ. This was the prerequisite for Tertullian to be able to perceive anything that was inspired to him.

For those who want to be Christians in the wrong sense, the matter has something very, very uncomfortable about it, something quite uncomfortable. For just think, if even the demons speak the truth and point to the true Christ, then in the end they, the demons, could be questioned by a Jesuit! Someone whom the Jesuit claims to be in contact with demons could one day be drawn into a conversation by these demons about the real origin of the Jesuit Christ, and the demon could then say: Yours is not the Christ, but the other's is. You understand the Jesuit fear of the spiritual world! You understand that there is something very frightening about being exposed to the danger of being disavowed from some corner of the supernatural world! Then one could bring Tertullian as a key witness and say: Yes, look, dear Jesuit, the demon himself says that your God is false, and Tertullian, whom you must acknowledge as a true Church Father, says that demons tell the truth about themselves and about Christ, as it is also written in the Bible. In short, the matter becomes very precarious as soon as the supersensible world admits, even if only in an unjustified form, that demons testify to the truth. For even if one were to quote Lucifer, he would not speak untruth about Christ! But it could turn out that something else is untrue about Christ.

Initiation truths sometimes sound different from what people find comfortable to acknowledge. However, this leads to a lot of confusion when attempts are made to introduce initiation truths into the outer world today, especially when such initiation truths have to be introduced into immediate reality. Yes, as soon as the field opens up where people speak from the supersensible, quite strange conflicts sometimes arise when this is countered by things that do not spring from the supersensible!

We can often apply this to ordinary life. I felt a certain satisfaction that a suggestion I made only for myself within the teaching—and things I say within the teaching, I say as my conviction, which should not be immediately binding on anyone—that a suggestion was followed up and this building, arising out of all the conditions of our contemporary experience, was called the “Goetheanum.” I say that even with the involvement of certain supersensible impulses, this seems to me to be something right and good. But if someone demanded of me intellectually all the reasons why I should tell them, I would feel extremely philistine if I had to list all the possible intellectual reasons for something that is felt out of a deep necessity; all the reasons for and against would seem to me like mere sophistry. This is often the case when one asserts supernatural impulses for the will. People often say: I don't understand that, I don't comprehend that. Well, does it really matter so much whether the other person or oneself understands the matter? For what does “understand” mean? To understand means nothing more than to see the thing in the light where the thoughts that one has comfortably found suitable for oneself for decades rest. Otherwise, what people call “understanding” means nothing! What one calls understanding oneself often means little in comparison with the truths that are revealed from the supersensible world. It is precisely in the most supersensible realms, when they are not merely teachings but are intended to influence the will, to influence the world of deeds, that it is always awkward when one is asked by human understanding: Why, why, why is this or that the case? Or: How can one understand this and that and the other? In this regard, one must become accustomed to placing certain things of the supersensible world in parallel with what one continually admits to be natural facts, but only in parallel. I do not know—if you go out here and the flock or wolf or whatever the dog is called here bites you, and you were not bitten before but are bitten afterwards—whether you will then ask the question: Why did it bite me? Or: How can I understand this? — What is the context for understanding this? You will accept the explanation based on the fact. So it is precisely the case that certain supersensible things must also be explained. And that there are many of them, you can gather from what I have indicated today, that in the sensory world there are two appearances that conceal their own essence: the death and birth of human beings, which actually bring the supersensible into the sensory world, are strangers in the sensory world, but they mask themselves and pass themselves off as sensory phenomena, thereby spreading their false mask over the rest of nature, so that the rest of nature must also be seen incorrectly by human beings today.

To understand these things thoroughly, to take them thoroughly into one's mind, belongs to the requirements of human life in the future, especially to the requirements imposed by the spirits of the times themselves on those who want to seek knowledge for the future, who want to develop their will in any field. In particular, the spiritual branches of culture, theology, medicine, jurisprudence, philosophy, natural science, technology itself, social life, and even politics—yes, yes, truly, even this strange construct—must be addressed. Those who understand the times must introduce into all of these things what follows from spiritual science.