Man—Hieroglyph of the Universe
GA 201
15 May 1920, Dornach
Lecture Fifteen
In the foregoing studies we have indicated how necessary it is to study Man in his entirety if we would see how exact a copy he is in all his nature of the Universe as a whole. It is specially important to receive this knowledge not only into our intellect, but also into our feeling and will; for only by regarding Man in his totality as born out of the whole Universe, can a deeper understanding be gained for that which Christianity wishes to be for the world. It might easily be objected that if this is so, a complicated understanding of the details of the Universe and of Man is demanded of modern humanity in order that Man should become complete Man in his consciousness. Yet just reflect that this demand, which now approaches humanity as a cardinal demand, is not peculiar to Spiritual Science. In order to indicate exactly what I mean, let me first put the question: What demand did Christianity bring when it first came into the world? In reality it claimed an understanding of the Universe which originally belonged to the ancient heathen conceptions, but which has in course of time been completely forgotten. Just consider what has been gradually lost to Man in course of time of the fundamental views and characteristics of Christianity. Christianity first appeared in such a way that it could only be understood by comprehending e.g. the Trinity: The Nature of God the Father, God the Son—that is, Jesus Christ—and the Spirit. In the sense in which Christianity understood these three aspects of the Divine Spiritual, the understanding of them demanded no less than does the understanding of such things as are given by Spiritual Science today. Only all that leads to the comprehension of this idea of Father, Son and Spirit has been gradually eliminated; it has been thrown out of the intelligible and become empty words; empty husks of words have alone been retained. For centuries man has had these empty word-husks. This has gone so far that, after having first dogmatically rejected them, people have begun to ridicule them. The best of men have ridiculed these empty husks. Ridicule has been poured upon them. ‘Dogmatic Theology’, it is said, ‘claims that One is Three and Three One!’ it is indeed a terrible delusion, it is sheer deception to believe that the Christian movement has ever demanded less understanding, less self-sacrificing knowledge, than that demanded by modern Spiritual Science—and demanded by it in order to regain Christianity. The most important and basic facts have been cast out of Christianity, and if we leave out of account that these live on in the different confessions as words, we can ask: What really remains to man of the fundamental ideas of Christ Himself? How does modern man discriminate between Christ and the Universal Cosmic God who can be met with in the ideas of Jahveh or Jehovah? I have drawn attention to the fact that even theologians such as Harnack do not discriminate. How many people today are clear as to what is to be understood by the Spirit? People have become such ‘abstractlings’, satisfied with the mere empty husks of words; either they remain in the churches and are satisfied; or if they are—as they call it—‘enlightened’, they turn all to ridicule. What is given in empty husks of words can never have the power to bring light to the individual activities of human knowledge.
Only reflect how far we have actually gone in this direction. All that was comprised in the knowledge of ancient Greece was at the same time a healing principle. The healer was a priest and at the same time the teacher of the people. That the teacher and priest was also a healer presupposes that something unhealthy was present in the whole process of civilisation; otherwise there would be no ground for speaking of a healer. They spoke of the healer because from an instinctive knowledge they had still an understanding of the whole cosmic process, more comprehensive and intense than we possess today. Today man pictures the cosmic process as running its course in such a way that what comes later is always the effect of what was earlier; but this is not so in reality. The older instinctive knowledge was aware that this was not so. Today men imagine, especially those who speak of progress in the abstract, that evolution is bound continually to ascend. We find this notion of an ascending evolution among the superficial philosophers of modern times. A man who is simply carried along by the general prejudices of the time, such as Wilhelm Wundt, the non-philosopher, who became the philosopher of the hour for many, also spoke as an alleged philosopher of such “Universal Progress”, without the slightest knowledge of what really lies in the actual stream of human development. We must realise that in the real stream of human development there is always a tendency to degenerate. There is not a tendency towards progress there, least of all in history. There is a continual tendency towards degeneration, and only because what we call teaching, or knowledge, works steadily against it, is that raised up which would otherwise be drawn down into the depths. Only in this way do we have progress.
Consider from this standpoint how the matter stands with the child. The child is born. People speak of heredity, but we inherit only what would lead to decline. If the child were not educated by his whole environment and later by school and by life, he would degenerate. Education is a preservative from degeneration, it brings healing. The old instinctive knowledge of Man would still regard as a healing process everything connected with knowledge, education or priesthood. In olden times the office of the doctor could not be separated from that of the priest, they were one and the same. Modern evolution has separated natural science from the science of soul and spirit, as I explained in yesterday's lecture. Thus man leaves to medical science the healing of all that which, according to Julius Robert Mayer, has nothing to do with human aims, but is concerned only with the use of the forces of the horses and their transmutation to heat in the horses, in the wagon-axles, in the streets on which the wheels ran, and so forth. This is, roughly speaking, left to the physician; and people like Rubner in Berlin, who is only a representative of this mode of thought, calculate what is necessary to human life almost as though Man were a kind of complicated stove.
But now draw the social-ethical conclusion of such a conception, and recognise that if of all that takes place in the transmutation of force the purposes and aims of Man are only a secondary effect, then we are confronted with the possibility of believing that the world could get on without these secondary effects. As a matter of fact that is really the secret belief of modern man, that the real consists only of the physical, and everything else is a side-stream, a secondary effect.
In face of such a view it would be only consistent to reject Christianity, as the materialists of the middle of the nineteenth century did. They actually carried out to its logical conclusion the materialistic cosmic conception, by saying: If naturalism is correct, then there is nothing for it but to ridicule the idea of any difference between a transgressor and a good man—for of course, just the same amount of force is transmuted into heat in the one as in the other! The questions that flash through the world at the present time are really often questions of honesty, courage and consistency. At a time when man certainly does not possess this honesty in respect of the outer things of life, it is indeed not surprising to find that it is not there in respect of these cardinal questions.
Thus it comes about that modern humanity still talks of Christ, without really knowing that He must be distinguished from the Universal God underlying all nature. If the Christ-Concept has been gradually changed into the simple God-concept, that signifies a retrogression of humanity, back to before the Mystery of Golgotha. In order to understand Christianity rightly it is necessary to take this principle of degeneration seriously, and place in opposition to it the necessity of working out of something quite different from what bears the germ of degeneration within it. The attention of present-day man must be drawn to the fact that at that time in the course of Earthly events when the Earth moved—together with man, of course—through the Mystery of Golgotha, something took place as a happening on Earth which had significance not merely for humanity, but for the entire Earth-life.
To comprehend this, Nature and Spirit must of course be studied with much greater earnestness than lies in the inclination of modern humanity. In order to explain this, let me point back to something which lived in the consciousness of man, perhaps up to the eighth century before Christ. Man did not then perceive himself as an isolated being, as he does today. Today he feels himself as a being enclosed in his skin, but up to the seventh or eighth century BC. he felt himself to be a member of the whole Universe, taking part in the events of the whole Universe. Grotesque as it may seem today, it is a fact that in those olden times man did not feel his head so strongly shut off by his skull, he felt that that which lived in his head extended into the Cosmos, and belonged to the whole starry heaven. Strange as it seems today, he felt himself in the sphere of the stars, for he felt his head in living connection with them. Thus he said to himself: ‘When the night-sky arches over me, it is really I myself, who live there in living communion of my head with the stars.’ He said: ‘I follow the course of time further, when after the night the day appears. Then the stars which rose on the one side set on the other, and in their place the Sun rises. The configuration of the stars then no longer works in my head, for the Sun takes the place of the starry heavens and my eyes it is that are co-ordinated with the Sun.’ And because he vividly felt: ‘My eyes are co-ordinated with the Sun when I am busy on Earth during the day,’ he said to himself: ‘Just as now there is an earthly existence and my eyes are co-ordinated to the Sun, so in the existence preceding the Earth (we call it the Moon existence) my whole head was a kind of eye; not as now, perceiving the objects in a twofold way, but, looking out into the Cosmos there were within me, in my brain, as it were, as many little eyes as there are stars. Out of these little eyes has grown all that lives now in my brain; and my sense-eyes are but later products, co-ordinated to the Sun as was my brain to the starry heavens. Therefore my brain is a later product of evolution of an eye, or really of many separate eyes, as many in number as the stars shining out there in the night. Thus my brain has grown out of a sense; and what is now in Earth-existence, my eye, whereby I am in communication with my Earth-environment, will be an inner organ, as is now in my brain, when the Earth has been replaced by another planet (which as you know we call the Jupiter-condition). What is now on my outer surface will draw into my inner being. People will then look different. What they now have as corresponding with their environment will form an inner organ in future times.’ Ancient humanity felt this instinctively and said: ‘Light penetrates; through the eye of my senses, but in my inner being I preserve the light of olden times. It works in me as thought. Thought was a sense-perception before the Earth became Earth, when it was an earlier planet; and my sense-perception will be thought in the future.’ In ancient times man perceived all this as wisdom, which he felt ‘instinctively’ as we should say today. The ancients did not throw about the word ‘instinctive’ as is done today, they said: ‘It is the wisdom which the Gods in heaven have brought down to us on Earth.’ Of what arose in them instinctively concerning the past, present and future they said: ‘This was brought to us by the Immortals.’ This they represented to themselves in Pictures. What does the Isis-picture tell us? ‘I am the All; I am the Past, the Present and the Future. My Veil has no mortal ever lifted.’ The modern interpretation of this is really in truth a strange one! People today think in materialistic terms about a saying containing the term ‘mortal’. They do not think, in the case of this saying of Isis: ‘I am the Past, I am the Present, I am the Future. My veil hath no Mortal yet lifted;’ but they think of it as: ‘I am the Past, the Present and the Future; my veil hath no man yet lifted.’ The people of today do not reflect how on the other hand they hold themselves to be immortal and that therefore ‘My veil hath no mortal ever lifted’ cannot be regarded as a final sentence. Novalis said: ‘Well then, we must become immortal, so that we may lift the veil of Isis.’
Let us reflect on the underlying thought brought forward by modern materialists. It gives them pleasure to think: ‘I am the All. I am the Past, the Present and the Future. My veil no man hath ever raised.’ For they are thus spared the effort of lifting it, and their philosophers can teach that man has now reached the boundaries of knowledge. In reality they mean that man is too indolent to tread the path of knowledge. They do not like to say this, so they say that man has reached the boundaries of knowledge.
In our age, which wants to be independent of authority, these things are accepted, but they must not be carried into the future, if man is not to fall into decadence. It should not be overlooked that no one has the right to call himself a Christian who believes only in a general progress and does not realise that if the Earth had been left to itself since the Mystery of Golgotha, it would have fallen into decadence. Hence it is necessary for us to oppose to this decadence something which we cannot obtain from the Earth, nor from that from which the Earth is derived—the Father-God—but which must be obtained from God the Son, and must be injected into the continuous evolution of mankind. It is an absolute deviation of man from his task of today if he continues unwilling to admit that the Universe is to be brought into relation to the Christ-Event. Think what it really means when, though stormed at by Catholic and Evangelical confessions, Spiritual Science asserts that the Christ-concept and the Cosmos-concept must be united, while against that it is always said: ‘Spiritual Science has no idea that Christ is only to be understood in an ethical sense, as something inserted only into the moral order of the world.’ If man holds the moral order of the world as a secondary effect of the transmutation of forces, then the Christ-concept inserted only into the moral order of the world, also appears as a mere secondary effect in the cosmic system.
We have spoken of one thing whereto the old instinctive knowledge of mankind pointed, namely that the human brain stands in relation to the starry sphere, and that the human eyes are in a certain way co-ordinated with the Sun-sphere. Going back into earlier periods, when man still possessed a qualitative knowledge of astronomy and of the earthly elements, we see that Light was brought into relation with what is nearest our Earth, with Air. With their instinctive knowledge, the ancients could not think of Light without Air. Modern thinkers with their abstract knowledge do not bring what they explain as Light into relation with Air. Certainly they describe it in a wonderful way—as a vibratory movement of the ether; but in relation to Air, the farthest they go is to regard the Air as a medium through which the Light passes. It is really most remarkable how little people reflect upon what is imposed upon them! Earth: Infinite Space: Stars. Among these stars are some whose Light needs millions of years to reach the Earth. Night falls. Here is a star whose Light needs a shorter time to reach the Earth. Just imagine for a moment: What have we in the rays of its Light? Certainly we do not see the star itself when we look in the direction of the Light-rays. The Light-ray which meets our eye, according to this theory, comes from something millions of years back; it may even have perished long ago, but its Light is still traveling hither. Nothing is told us of what is really out there in the Cosmos. All we are told is how channels of Light are approaching, which may perhaps lead back to some still existing star but which may also lead to some star no longer there.
We must make ourselves acquainted with the thought of how for us the Light-phenomena as such make themselves apparent in the phenomenon of Air; for although the Light passes through the apparently airless space, by us it is not seen in airless space, but in the Air-filled space, for only in such can we exist. Thus for us Light and Air are experienced together. In this way we can go more deeply into the human constitution; we can go a step further. In the human head we can pass from the eyes to the nose. The nose (and oriental philosophy knows a great deal about this), the nose is the organ through which one breathes in and breathes out. The eye is the receptive organ for Light. The nose and eye are divided. The nose is adapted to the Air, and all that is adapted to the Air extends to the world of the planets. The Sun makes the beginning in working in our earthly part; but the rest of the planets work on the rest of our constitution; and as we come down from the starry world into that of the Sun and planets we arrive, in the case of man, as it were, at the nose. Then we come down quite to the earthly, passing from the nose to the mouth, to the organ of taste, and, taking up the substances of the Earth through that organ, we descend from the planetary into the Earth-world. We have the rest of man as an appendage; the head as appendage of the eyes, the breast as appendage of the nose, and all the rest of man, the limb-man, the metabolic man as appendage of the organ of taste. We have now apportioned man, taking him in his totality, to the starry world, the solar and planetary world and the Earth-world. We have placed him into the whole Universe and when we look at his brain—inwardly, not outwardly; not by physical anatomy, but by inner knowledge—we see in the human head, inasmuch as it is the bearer of the brain, a direct copy of the starry world. We see in all that extends from the nose to the lungs, a copy of the planetary system with the Sun. If we then consider the remainder, we see that part of man which is Earth-bound, as e.g. are animals. In this way only do we arrive at the true parallel between man and the rest of the world. Thus should man be understood, even in detail.
Consider for a moment the circulation of the blood. The blood, transmuted by the outer air, enters the left auricle, passes into the left ventricle, and from thence branches off through the aorta into the organism. We can say: Blood passes from the lungs to the heart, thence into the rest of the organism, but branching off also to the head. The blood however in passing through the organism takes up the nourishment. And into this is introduced all that is dependent on the Earth. All that the digestive apparatus introduces into the circulation of the blood is earthly. What is introduced through the breathing, when we bring oxygen into the blood-course, is planetary. And then we have the blood-circulation that goes to the head, which includes all that composes the head. Just as the circulatory course of the lungs with its absorption of oxygen, and giving out of carbonic acid, belongs to the planetary system, just as what is introduced through the digestive apparatus belongs to the Earth, so that part of the circulatory course that branches off above, belongs to the starry world. It is, as it were, drawn away from the aorta and then streams back and unites with the blood streaming back from the rest of the organism, so that they stream conjointly back to the heart. That which branches off above says, as it were, to the whole of the rest of the circulatory course: ‘I do not share either in the oxygenating process nor in the digestive process, but I separate myself out. I invert myself upwards.’ That it is that belongs to the starry world. And the nervous system might be followed up in the same way.
One arrives at no perception of man by thinking that he can be studied from his physical aspect only. In so doing we only find in the cranium that pulp described by our physical anatomy! What it describes is simply non-existent. It is in reality the confluence of forces of the starry heavens. To describe the physical brain by itself, is like describing a rose by itself. That has no sense, for a rose is no entity for itself. It cannot be dissociated from its bush. It is nothing apart from its bush. So too, the human brain is nothing apart from the starry heavens.
Let us however here recall the true nature of the Sun. Again and again I have emphasised how astonished the physicists would be if they could fit out an airship (it actually forms part of their ideal to do so), and could journey to the Sun, imagining they would find there a glowing ball of gas. They would not find this, but a suction-sphere, trying to absorb everything possible into itself, really an empty space, nay even less than empty, a negation of matter. Within the circumference of the Sun there is nothing comparable to our matter. It is not merely empty, but less than empty; it is blank, just like a hole, in comparison with the rest of matter. It is really important that one should not, in these days, begin to speculate on things of the world, without any accord with reality, but fill oneself with the spirit of reality. I have recently said a good deal on the Theory of Relativity. You will remember what I brought forward regarding the Einstein box by means of which the theory of gravity is to be overcome. Another affirmation of Einstein's is that even the dimension of a body is merely relative, and depends on the rapidity of movement. Thus, according to the Einstein theory, if a man moved through cosmic space with a certain velocity, he would not retain his bulk from front to back, but would become as thin as a sheet of paper. This is discussed in all seriousness. Such dwelling in thoughts foreign to reality forms the ‘science’ of today. And it is the opposite pole to what we have on the other hand as faith.
The physician has been relegated to the purely physical, the priest to what is purely of the soul. As for the Spiritual, it is abolished. But when it comes to considering everything outside the physical as a side-issue—horses, coach, these are real to the physical senses; and the forces of the horses, these are transmuted into heat, heat of the horses, heat of the axles, and heat of the furrows of the road; and for the rest, well, we cannot even call the rest a ‘fifth wheel’ of the wagon, for it is less that that, it is a mere side-issue, a secondary effect. As regards the priest, one cannot even say that he is the fifth wheel of the wagon in the modern conception—for what does he achieve if all the ‘rest’ is a side-issue? When physicians such as Julius Robert Mayer make philosophy, they make physics; and when the adherents of soul-substance, or whatever it is, make philosophy, it becomes abstract concepts; and the two world-streams flow on side by side quite foreign to one another, the materialistic physician of the middle of the nineteenth century and the preaching pastor; they have really neither understood nor even paid attention to one another, at most perhaps they have contended politically. A time has assuredly now come in which there is but little honesty or consistency, and this state of things must be seriously combated and overcome.
We have not only to combat ill-will, but what perhaps has also to be taken into account, namely all kinds of stupidity and ignorance. That is how things are.—Let me draw your attention especially to the fact that from a certain motive I intend at Whitsun to give three lectures on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. [*See The Redemption of Thinking. English translation of these lectures by A. P. Shepherd and Mildred Robertson Nicoll. Published by Hodder and Stoughton (1956).] I do not know whether our opponents will deny us the right to study Thomas Aquinas here. As you know, by an order of Pope Leo XIII, the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas was declared the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church and I wonder whether this, which we are about to study here, will be described as an unlawful propaganda issuing from Dornach! We will wait and see. Let the wind whistle from whatever quarter, we will await it. But perhaps it is well that we should once meet all the talk that comes from that particular quarter with a serious study of the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas.
Fünfzehnter Vortrag
[ 1 ] Aus den Betrachtungen, die wir hier angestellt haben, werden Sie gesehen haben, wie nötig es ist, den Menschen in seiner Ganzheit zu betrachten, um darauf zu kommen, wie genau eigentlich der Mensch in all seiner Beschaffenheit ein Abbild ist der Gesamtwelt. Dies aufzunehmen ist außerordentlich bedeutsam, nicht nur in die verstandesmäßige Erkenntnis, sondern auch in die gefühlsmäßige Erkenntnis, in die willensmäßige Erkenntnis. Denn nur dadurch, daß man den Menschen in seiner Gesamtheit herausgeboren ansieht aus der Gesamtwelt, wird man ein tieferes Verständnis gewinnen können auch für dasjenige, was nun im Fundamente das Christentum der Welt sein will. Man kann sehr leicht einwenden: Ja, da wird von der modernen Menschheit ein kompliziertes Verstehen der Einzelheiten der Welt gefordert und auch ein kompliziertes Verstehen der Einzelheiten des Menschen, um gewissermaßen dadurch erst in seinem Bewußtsein ein ganzer Mensch zu sein. Aber bedenken Sie doch nur, daß diese Forderung, die jetzt wie eine Kardinalforderung an die Menschheit herantritt, nicht etwa bloß der jetzt auftretenden Geisteswissenschaft eigen ist. Um auf dasjenige hinzuweisen, was ich meine, möchte ich Ihnen zunächst die Frage aufwerfen: Was alles hat denn eigentlich das Christentum bei seinem Auftreten gebracht? Das Christentum hat ja gebracht im Grunde genommen die Anforderung eines Weltverständnisses, das wirklich ein recht ausgebreitetes war. Und dieses Weltverständnis, das angeknüpft hat an die alten heidnischen Vorstellungen, dieses Weltverständnis, das ist im Laufe der Zeit eigentlich völlig vergessen worden. Bedenken Sie doch nur einmal, was den Menschen im Laufe der Zeit allmählich gegeben worden ist von den Fundamentalanschauungen, den Fundamentalideen des Christentums. Das Christentum trat ja so auf, daß man es nur verstehen konnte, wenn man zum Beispiel die Trinität verstand, wenn man verstand das Wesen des Vatergottes, des Sohnesgottes, das heißt des Christus Jesus, und des Geistes. In dem Sinne, wie das Christentum diese drei Aspekte des GöttlichGeistigen verstand, gehörte nicht weniger dazu, als zum Verständnis von solchen Dingen, wie sie heute durch die Geisteswissenschaft vorgebracht werden. Nur hat man allmählich dasjenige, was zum Verständnis dieser Ideen führte, des Vaters, des Sohnes, des Geistes, man hat das allmählich eliminiert, man hat es herausgeworfen aus dem Verständlichen und hat behalten leere Worte, leere Worthülsen. Und durch Jahrhunderte hindurch haben die Menschen leere Worthülsen gehabt. Das ist so weit gekommen, daß dann die Menschen sogar, nachdem sie zuerst dogmatisch zurückgewiesen haben die leeren Worthülsen, dann angefangen haben, über diese leeren Worthülsen zu spotten. Beste Menschen haben über diese leeren Worthülsen gespottet. Man bedenke nur einmal, was alles für Spott ergossen worden ist etwa in der Form, daß man gesagt hat, die Dogmatik fordert, daß Eins Drei und Drei Eins sei. Es ist ja eine furchtbare Illusion, es ist ja eine bloße Täuschung, wenn die Menschen glauben, das, was einstmals das Christentum in seiner Strömung geführt hat, erfordere weniger Verständnis, weniger hingebungsvolle Erkenntnis als dasjenige, was - um das Christentum wiederum zu erobern - die heutige Geisteswissenschaft gibt. Allerdings, die wichtigsten, die fundamentalsten Dinge sind ja aus dem Christentum herausgeworfen worden, und wenn man davon absieht, daß sie in den einzelnen Bekenntnissen als Worte fortleben, so kann man fragen: Was ist denn eigentlich von den Fundamentalbegriffen des Christus selber den Menschen in Wirklichkeit verblieben? Wie unterscheidet denn der moderne Mensch - ich habe Sie darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß nicht einmal Theologen wie Harnack es unterscheiden - dasjenige, was der Christus ist, von dem, was ein allgemeiner Weltengott ist, den man auch treffen würde mit dem Begriff des Jahve oder Jehova? Und erst, wie viele Menschen machen sich denn heute klar, was zu verstehen ist unter dem Geiste oder dem Heiligen Geiste? Die Menschen sind ja allmählich solche Abstraktlinge geworden, daß sie eben zufrieden sind mit den leeren Worthülsen, daß sie entweder, wenn sie in dem Bekenntnis stehenbleiben, eben zufrieden sind, oder wenn sie, wie man dies dann nennt, aufgeklärt werden, daß sie dann spotten. Aber niemals wird dasjenige, was da aufgebracht wird in den leeren Worthülsen, die Macht erringen können, Licht hineinzubringen in die einzelnen Betätigungen der menschlichen Erkenntnis.
[ 2 ] Bedenken Sie nur, wie weit wir in dieser Beziehung eigentlich gekommen sind. Alles, was noch in älteren griechischen Zeiten Erkenntnis war, war zu gleicher Zeit Inhalt eines Heilprinzipes. Der Heiler war Priester und war zu gleicher Zeit der Lehrer des Volkes. Daß der Lehrer des Volkes, daß der Priester zugleich Heiler ist, das setzt voraus, daß irgend etwas Krankes vorausgesetzt wird in dem ganzen Kulturprozesse. Sonst hätte man ja keine Berechtigung, vom Heiler zu sprechen. Man sprach vom Heiler, weil man aus instinktiver Erkenntnis heraus noch in einer gewissen Beziehung einen umfassenderen, einen intensiveren Begriff von dem ganzen Weltenprozeß hatte, als man heute hat. Heute stellt man sich den Weltenprozeß so vor, daß er eben abläuft und das Spätere immer die Wirkung des Vorhergehenden ist. Aber so ist es in Wirklichkeit nicht. Und eine ältere, instinktive Erkenntnis hat das gewußt, daß es in Wirklichkeit nicht so ist. Man stellt sich heute vor, und insbesondere diejenigen, die von einem abstrakten Fortschritt sprechen, sie stellen sich vor: Na, es geht halt die Entwickelung immer aufwärts. - Diese Anschauung von einer solchen aufwärtsgehenden Entwickelung (Tafel 28, Mitte; Schräge, darin Pfeile) finden wir ja selbst bei der oberflächlich gewordenen Philosophie der neueren Zeit. Ein solcher Mensch, der einfach emporgetragen worden ist von dem Gesamtvorurteil der Zeit, wie Wilhelm Wundt, der Unphilosoph, der zu dem Zeitphilosophen für viele Menschen geworden ist, ein solcher Mensch spricht auch als angeblicher Philosoph von einem solchen allgemeinen Fortschritte, ohne die geringste Erkenntnis, was eigentlich in der wirklichen Strömung des Menschenwerdens liegt. Wir müssen uns aber vorstellen, daß in der wirklichen Strömung des Menschenwerdens fortwährend liegt ein Bestreben zu entarten. Es ist nicht eine Tendenz des Fortschrittes da, vor allen Dingen nicht in der Geschichte. Es ist eine fortwährende Tendenz da zur Entartung (Pfeile nach unten). Und nur dadurch, daß ständig dieser Tendenz zu entarten entgegengewirkt wird von dem, was wir Lehre, Erkenntnis und so weiter nennen, dadurch wird dasjenige, was sonst in die Tiefen hinunterziehen würde, hinaufgehoben. Und nur dadurch entsteht ein Fortschritt (Pfeile nach oben, rot).

[ 3 ] Sehen wir von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus einmal an, wie es sich verhält mit. dem Kinde. Das Kind wird geboren. Man spricht von Vererbungen. Ja aber, vererbt wird nur dasjenige, was zum Niedergange führen würde, was in die Dekadenz führen würde. Würde nicht das Kind erzogen werden schon durch die ganze Umgebung und später durch die Schule, durch das Leben, so würde das Kind entarten. Erziehung ist also in Wirklichkeit Bewahrung vor dem Entarten. Also, das wirkt Heilung. Als ein Heilungsprozeß wurde noch von der instinktiven Menschenerkenntnis aus alles angesehen, womit Erkenntnis, womit Erziehung, womit Priestertum irgend etwas zu tun hat. Für ältere Anschauungen war der Arzt vom Priester gar nicht zu trennen, war eines und dasselbe; erst die neuere Entwickelung hat Naturwissen und geist-seelisches Wissen so auseinandergetrennt, wie ich das gestern auseinandergesetzt habe. So daß man dem naturwissenschaftlichen Arzt überläßt, alles dasjenige zu heilen, was nach Ju/ius Robert Mayers Anschauung nichts zu tun hat mit dem, was Menschenziele sind und so weiter, sondern nur zu tun hat mit so etwas, wie die Aufwendung der umgewandelten Pferdekräfte in die Erhitzung der Pferde, der Wagenachsen, die Erhitzung der Straße, über die das Rad geht und so weiter. Das ungefähr überläßt man dem physischen Arzt. Und Leute wie Ruder in Berlin, der ja aber nur der Repräsentant dieser Richtung ist, die berechnen dasjenige, was der Mensch zum Leben nötig hat, ungefähr so, wie wenn der Mensch eine Art von komplizierterem Ofen wäre.
[ 4 ] Ziehen Sie nun die sozial-ethische Konsequenz einer solchen Anschauung, ziehen Sie sie so, daß Sie erkennen, wenn alles, was da in der Umwandelung der Kräfte vor sich geht, nur zu Nebeneffekten dasjenige hat, was da überhaupt geschieht als die Absichten und Ziele der Menschen, dann ist ja die Möglichkeit, die Denkmöglichkeit da, daß die Welt auch ohne diese Nebenabsichten bestehe. Und im Grunde genommen ist das ja die eigentlich geheime Meinung des neueren Menschen, daß das Wirkliche nur in dem Physikalischen bestehe und das andere Nebeneffekte sind.
[ 5 ] Sehen Sie, gegenüber einer solchen Anschauung wäre es einzig und allein konsequent, das Christentum streng abzulehnen, wie es die Materialisten um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts getan haben. Diese Materialisten um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts - ich habe einzelnes von ihnen angeführt im Basler öffentlichen Vortrage - sind nun wirklich bis zu den Konsequenzen der materialistischen Weltanschauung gegangen. Sie haben die Konsequenzen gezogen, indem sie gesagt haben: Ist der Naturalismus richtig, dann bleibt nichts anderes übrig, als es lächerlich zu finden, einen Unterschied zu machen zwischen dem Verbrecher und dem guten Menschen, denn selbstverständlich verwandelt sich in dem Verbrecher genau ebenso die aufgewendete Kraft in Wärme wie in dem guten Menschen. Die Fragen, die heute die Welt durchzucken, sind im Grunde genommen vielfach Fragen der Ehrlichkeit, des Mutes, der Konsequenz. In einer Zeit allerdings, in der man nicht solche Ehrlichkeit in bezug auf die äußeren Dinge des Lebens hat, ist es ja nicht verwunderlich, daß in®bezug auf diese Kardinalfragen diese Ehrlichkeit nicht da ist.
[ 6 ] Und so kommt es, daß die heutige Menschheit noch von Christus redet, ohne eigentlich wirklich etwas davon zu wissen, daß dieser Christus sich wirklich unterscheiden muß von einem allgemeinen Gott, der der ganzen Natur zugrunde liegt. Wenn allmählich die Christus-Vorstellung übergeht in die bloße Gottes-Vorstellung, dann bedeutet das einen Rückschritt der Menschheit hinter das Mysterium von Golgatha zurück. Um aber das Christentum wirklich zu fassen, dazu ist notwendig, daß dieses Prinzip der Entartung ernst genommen werde und daß diesem Prinzip der Entartung ernst gegenübergestellt werde die Notwendigkeit, aus etwas ganz anderem heraus zu arbeiten, als aus dem, was den Keim der Entartung in sich trägt. Die gegenwärtige Menschheit wird aufmerksam darauf werden müssen, daß in dem Zeitpunkte, in dem die Erde sich hinbewegte — mit der Menschheit selbstverständlich — zu dem Mysterium von Golgatha, durch das Mysterium von Golgatha innerhalb des Erdengeschehens sich etwas abspielte, was nicht bloß ein Rationalistisches des Menschlichen bedeutet hat, sondern was ein Rationalistisches bedeutet hat für das ganze Erdenleben.
[ 7 ] Allerdings, will man dieses einsehen, dann muß man Natur und Geist in einer viel intensiveren Weise studieren, als das in der Neigung der heutigen Menschheit liegt. Um uns zu verständigen, möchte ich Sie zurückweisen auf etwas, was im Bewußtsein der Menschheit vielleicht bis zum 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderte lebte. Der Mensch bis zum 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderte fühlte sich in der Tat nicht als ein so isoliertes, abgeschlossenes Wesen, wie er sich heute fühlt. Heute fühlt sich ja der Mensch eigentlich nur als das Wesen, das innerhalb seiner Haut eingeschlossen ist. Der Mensch bis zum 7. oder 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderte fühlte sich einmal als ein Glied des ganzen Weltenalls, und er fühlte sich auch hineingestellt in das Geschehen des ganzen Weltenalls. Er fühlte nicht in einer solchen intensiven Weise — die Sache erscheint dem heutigen Menschen fast grotesk, aber es ist so -, der Mensch dieser alten Zeiten fühlte nicht so, wie der heutige Mensch, sein Haupt streng abgeschlossen durch die Schädeldecke, sondern er fühlte, daß dasjenige, was in seinem Haupte lebte, eine Fortsetzung hat hinaus in die Welt und hinzugehört zu dem gesamten Sternenhimmel (Tafel 29, links; Himmelsbogen blau, Sterne und Strahlen gelb). Der Mensch - so sonderbar es dem heutigen Menschen erscheint — fühlte sein Haupt so, daß es lebendig zusammenhing mit den Sternen. So daß er sich sagte: Indem sich über mir der Nachthimmel wölbt, bin zc# es eigentlich, der da in lebendiger Kommunikation meines Hauptes mit den Sternen lebt. — Und er sagte sich: Wenn ich nun weitergehe im Zeitenlaufe, wenn nach der Nacht der Tag erscheint, die Sterne, die erst auf der einen Seite heraufgekommen sind, auf der anderen Seite hinuntergehen, dann tritt an die Stelle der Sterne die Sonne. Da wirkt nicht mehr in meinem Haupte die Konfiguration des Sternenhimmels, sondern da vertritt die Sonne die Stelle des Sternenhimmels, und der Sonne zugeordnet sind meine Augen. - Und nun, indem er das empfand: Der Sonne zugeordnet sind meine Augen, wenn ich während des Tages mich auf der Erde beschäftige, - indem er das lebendig empfand, sagte er sich: So wie jetzt, da es ein Erdendasein gibt, meine Augen zugeordnet sind der Sonne, so war in demjenigen Dasein, das der Erde voranging - wir nennen es Mondendasein -, mein ganzes Haupt eine Art Auge; nur sah dieses Auge nicht so wie jetzt eben nur in zweifacher, die Gegenstände zusammenfassender Weise, sondern es sah hinaus in den Weltenraum, es waren gewissermaßen in mir, in meinem Gehirn, so viele kleine Augen, als Sterne sind. Aus diesen kleinen Augen ist alles dasjenige geworden, was jetzt in meinem Gehirn lebt, und meine Sinnesaugen sind spätere Produkte, die der Sonne zugeordnet sind, wie mein Gehirn zugeordnet war dem Sternenhimmel. Mein Gehirn ist daher ein späteres Entwickelungsprodukt eines Auges, oder eigentlich vieler Teilaugen, so vieler Teilaugen, als Sonnen da draußen leuchten zur Nachteszeit. Aus dem Sinn ist mein Gehirn geworden. Und was jetzt im Erdendasein mein Auge ist, wodurch ich mit dem, was in meiner irdischen Umgebung lebt, in Kommunikation stehe, das wird Innenorgan sein, wie jetzt mein Gehirn, wenn die Erde einmal von einem zukünftigen Planetenzustand abgelöst ist — Sie wissen, wir nennen das Jupiterzustand. Was jetzt äußerlich an meiner Oberfläche ist, das zieht in mein Inneres dann ein. Die Menschen werden anders ausschauen. Was sie jetzt als korrespondierend mit der Umgebung haben, das wird in der Zukunft Innenorgan sein. — So hat instinktiv eine alte Menschheit gefühlt, hat gesagt: Licht dringt dutch mein Sinnesauge; aber in meinem Inneren bewahre ich das Licht der alten Zeiten; das wirkt in mir als Gedanke. Der Gedanke war Sinneswahrnehmung, als noch nicht Erde war, als die Erde noch ein anderer Planet war. Und meine Sinneswahrnehmung wird Gedanke der Zukunft sein. — Das alles empfand man in alten Zeiten als eine Weisheit, die - wir sagen heute - instinktiv empfunden wurde. Die Alten haben nicht mit dem Wort «instinktiv» so unverständig herumgeworfen, wie die gegenwärtige Menschheit das tut, sondern die Alten haben gesagt: Das ist die Weisheit, die uns die Götter vom Himmel auf die Erde gebracht haben. — Dasjenige, was in ihnen instinktiv aufgegangen ist von Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft, von dem haben sie gesagt: Das haben uns gebracht die Unsterblichen. — Und sie haben es sich vorgestellt im Bilde. Und das Isis-Bild, was sagt es denn? «Ich bin das All. Ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft. Meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet.» Die Interpretation, die die neuere Menschheit gibt, ist eigentlich eine sonderbare. Denn die neuere Menschheit denkt bei einem solchen Satze, in dem ja «Sterblicher» steht, schon materialistisch. Sie denkt eigentlich bei dem Isis-Satze nicht: «Ich bin die Vergangenheit, ich bin die Gegenwart, ich bin die Zukunft. Meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet», sondern sie denkt eigentlich: «Ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft. Meinen Schleier hat noch kein Mensch gelüftet.» So denkt die moderne Menschheit. Sie denkt gar nicht daran, daß sie ja auf der andern Seite sich selbst für unsterblich hält, und daß sie daher das «Meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet» gar nicht als eine abschließende Sache betrachten kann. Novalis hat gesagt: Nun gut, dann müssen wir eben Unsterbliche werden, um den Schleier der Isis zu lüften!

[ 8 ] Man denke sich nur, welchen Untergedanken diese moderne materialistische Menschheit hervorgebracht hat. Aber es tut ihr auch wohl; denn indem sie denkt: «Ich bin das All. Ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft. Meinen Schleier hat noch kein Mensch gelüftet», so erspart sie sich die Anstrengung, um den Schleier zu lüften, und ihre Philosophen können tradieren, daß der Mensch ja die Grenzen der Erkenntnis hat. In Wahrheit meinen diese Philosophen, daß der Mensch zu faul ist, um den Erkenntnisweg zu gehen. Aber das mögen sie nicht sagen. Daher sagen sie, der Mensch habe Grenzen der Erkenntnis. Und in unserer Zeit, die autoritätsfrei sein will, nimmt man diese Dinge hin. Sie dürfen in der Zukunft nicht hingenommen werden, wenn die Menschheit nicht in die Dekadenz fallen will. Und es darf nicht übersehen werden, daß niemand das Recht hat, sich einen Christen zu nennen, der nur an einen allgemeinen Fortschritt glaubt, der sich nicht darüber klar ist, daß, wenn die Erde sich seit dem Mysterium von Golgatha selbst überlassen wäre, sie in die Dekadenz verfallen würde. So daß wir nötig haben, der Dekadenz etwas entgegenzusetzen, das wir nicht von der Erde nehmen können, nicht aus dem nehmen können, woraus die Erde ist, nicht aus dem Vatergotte nehmen können, sondern nehmen müssen von dem Sohnesgotte, es einimpfen müssen demjenigen, was fortlaufende Menschheitsentwickelung ist. Es ist durchaus ein Ablenken der Menschheit von dem, was ihre jetzige Aufgabe ist, wenn man immerzu nicht zugeben will, daß das Weltenall in Zusammenhang zu bringen ist mit dem Christus-Ereignis. Denken Sie nur, was es eigentlich heißt, wenn von katholischer und evangelischer Bekenntnisseite dagegen gewettert wird, daß durch die Geisteswissenschaft geltend gemacht werde, es müsse der ChristusGedanke an den Kosmos-Gedanken angeknüpft werden, wenn dagegen immer wieder gesagt wird, es hätte diese Geisteswissenschaft keinen Begriff davon, daß der Christus zunächst nur als etwas Ethisches aufzufassen ist, als etwas, was sich nur in die moralische Weltenordnung hineinstellt. Ja, wenn man die moralische Weltenordnung nur als einen Nebeneffekt der Umwandelung der Kräfte hat, dann stellt sich der Christus-Gedanke, wenn er sich nur in die moralische Weltenordnung hineinstellt, auch eben als ein Nebeneffekt der Weltenordnung dar.
[ 9 ] Das war also eines, worauf eine sogenannte instinktive Erkenntnis der Menschheit hingewiesen hat, wie das menschliche Gehirn im Zusammenhange steht mit der Sternensphäre, wie das menschliche Auge in gewisser Weise zugeordnet ist der Sonnensphäre. Wenn Sie zurückgehen in gewisse ältere Zeiten, wo man noch eine qualitative Erkenntnis gehabt hat von astronomischen Dingen und auch von irdisch-elementarischen Dingen, so werden Sie sehen, daß man da das Licht in eine gewisse Beziehung bringt mit dem, was um unsere Erde zunächst herum ist, mit der Luft. Die Alten in ihrer instinktiven Erkenntnis konnten sich das Licht ohne die Luft nicht denken. Die Neueren in ihrer Abstraktionserkenntnis sondern so etwas, was sie sich als Licht auslegen - allerdings, sie schildern es als schwingende Bewegung des Äthers und sie schildern es in einer ganz sonderbaren Weise -, sie sondern es von der Luft ab und können es mit der Luft nicht anders zusammenbringen, als daß sie höchstens die Luft als ein Mittel betrachten, durch welches das Licht durchgeht. Aber sehen Sie, es ist ja eigentlich höchst merkwürdig, wie wenig die Menschen nachdenken über dasjenige, was ihnen, ich möchte sagen, vorgemacht wird: Erde, der unendliche Weltenraum, Sterne. (Tafel 29, ganz links; Umkreis zum Teil auf der anderen Tafel.) Ja, unter diesen Sternen sind solche, von denen das Licht Millionen von Jahren braucht, um auf die Erde herunterzukommen. Jetzt wird es Nacht. Da ist ein Stern, da braucht das Licht kürzere Zeit, um auf die Erde herunterzukommen. Nehmen Sie nun einmal an, was haben Sie denn in den Lichtstrahlen? Doch wahrhaftig nicht den Stern, wenn Sie hinausschauen in der Richtung des Lichtstrahles. Der Lichtstrahl, der da in Ihr Auge fällt nach dieser Theorie, der kommt ja von etwas, was Jahrmillionen zurückliegt; das kann sogar schon längst kaputt gegangen sein, da kommt noch immer das Licht her. Was da eigentlich in der Welt draußen ist, von dem sollte ja nicht geredet werden. Es sollte ja eigentlich nur davon geredet werden, daß da Lichtkanäle ankommen, die vielleicht noch zu irgendwelchen existierenden Sternen führen können, aber auch zu solchen, die gar nicht mehr da sind.
[ 10 ] Wir müssen uns durchaus befreunden damit, wie ja für uns Lichterscheinungen als solche sich in der Lufterscheinung darstellen. Wenn auch das Licht durch den scheinbar luftleeren Raum geht, für uns stellt es sich nicht im luftleeren Raume dar, sondern im lufterfüllten Raume, denn nur da können wir sein. Und so lebt sich für uns zusammen Licht und Luft. Dadurch kommt man dann, indem man, ich möchte sagen, in Licht und Luft zusammen lebt, in der Menschenkonstitution tiefer. Man kommt um ein Stück tiefer; man kommt am menschlichen Haupte vom Auge zur Nase. Die Nase ist ja zunächst - und die orientalische Philosophie wußte viel davon dasjenige, wodurch man ein- und ausatmet. Das Auge ist das Aufnahmeorgan für das Licht. Nase und Auge teilen sich. Die Nase paßt sich der Luft an, und alles, was sich da der Luft anpaßt, das verlängert sich hinaus in die Planetenwelt. Die Sonne macht den Anfang, indem sie auf unser Auge wirkt. Aber das übrige wirkt auf unsere übrige Konstitution, und wir kommen herunter aus der Sternenwelt in die Welt der Sonne und Planeten und sind beim Menschen als dem auf seine Nase hin Konstituierten angekommen. Und dann kommen wir gar zur Erde herunter und gehen von der Nase zum Munde, zum Geschmacksorgan, und nehmen da die Stoffe der Erde auf durch das Geschmacksorgan, kommen von der planetarischen Welt in die Erdenwelt herein. Und wir haben den übrigen Menschen wie ein Anhängsel, den Kopf als ein Anhängsel der Augen, die Brust als ein Anhängsel der Nase, den ganzen übrigen Menschen, den Gliedmaßenmenschen, den Stoffwechselmenschen im ganzen als ein Anhängsel des Geschmacksorgans. Und wir haben den Menschen zugeteilt, wenn wir ihn nun in seiner Gesamtheit auffassen, der Sternenwelt, der Sonnen- und Planetenwelt, der Erdenwelt (diese Gebiete werden in die Zeichnung links, Tafel 29, eingezeichnet). Wir haben den Menschen hineingestellt in das ganze Weltenall, und wir sehen in dem menschlichen Haupte, insofern es der Träger des Gehirnes ist - innerlich, nicht äußerlich, nicht durch physische Anatomie, sondern dutch inneres Wissen — ein unmittelbares Abbild der Sternenwelt. Wir sehen in alledem, was von der Nase sich verlängert zur Lunge und so weiter, ein Abbild des Planetensystems mit der Sonne. Und wenn wir dann dasjenige, was vom Menschen übrigbleibt, ins Auge fassen, dann sehen wir in dem dasjenige, was vom Menschen so erdgebunden ist, wie zum Beispiel das Tier erdgebunden ist. Auf diese Art kommen wir erst auf den wirklichen Parallelismus zwischen dem Menschen und der übrigen Welt. Wir sehen ihn herausgedeutet aus dieser übrigen Welt. Und so sollte man den Menschen auch im einzelnen verstehen.
[ 11 ] Bedenken Sie einmal, wenn Sie den Blutkreislauf betrachten, wie, sagen wir, zunächst das von der äußeren Luft umgewandelte Blut in die linke Herzvorkammer geht, dann von da in die linke Herzkammer, von da abzweigend dutch die Hauptschlagader, durch die Aorta in den Organismus (Zeichnung rechts). Wir können sagen: Blut von der Lunge zum Herzen, von da in den übrigen Organismus, aber mit einer Abzweigung zum Haupte. Das Blut, das durch den Organismus durchgeht, nimmt aber dann die Nahrung auf. In sie ist eingeschaltet alles dasjenige, was von der Erde abhängig ist. Was da als der Verdauungsapparat eingeschaltet ist in den Blutkreislauf, das ist irdisch; was eingeschaltet ist dadurch, daß wir atmen, wo wir in die Blutbahn den Sauerstoff hineinbringen, das ist planetarisch; und dann haben wir jenen Blutkreislauf, der in unser Haupt geht, der alles dasjenige umschließt, was unser Haupt ist. Wie der Lungenkreislauf mit der Sauerstoffaufnahme, Kohlensäureabgabe, dem Planetarischen zugeteilt ist, wie dasjenige, was in unserem Blut eingefügt wird durch unseren Verdauungsapparat, der Erde zugeteilt ist, so ist dasjenige, was da in dem kleinen Kreislauf nach oben sich abzweigt, der Sternenwelt zugeteilt. Das wird gewissermaßen herausgezogen aus der Aorta und strömt dann wiederum zurück, vereinigt sich mit dem vom übrigen Organismus zurückströmenden Blute, so daß das Blut von oben und unten gemeinsam zum Herzen zurückströmt. Dies, was da oben abgezweigt ist, das sagt gewissermaßen zu dem ganzen übrigen Kreislauf: Ich mache nicht mit, weder den Sauerstoffprozeß noch den Verdauungsprozeß, sondern ich sondere mich aus, ich stülpe mich da drüber. — Das ist dasjenige, was mit der Sternenwelt zusammenhängt. Ebenso könnte man es für das Nervensystem verfolgen. Man bekommt keine Anschauung von dem Menschen, wenn man glaubt, man könne bloß den Menschen nehmen, wie man ihn sinnlich vor sich hat, und könne ihn da studieren. Da findet man jenen Brei innerhalb der Schädelhöhle, welchen unsere physische Anatomie beschreibt. In Wahrheit ist dasjenige, was unsere physische Anatomie beschreibt, eben ein Nichts, denn es ist der Zusammenfluß von Kräften des Sternenhimmels. Und es ist geradeso unsinnig, dieses physische Gehirn für sich zu beschreiben, wie wenn man eine Rose für sich beschreiben wollte. Es hat doch keinen Sinn, eine Rose für sich zu beschreiben, denn sie ist kein Wesen für sich. Sie kann nicht abgesondert gedacht werden vom Rosenstock. Sie geht ja zugrunde, wenn sie abgesondert ist vom Rosenstock. Sie ist nichts, vom Rosenstock abgesondert. So ist das menschliche Gehirn nichts, vom Sternenhimmel abgesondert.
[ 12 ] Aber jetzt erinnern wir uns an dasjenige, was ja eigentlich die Sonne ist. Ich habe Ihnen immer wieder und wiederum betont, die Physiker würden sehr erstaunt sein, wenn sie einen Luftballon ausrüsten könnten, wie es ja jedenfalls in ihrem Ideale liegt, und da hinausfahren könnten zur Sonne in der Vermutung, einen glühenden Gasball zu finden. Den würden sie nicht finden, sondern sie fänden eine Saugsphäte, etwas, was allerdings alles mögliche in sich aufsaugen will, aber was eigentlich leerer Raum ist, und noch mehr leer ist als leerer Raum, negative Materie. Innerhalb des Umkreises der Sonne liegt nichts, was sich vergleichen ließe mit unserer Materie. Das ist nicht nur leer, das ist weniger als leer, das ist ausgespart gegenüber der übrigen Materie. Es handelt sich eben durchaus darum, daß man nun wirklich nicht in der heutigen Zeit beginnt, wirklichkeitsungemäß über die Dinge der Welt zu spekulieren, sondern daß man sich erfülle mit Wirklichkeitsgeist. Ich habe Ihnen ja vor kurzer Zeit ein hübsches Stückchen von der Relativitätstheorie gesagt. Sie erinnern sich an den Kasten, den ich Ihnen da vorgeführt habe, den Einsteinschen Kasten, wodurch die Gravitationslehre überwunden werden soll. Ein anderes ist das, was Einstein ja auch geltend gemacht hat, daß auch die Ausdehnung eines Körpers etwas bloß Relatives ist, und daß sie abhängt von der Schnelligkeit der Bewegung, daß also auch, nach der Einsteinschen Theorie, ein Mensch, wenn er sich mit einer gewissen Geschwindigkeit durch den Weltenraum bewegt, nicht mehr die Dicke hat von vorne nach hinten, die er hat, sondern wenn er sich mit der nötigen Geschwindigkeit bewegt, so dünn wird wie ein Papier. Das ist etwas, was da ernsthaftig besprochen wird unter den Einsteinern, unter diesen Leuten mit der epochemachenden Erfindung der Relativitätstheorie. Solches Verweilen in wirklichkeitsfremden Gedanken, das bildet ja heute schon Wissenschaft. Und das ist der Gegenpol für dasjenige, was auf der anderen Seite Bekenntnis ist.
[ 13 ] Der Arzt ist verwiesen worden auf das bloß Physische, der Priester auf das bloß Seelische. Das Geistige ist ja abgeschafft. Der Priester ist verwiesen auf das bloß Seelische. Aber denken Sie nur, wenn das sich so fortentwickelt, daß alles, was außerhalb des Physischen liegt, Nebeneffekte sind! Pferde, Wagen, real den physischen Sinnen, die aufgewendeten Pferdekräfte, sie wandeln sich um in das Heißerwerden der Pferde, der Wagenachse, das Heißerwerden der Straßenfurchen; das andere ist — ja, man kann nicht sagen, das fünfte Rad am Wagen, denn es ist ja weniger als das fünfte Rad am Wagen, es ist ein bloßer Nebeneffekt, der eigentlich nicht zur Realität dazugehört. Und während der Arzt sich bloß mit der Umwandelung der Kräfte befaßt, beschäftigt sich dann mit dem Nebeneffekt der Priester. Der ist also auch eigentlich, man kann nicht einmal mehr sagen, das fünfte Rad am Wagen innerhalb der modernen Weltanschauung, denn was erzielt der denn noch, wenn das alles Nebeneffekte sind? Es ist schon so, wenn Ärzte wie Julius Robert Mayer Philosophie machen, dann wird das Physik, und wenn die Anhänger der Seelensubstanz, oder was es dann halt ist, wenn die Philosophie machen, so werden es abstrakte Begriffe, und die zwei Weltenströmungen stehen einander so fremd gegenüber, wie die materialistischen Ärzte von der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts und die predigenden Pfarrer. Die haben sich wahrhaftig nicht verstanden, auch nicht geachtet, sondern - nun, vielleicht sich höchstens politisch bekämpft. Nun ist allerdings eine Zeit heraufgestiegen, in der man weniger ehrlich, weniger konsequent ist, und die nun ganz ernsthaftig überwunden werden muß. Aber - ernsthaftig muß das schon geschehen.
[ 14 ] Wir haben nicht nur zu kämpfen gegen bösen Willen, sondern schon auch, was ja vielleicht doch auch in die Waagschale fällt, gegen alle Standpunkte der Dummheit und der Unkenntnis. Nun ja, so sind die Dinge. Dann darf ich noch persönlich betonen, daß ich ja aus einem gewissen Antriebe heraus zu Pfingsten sprechen werde in drei Vorträgen am Samstag, Sonntag und Montag über die Philosophie des Thomas von Aquino, am Samstag über den Augustinismus und am Sonntag über den Thomismus als solchen, über das Wesen des Thomismus, und am Pfingstmontag über den Thomismus und die Gegenwart. Ich weiß nicht, ob dann unsere Gegner nicht auch damit anfangen werden, daß sie uns das Recht absprechen, uns hier über den Thomismus zu unterhalten, zu belehren. Aber es ist vielleicht doch am besten, dem Gerede, das aus jener Ecke herkommt, einmal eine ernsthafte Betrachtung des Thomismus entgegenzusetzen. Sie wissen ja, daß durch eine Enzyklika Leo XII. der Thomismus zu der offiziellen Philosophie des Katholizismus erklärt worden ist, und ich weiß nicht, ob nun dasjenige, was hier als Thomismus wird vorgetragen werden, nun auch als eine unberechtigte Propaganda, die von Dornach ausgeht, wird bezeichnet werden. Wollen wir einmal sehen, was daraus wird.
Fifteenth Lecture
[ 1 ] From the considerations we have made here, you will have seen how necessary it is to view the human being in his wholeness in order to arrive at an understanding of how exactly the human being in all his constitution is an image of the whole world. It is extremely important to take this on board, not only in intellectual understanding, but also in emotional understanding and in volitional understanding. For it is only by seeing human beings in their entirety as born out of the whole world that we can gain a deeper understanding of what Christianity fundamentally wants to be for the world. One could easily object: Yes, modern humanity is required to have a complicated understanding of the details of the world and also a complicated understanding of the details of the human being, in order, as it were, to be a whole human being in its consciousness. But consider that this requirement, which now appears as a cardinal requirement for humanity, is not peculiar to the spiritual science that is now emerging. To point out what I mean, I would first like to ask you the question: What did Christianity actually bring about when it appeared? Christianity basically brought about the requirement for an understanding of the world that was really quite extensive. And this understanding of the world, which was linked to the old pagan ideas, this understanding of the world has actually been completely forgotten over time. Just consider what has gradually been given to people over time from the fundamental views, the fundamental ideas of Christianity. Christianity presented itself in such a way that it could only be understood if one understood, for example, the Trinity, if one understood the nature of God the Father, God the Son, that is, Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. In the sense in which Christianity understood these three aspects of the divine spirit, no less was required than an understanding of such things as are presented today by spiritual science. But gradually, what led to the understanding of these ideas—the Father, the Son, the Spirit—was gradually eliminated, thrown out of the realm of the comprehensible, and empty words, empty phrases were retained. And for centuries, people have had empty phrases. This has gone so far that people, after first dogmatically rejecting the empty phrases, have even begun to mock them. The best people have mocked these empty phrases. Just consider all the ridicule that has been poured out, for example, in the form of saying that dogma demands that one is three and three is one. It is a terrible illusion, a mere delusion, when people believe that what Christianity once led in its current requires less understanding, less devoted knowledge than what today's spiritual science offers in order to conquer Christianity again. Admittedly, the most important, the most fundamental things have been thrown out of Christianity, and if one disregards the fact that they live on as words in the individual creeds, one may ask: What, then, of the fundamental concepts of Christ himself has actually remained for human beings? How does modern man—I have pointed out to you that not even theologians like Harnack distinguish between them—distinguish between what Christ is and what a general world god is, whom one would also encounter in the concept of Yahweh or Jehovah? And first of all, how many people today realize what is meant by the spirit or the Holy Spirit? People have gradually become so abstract that they are satisfied with empty words, that they are either satisfied when they remain in the creed, or, when they become enlightened, as it is called, they mock. But what is brought up in empty words will never be able to bring light into the individual activities of human knowledge.
[ 2 ] Just consider how far we have actually come in this respect. Everything that was knowledge in ancient Greek times was at the same time the content of a healing principle. The healer was a priest and at the same time the teacher of the people. The fact that the teacher of the people, the priest, is also a healer presupposes that something sick is assumed in the entire cultural process. Otherwise, there would be no justification for speaking of a healer. People spoke of healers because, out of instinctive knowledge, they still had a more comprehensive, more intense understanding of the entire world process than we have today. Today, we imagine the world process as simply running its course, with what comes later always being the effect of what came before. But that is not how it really is. And an older, instinctive knowledge knew that this is not how it really is. Today, people imagine, and especially those who speak of abstract progress, they imagine: Well, development is always going upward. We find this view of upward development (plate 28, center; sloping lines with arrows) even in the superficial philosophy of modern times. Such a person, who has simply been carried away by the general prejudice of the time, like Wilhelm Wundt, the unphilosopher who has become the philosopher of the age for many people, such a person also speaks as a supposed philosopher of such general progress, without the slightest insight into what actually lies in the real stream of human development. But we must imagine that in the real current of human development there is a constant tendency toward degeneration. There is no tendency toward progress, especially not in history. There is a constant tendency toward degeneration (arrows pointing downward). And only by constantly counteracting this tendency to degenerate with what we call teaching, knowledge, and so on, is that which would otherwise sink into the depths lifted up. And only in this way does progress arise (arrows pointing upward, red).

[ 3 ] Let us look at this from the point of view of the child. The child is born. People talk about heredity. Yes, but only that which would lead to decline, to decadence, is inherited. If the child were not educated by its entire environment and later by school and by life, the child would degenerate. Education is therefore in reality protection against degeneration. So, it has a healing effect. From the instinctive human understanding, everything that had anything to do with knowledge, education, and priesthood was regarded as a healing process. In older views, the doctor was inseparable from the priest; they were one and the same. Only recent developments have separated natural science and spiritual knowledge in the way I explained yesterday. So that the scientific physician is left to heal everything that, according to Julius Robert Mayer's view, has nothing to do with human goals and so on, but only has to do with such things as the expenditure of the converted horsepower in heating the horses, the axles of the carriage, the heating of the road over which the wheel runs, and so on. This is roughly left to the physical physician. And people like Ruder in Berlin, who is only the representative of this school of thought, calculate what humans need to live, roughly as if humans were a kind of complicated furnace.
[ 4 ] Now draw the social and ethical consequences of such a view, draw them in such a way that you recognize that if everything that goes on in the transformation of forces has only side effects on what is happening as the intentions and goals of human beings, then it is possible the world could exist without these secondary intentions. And basically, this is the secret opinion of modern man, that reality exists only in the physical realm and that everything else is a side effect.
[ 5 ] You see, in the face of such a view, it would be entirely consistent to reject Christianity outright, as the materialists did in the mid-19th century. These materialists around the middle of the 19th century—I have quoted some of them in my public lecture in Basel—really went to the extreme consequences of the materialistic worldview. They drew the conclusion that if naturalism is correct, then there is nothing left to do but find it ridiculous to make a distinction between the criminal and the good person, because it goes without saying that the energy expended by the criminal is transformed into heat just as it is by the good person. The questions that are currently shaking the world are basically questions of honesty, courage, and consistency. However, in a time when people are not honest about the external things in life, it is not surprising that they are not honest about these fundamental questions.
[ 6 ] And so it is that humanity today still talks about Christ without really knowing anything about the fact that this Christ must be truly different from a general God who is the basis of all nature. When the idea of Christ gradually merges into the mere idea of God, this means a step backward for humanity, back behind the mystery of Golgotha. But in order to truly grasp Christianity, it is necessary to take this principle of degeneration seriously and to counter it with the necessity of working from something completely different than that which carries the germ of degeneration within itself. The present human race will have to become aware that at the moment when the earth moved—with humanity, of course—toward the mystery of Golgotha, something took place through the mystery of Golgotha within the events of the earth that did not merely signify something rationalistic for humanity, but something rationalistic for the whole of earthly life.
[ 7 ] However, if one wants to understand this, one must study nature and spirit in a much more intensive way than is the inclination of humanity today. In order to understand this, I would like to refer you to something that may have lived in the consciousness of humanity until the 8th century BC. Until the 8th century BC, human beings did not feel as isolated and closed off as they do today. Today, human beings feel that they are beings enclosed within their own skin. Until the 7th or 8th century BC, human beings felt themselves to be part of the whole universe, and they also felt themselves to be involved in the events of the whole universe. They did not feel in such an intense way — this seems almost grotesque to people today, but it is true — the people of those ancient times did not feel like like modern humans, with their heads strictly enclosed by the skull, but they felt that what lived in their heads had a continuation out into the world and belonged to the entire starry sky (plate 29, left; sky blue, stars and rays yellow). Human beings—as strange as it may seem to people today—felt that their heads were alive and connected to the stars. So they said to themselves: As the night sky arches above me, it is actually me who lives in living communication between my head and the stars. And they said to themselves: If I now go further in the course of time, when after the night the day appears, the stars that have just risen on one side go down on the other side, then the sun takes the place of the stars. Then the configuration of the starry sky no longer acts in my head, but the sun takes the place of the starry sky, and my eyes are assigned to the sun. And now, feeling that my eyes are assigned to the sun when I am busy on earth during the day, feeling this vividly, he said to himself: Just as now, when there is an earthly existence, my eyes are assigned to the sun, so in the existence that preceded the earth—we call it the lunar existence—my whole head was a kind of eye; only this eye did not see as it does now, in a dual manner, summarizing objects, but it saw out into the space of the world; there were, as it were, as many little eyes in me, in my brain, as there are stars. From these little eyes, everything that now lives in my brain has come into being, and my sensory eyes are later products that are assigned to the sun, just as my brain was assigned to the starry sky. My brain is therefore a later product of the development of an eye, or actually of many partial eyes, as many partial eyes as there are suns shining outside at night. My brain has become my sense. And what is now my eye in earthly existence, through which I communicate with what lives in my earthly environment, will be an internal organ, like my brain is now, when the Earth is once replaced by a future planetary state — you know, we call this the Jupiter state. What is now external on my surface will then move into my interior. People will look different. What they now have as corresponding to their environment will be internal organs in the future. — This is what ancient humanity instinctively felt and said: Light penetrates my sensory eye; but inside me I preserve the light of ancient times; it works in me as thought. Thought was sensory perception when the Earth did not yet exist, when the Earth was still another planet. And my sensory perception will be the thoughts of the future. — In ancient times, all this was perceived as wisdom that was — as we say today — instinctively felt. The ancients did not throw around the word “instinctive” as incomprehensibly as modern humanity does, but rather said: This is the wisdom that the gods brought down to us from heaven. — What dawned instinctively in them from the past, present, and future, they said: This was brought to us by the immortals. — And they imagined it in images. And what does the image of Isis say? “I am the universe. I am the past, the present, and the future. No mortal has yet lifted my veil.” The interpretation given by modern humanity is actually a strange one. For modern humanity thinks materialistically when it encounters a sentence like this, which contains the word “mortal.” It does not actually think, when it reads the sentence of Isis: "I am the past, I am the present, I am the future. No mortal has yet lifted my veil,“ but rather, ”I am the past, the present, and the future. No human being has yet lifted my veil." This is how modern humanity thinks. It does not even consider that, on the other hand, it considers itself immortal and that it therefore cannot regard “No mortal has yet lifted my veil” as a definitive statement. Novalis said: “Very well, then we must become immortal in order to lift the veil of Isis!”

[ 8 ] Just think of the underlying thought that this modern materialistic humanity has produced. But it suits them well, for by thinking, “I am the universe. I am the past, the present, and the future. No human being has yet lifted my veil,” they spare themselves the effort of lifting the veil, and their philosophers can teach that human beings have limits to their knowledge. In truth, these philosophers believe that man is too lazy to follow the path of knowledge. But they do not want to say that. Therefore, they say that man has limits to his knowledge. And in our time, which wants to be free of authority, these things are accepted. They must not be accepted in the future if humanity does not want to fall into decadence. And it must not be overlooked that no one has the right to call himself a Christian who believes only in general progress and is not aware that if the earth had been left to itself since the mystery of Golgotha, it would have fallen into decadence. So we need to counter decadence with something that we cannot take from the earth, cannot take from what the earth is made of, cannot take from the Father God, but must take from the Son God and instill it into what is the ongoing development of humanity. It is definitely a distraction of humanity from its present task if one constantly refuses to admit that the universe is connected with the Christ event. Just think what it actually means when Catholic and Protestant confessions rail against the claim made by spiritual science that the Christ idea must be linked to the cosmos idea, when it is repeatedly said that spiritual science has no concept of Christ as initially only something ethical, something that only fits into the moral world order. Yes, if the moral world order is only a side effect of the transformation of forces, then the idea of Christ, if it is only placed within the moral world order, also appears as a side effect of the world order.
[ 9 ] This was therefore something that a so-called instinctive knowledge of humanity pointed to, namely how the human brain is connected to the sphere of the stars, how the human eye is in a certain way assigned to the sphere of the sun. If you go back to certain older times, when people still had a qualitative understanding of astronomical things and also of earthly-elemental things, you will see that they related light in a certain way to what is immediately around our Earth, to the air. The ancients, in their instinctive knowledge, could not conceive of light without air. The moderns, in their abstract knowledge, separate something that they interpret as light — although they describe it as a vibrating movement of the ether and describe it in a very strange way — they separate it from the air and cannot bring it together with the air in any other way than by considering the air at most as a medium through which light passes. But you see, it is actually highly remarkable how little people think about what is, I would say, presented to them: the earth, the infinite space of the universe, the stars. (Plate 29, far left; part of the circle on the other plate.) Yes, among these stars are some whose light takes millions of years to reach the earth. Now it is night. There is a star whose light takes less time to reach the earth. Now suppose what do you have in the rays of light? Certainly not the star, if you look out in the direction of the ray of light. According to this theory, the ray of light that falls into your eye comes from something that existed millions of years ago; it may even have been destroyed long ago, but the light is still coming. What is actually out there in the world should not be discussed. We should only talk about light channels arriving that may lead to stars that still exist, but also to stars that are no longer there.
[ 10 ] We must definitely come to terms with the fact that, for us, light phenomena as such appear as phenomena in the air. Even if light travels through what appears to be a vacuum, for us it does not appear in a vacuum, but in air-filled space, because that is the only place we can be. And so light and air live together for us. By living together in light and air, so to speak, we gain a deeper understanding of the human constitution. We go a little deeper; we move from the eye to the nose on the human head. The nose is, after all, the organ through which we breathe in and out, and Eastern philosophy knew a great deal about this. The eye is the organ that receives light. The nose and the eye divide. The nose adapts to the air, and everything that adapts to the air extends out into the planetary world. The sun begins by acting on our eyes. But the rest acts upon our remaining constitution, and we descend from the world of the stars into the world of the sun and planets and arrive at the human being as a being constituted by its nose. And then we descend to the earth and go from the nose to the mouth, to the organ of taste, and there we take in the substances of the earth through the organ of taste, entering the earthly world from the planetary world. And we have the rest of the human being as an appendage, the head as an appendage of the eyes, the chest as an appendage of the nose, the whole rest of the human being, the limb-human, the metabolic human as a whole, as an appendage of the organ of taste. And when we consider the human being in its entirety, we have assigned it to the starry world, the sun and planetary world, and the earthly world (these areas are marked in the drawing on the left, Plate 29). We have placed the human being in the whole universe, and we see in the human head, insofar as it is the carrier of the brain—internally, not externally, not through physical anatomy, but through inner knowledge—a direct image of the starry world. We see in all that extends from the nose to the lungs and so on, an image of the planetary system with the sun. And when we then consider what remains of the human being, we see in it that which is as earthbound as, for example, the animal is earthbound. In this way we arrive at the real parallelism between the human being and the rest of the world. We see it interpreted from this rest of the world. And this is how one should also understand the human being in detail.
[ 11 ] Consider, when you look at the blood circulation, how, let us say, the blood converted by the outer air first goes into the left atrium, then from there into the left ventricle, branching off from there through the main artery, through the aorta into the organism (drawing on the right). We can say: blood from the lungs to the heart, from there to the rest of the organism, but with a branch to the head. The blood that passes through the organism then takes up nourishment. Everything that depends on the earth is connected to it. What is involved in the digestive system in the blood circulation is earthly; what is involved in our breathing, where we bring oxygen into the bloodstream, is planetary; and then we have the blood circulation that goes to our head, which encompasses everything that is our head. Just as the pulmonary circulation, with its intake of oxygen and release of carbon dioxide, is assigned to the planetary sphere, and just as that which is introduced into our blood by our digestive system is assigned to the earth, so that which branches off upward in the small circulation is assigned to the starry world. This is, as it were, drawn out of the aorta and then flows back again, uniting with the blood flowing back from the rest of the organism, so that the blood from above and below flows back to the heart together. That which branches off at the top says, in a sense, to the rest of the circulation: I am not participating in the oxygen process or the digestive process, but I am separating myself, I am covering myself over. That is what is connected with the starry world. The same could be said of the nervous system. You cannot gain an understanding of the human being if you believe that you can simply take the human being as you perceive it with your senses and study it. What you find is the mush inside the skull that our physical anatomy describes. In truth, what our physical anatomy describes is nothing, because it is the confluence of forces from the starry sky. And it is just as nonsensical to describe this physical brain in itself as it would be to describe a rose in itself. It makes no sense to describe a rose in itself, because it is not a being in itself. It cannot be thought of separately from the rose bush. It perishes when it is separated from the rose bush. It is nothing when separated from the rose bush. So the human brain is nothing when separated from the starry sky.
[ 12 ] But now let us remember what the sun actually is. I have emphasized again and again that physicists would be very astonished if they could equip a balloon, as is their ideal, and fly out to the sun in the expectation of finding a glowing ball of gas. They would not find it, but instead they would find a suction sphere, something that wants to suck in everything possible, but which is actually empty space, and even more empty than empty space, negative matter. Within the circumference of the sun there is nothing that can be compared to our matter. It is not only empty, it is less than empty, it is omitted in relation to the rest of matter. It is precisely a matter of not beginning in this day and age to speculate unrealistically about the things of the world, but of filling oneself with a spirit of reality. I told you a little while ago about a nice piece of the theory of relativity. You remember the box I showed you, Einstein's box, which is supposed to overcome the theory of gravity. Another thing Einstein claimed is that the expansion of a body is also merely relative and depends on the speed of movement, so that, according to Einstein's theory, a person if he moves through space at a certain speed, no longer has the same thickness from front to back, but if he moves at the necessary speed, he becomes as thin as a sheet of paper. This is something that is seriously discussed among Einstein's followers, among these people with their epoch-making invention of the theory of relativity. Such dwelling on unrealistic thoughts already constitutes science today. And that is the opposite of what is professed on the other side.
[ 13 ] The doctor has been relegated to the merely physical, the priest to the merely spiritual. The spiritual has been abolished. The priest is relegated to the purely spiritual. But just think, if this continues to develop in such a way that everything outside the physical realm is a side effect! Horses, carriages, real to the physical senses, the horsepower expended, are transformed into the heat of the horses, the carriage axles, the heat of the ruts in the road; the rest is — yes, one cannot say the fifth wheel on the wagon, because it is less than the fifth wheel on the wagon, it is a mere side effect that does not actually belong to reality. And while the doctor is concerned only with the transformation of forces, the priest is concerned with the side effect. So he is actually, one can no longer even say, the fifth wheel on the wagon within the modern worldview, because what does he achieve when all these are side effects? It is true that when doctors like Julius Robert Mayer engage in philosophy, it becomes physics, and when the followers of the soul substance, or whatever it is, engage in philosophy, it becomes abstract concepts, and the two worldviews are as alien to each other as the materialistic doctors of the mid-19th century and the preaching pastors. They truly did not understand or respect each other, but rather—well, perhaps at most they fought each other politically. Now, however, a time has come when people are less honest, less consistent, and this must now be overcome in earnest. But it must be done seriously.
[ 14 ] We have to fight not only against evil will, but also, and perhaps just as importantly, against all positions of stupidity and ignorance. Well, that's how things are. Then I would like to emphasize personally that, out of a certain impulse, I will speak at Pentecost in three lectures on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday about the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, on Saturday about Augustinianism and on Sunday about Thomism as such, about the essence of Thomism, and on Pentecost Monday about Thomism and the present. I do not know whether our opponents will then also begin to deny us the right to discuss and teach Thomism here. But it is perhaps best to counter the talk coming from that quarter with a serious consideration of Thomism. You know that Thomism was declared the official philosophy of Catholicism by an encyclical of Leo XII, and I do not know whether what will be presented here as Thomism will now also be described as unjustified propaganda originating in Dornach. Let us see what comes of it.