Philosophy, Cosmology & Religion
GA 215
9 September 1922, Dornach
4. Cognition and Will Exercises
The exercises I have described for attaining inspiration are actually only preliminary exercises for further supersensible cognition. Through them a person is indeed able to view the course of his life in the way I have characterized it; he is able to see the etheric world of facts unfolding in the expanse of earth existence behind man's thinking, feeling and willing. By discarding the picture images achieved in meditation, or in the consciousness following meditation, he also becomes acquainted through this empty consciousness with the etheric substance of the cosmos and the manifestations of the spiritual beings who rule there. When, however, a person becomes familiar in this way with human soul life, the astral organization of man, he realizes first of all how much the physical organism of man owes to hereditary development, that is to say what are the persistent factors in his physical body that have been inherited from his ancestors. Man also gains a glimpse of how the cosmos is active within the etheric organism, and he sees as a consequence what is not subject to heredity but breaks away from it and is responsible for man's individuality. He sees what it is that within his etheric and astral organizations sets him free from his inheritance and ancestors who gave him his physical body.
It is extremely important to distinguish clearly in this way between what is passed on in the continuing stream of physical inheritance from ancestors to descendants, and what, by contrast, is given to individual man by the etheric, cosmic world, for it is this whereby he becomes personalized and individualized and frees himself from his inherited characteristics. It is especially important in education, in pedagogy, to see clearly into these distinctions. Precisely such knowledge as is indicated here can provide teachers with some fundamental principles. I may perhaps refer here to the booklet, which contains a summary by Albert Steffen of the Pedagogical Course that I gave here in Dornach at Christmas a year ago, also to what is contained in the last issue of the English magazine Anthroposophy, (July/August), which contains interesting educational material.
The inspired knowledge developed by means of the exercises I have described only acquaints man with the astral organism within the framework of earth life. He learns to know what he is as a soul-spiritual being developing from birth to the present time. But this insight does not yet enable him to say that his soul-spiritual being begins with earthly life and ends with it. He arrives at the soul-spiritual element in his earth life but does not come so far as to perceive this soul-spiritual element as something eternal, as the eternal core of man's being. For that it is necessary to continue and broaden the exercises for eliminating the meditative pictures from consciousness so much that in doing so the soul becomes ever stronger and more energetic. Progress here really consists in nothing else but continued energetic training. One must struggle again and again with all the strength one can muster to remove from consciousness the pictures produced or created by imagination, so that it becomes empty. Gradually then, through practicing the elimination of the images, the soul's strength increases so much that finally it is powerful enough so that one is able to obliterate the overall picture of the course of one's life since birth, as it has been brought before the soul through imagination.
Mark well, it is possible to continue the exercises for eliminating a content of soul and producing empty consciousness, carrying them so far that the soul becomes strong enough to leave out the course of its own life. At the moment, when one is strong enough to do this, one lives in a consciousness that no longer has before it the physical organism, nor the etheric organism; moreover, one no longer confronts anything of the world absorbed through the physical and etheric organisms. For this consciousness, the sense world with all its sense impressions is no longer present, neither is the sum of all the etheric happenings in the cosmos that one had first gained through imaginative cognition. Everything of this kind has been removed. Thereby a higher degree of inspiration is brought about within the human soul.
What appears then by means of this higher level of inspiration is the condition of soul as it existed in a soul-spiritual world before it descended into a human physical organism through conception, embryonic life and birth. In this way one attains a perception of the soul's pre-earthly existence. One looks into those worlds where the soul existed before it received on earth, I may say, the first atom of physical substance transmitted to it with conception. One looks back into the development of the soul in the soul-spiritual world and learns to know its pre-existent life. Through this experience, a person has grasped one side of the eternal nature of the human soul's essence. When he has done that, he has, in fact, recognized for the first time the true nature of the human ego, of spirit man. This latter is accessible only to this form of inspiration that is capable of disregarding not only its own physical body and its impressions, but also its own etheric body and the latter's impressions as manifested in the course of life.
When one has advanced to this knowledge of the human soul as it existed before birth in its pure soul-spiritual existence, then one can also gain a conception of what thinking, what the forming of concepts really is, as we human beings experience it in the ordinary consciousness of our earth life. Even with the most careful self-examination of which the soul is capable we cannot, by using only the capacities and powers of our ordinary consciousness, grasp the real nature of thinking and the formation of ideas.
If now I am to make clear how the real nature of man's earthly concepts appears to inspired consciousness, I must make use of a picture, but this picture expresses complete reality. Bring to mind a human corpse; it still has the form that the man had in life. All the organs are still shaped the way they were when the person was alive. Even so, in looking at the corpse, we must admit that it is only the remains of what the living man was. When we now make a study of its essential nature, we must conclude that the corpse as it now lies before us can have no original, independent reality. It cannot be thought of as something that comes into being in the same condition as it is as a corpse; it can exist only as the remains of a living organism. The living organism must have been there first. The forms of the corpse, its members, point not only to the corpse itself but to what brought it into being. Anyone who rightly views a corpse in the context of life is directed by it to the living man who produced it. Nature, to which we surrender the corpse, can only destroy it; it cannot build it up as such. If we wish to see the upbuilding forces in the corpse, we must look upon the living man.
On another level, in a similar way, there is revealed to inspired consciousness the essential nature of the thinking or mental picturing that we have in ordinary consciousness. It is actually a corpse; at least, it is something which during earthly life is continually passing over into the corpse-like element of soul. Living thought was present before man came into earth-existence, but instead was a soul-spiritual being in the soul-spiritual world. There, this thinking and conceiving were something quite different; they were living elements within spiritual activities. What we have as our ordinary power of thinking is a remnant of that living spiritual entity that we were before we descended to the earth. It has remained just as a corpse remains of the living physical man. As we are referred back to the living man when we see a corpse, so, if we now look through inspired knowledge at the dying or already dead thoughts or concepts of the soul, we realize that we must treat this thinking as a corpse of the true “thought being,” we see how we must trace this earthly thinking back to a supersensible, life-filled thinking.
It is this that also reveals qualitatively the relationship of a part of our soul life to our purely soul-spiritual existence before birth. Through this, we really learn to know what our ordinary concepts and thinking signify, if we trace them back to their living nature, which is to be found nowhere within earth existence. On earth, it is only expressed in a reflection. This reflection is our ordinary thinking and forming of ideas. Therefore, the abstract character of this ordinary thinking is fundamentally remote from reality, as a corpse is remote from the true human reality. When we speak of the abstractness, of the merely intellectual aspect of thinking, we vaguely feel that the way it appears in ordinary consciousness is not what it should be, that it has its source in something else, which is its true nature. This is what is so very important, namely, that a true knowledge is able, not only in general phrases but in concrete pictures, to relate what man experiences here in his physical body to the eternal core of his being, as it was just done with the thinking and conceiving of ordinary consciousness. Then only will the significance of imagination and inspiration be seen in the right light. For then we comprehend that the dead or dying thinking is basically brought to life again through the exercises undertaken to achieve inspiration; brought to life within physical earth-existence. To acquire inspired knowledge is fundamentally to bring dying thoughts to life again.
Thereby we are not completely transposed into prenatal existence, but rather, through the soul's perception, we gain a true picture of this prenatal existence, of which we know that it did not originate here on earth but that it radiates out of a pre-earthly human existence into man's existence here on earth. We recognize through the picture's nature that it is cognitive evidence of the state of the human soul in pre-earthly existence.
What significance this has for philosophical knowledge will be discussed next.
Just as we are in a position in this way to investigate the true nature of our ordinary thinking, we can also, by means of the supersensible cognition referred to here, bring into view the essential being concealed behind the will. But for this, not only is the higher cognition of inspiration required, but also that of intuition which I described yesterday, when I said that in order to develop it, certain exercises of the will are necessary. If man carries these out, he becomes capable of releasing his own soul-spiritual nature from his physical as well as his etheric organism. He carries it out into the spiritual world itself. It is the ego and the astral organization, his own being, that he carries into the spiritual world. In this way, he learns to know what it signifies to live outside his physical and etheric organisms. He comes to perceive the state the human soul finds itself in when it has cast these aside. But that means nothing less than gaining a preview of what happens to man when he goes through death.
Through death, the physical and etheric organisms are cast off. Thus, laid aside, they can no longer form the covering for man as they have done during earth life. What happens then to the actual core of man's being is something one learns through a preview in intuitive knowledge, when, with one's spirit being, one is outside in the world of spiritual beings instead of within one's physical body. Man actually finds himself in such a condition. Through intuitive knowledge he is in a position to be within other spiritual beings, as otherwise here in earth life he is within his physical and etheric bodies. What he receives through intuition is an experience in a picture of what he has to go through when he passes through the event of death. Only in this way is it possible to gain actual insight into what underlies the idea of the immortal human soul. This human soul—inspired knowledge already teaches this—is on the one side unborn. On the other side, it is undying. Intuition teaches this.
Having thus come to know the true nature of the eternal core of man's being—insofar as it is to lead a life after physical death—one also learns to perceive what lies behind human will. We have just characterized what lies behind human thinking; that is discernible through inspiration. What is concealed behind human willing becomes perceptible, if, through exercises of the will, one brings about intuition. Then the will reveals itself so as to show that behind it something quite different is concealed, of which the will of ordinary consciousness is merely the reflection. It becomes evident that behind willing there is something that in a certain sense is a younger member of the human soul. If we speak of the thinking and forming of ideas as of something that is dying, indeed as something that is already dead, and we view it as the older part of the human soul, then, by contrast, we must speak of willing as the younger part. We can say that willing, that is, the actual soul element behind the will, is related to thinking as a young child is to an old man, except that in man's constitution old age comes after childhood, while in the soul the two exist side by side. The soul bears continually in itself both its old age and its youth—in fact, both its death and its birth.
In contrast to such a knowledge of the soul based on inspiration and intuition, which is quite definite, what one calls philosophy today is something extremely abstract, for this simply describes thinking and willing. Actual knowledge of the soul, on the other hand, reveals that when willing turns old it becomes thinking, and thinking that has become old—indeed that has died—has developed out of will. Thus, one truly becomes acquainted with this life of the soul; one learns to perceive the fact that what is revealed in this earth life as thinking was willing in an earlier earth life, and what is now willing, something still young in the soul, will become thinking in the following earth life.
So, in this way one learns to see into the soul and for the first time to know it as it really is. The will part of the human soul is revealed as something that leads an embryonic life. When we pass over into the spiritual world with what we harbor within ourselves as willing, we have a young soul, which by its own character teaches us that it is actually a child. Even as little as we can assume that a child does not grow on into old age unless it is sick, so little can we assume that what we perceive as a young soul—initiation reveals this to us—dissolves at death, for it has only just reached its embryonic life. Through intuition we learn to know how, in the moment of death, it goes forth into the spiritual world.
That means actually perceiving the eternal core of man's being according to its unbornness and its immortality. By contrast, modern philosophy works only with ideas taken from ordinary consciousness. But what does that mean? As we can see from what has been said, it means that these ideas are dead soul entities.
When philosophy, working with the ideas of ordinary consciousness, wants to consider the thinking part of the soul correctly in order to reach results, it will say, if it is sufficiently free of prejudice to investigate what is actually present in the thinking of ordinary consciousness, that thought cannot of itself explain its own existence, just as it must be said of a corpse that it cannot come from a corpse but must have come from something else. Physiology indicates this through observation. Philosophy, from what comes to light here out of intuition, should draw the conclusion that just because ordinary thinking and the forming of ideas have a dying character it is permitted to deduce from this fact that something else existed earlier. What inspiration discovers through contemplation, philosophy can find through logical conclusions, through dialectics, that is, through an indirect kind of proof.
What would philosophy have to do then if it were to choose to remain within ordinary consciousness? It would have to say, “If I will not lift myself up to some kind of supersensible knowledge I must at least analyze the facts of my ordinary consciousness.” If it does so without prejudice it fords that the thinking and ideas of ordinary consciousness are corpse-like in character. It would have to say, “Because that is something that does not explain its own nature out of itself, I may conclude that its real nature comes earlier.” Of course, this requires an unbiased attitude in analyzing the soul so that thinking may be recognized as possessing something corpse-like. But this impartial attitude is possible. For only a biased attitude discerns something alive in the thinking of ordinary consciousness. Freedom from bias reveals this thinking as something that in its very nature has withered away. This is why I said in the previous lecture that it is quite feasible to grasp the content of natural science with this deadened thinking. That is one side of the matter.
Intellectualized philosophy therefore can only come indirectly to a knowledge of man's eternal essence and indeed, only through recognizing what, in regard to earth life, must be viewed as preceding it. If then such a philosophy not only inquires into thinking, if it desires not only to be intellectual but also includes in its research the inner experience of the will and the other soul forces, which, in the cosmic scheme of things, are younger than thinking, then it can succeed in picturing to itself the kind of interplay through which thinking is linked to willing. Then it can come on one hand to the logical deduction: dying thinking is connected to pre-earthly soul existence. Even though philosophy cannot look upon such an existence and cannot perceive its nature, it can infer that something, although inaccessible and unknown, does exist.
When, on the other hand, philosophy centers its attention on willing or the feelings, and experiences the interplay between thinking and feeling, it will eventually discover not only something dying but incipient in willing. This you can find even in Bergson's philosophy, if you put what he says impartially into the appropriate words. You notice the impulse he himself feels in the way he speaks, the way he philosophizes, and sensing this impulse he attains an awareness of the eternal core of the human soul. But since Bergson refuses to take supersensible knowledge into consideration, he reaches only a knowledge of the soul's essence insofar as it reveals itself in earthly life. Out of his philosophy he cannot derive convincing indications of unbornness and immortality. Yet, on one side, he does characterize thinking—although he gives it a different name—as something old which superimposes itself over sense perceptions as a corpse-like element. On the other side he feels—because of the living way in which he characterizes it—the incipient, “embryonic” quality of the will. He can vividly enter into this and he senses that something eternal is contained within. Nevertheless, in this manner he arrives only at the characteristic of the soul-spiritual core of man in earth life, not at anything beyond.
Thus, we can say that, if they are unbiased, all philosophies using ideas based merely on ordinary consciousness can, through analyzing thought and will, come indirectly to the conclusion that the soul is a being unborn and immortal, but they cannot come to a direct perception of it. This direct perception, which would bring the philosophies of ideas to fulfillment, this perception of the real, eternal being of the soul, can be achieved only through imagination, inspiration and intuition as has been described here. As a consequence, although the subject is still discussed as part of philosophy, it remains true that anything really substantial concerning the soul's eternal nature must rely only on tradition that rests upon the dreamlike knowledge of the past. Philosophers often do not know this and believe that they produce it out of themselves. This content can be permeated by logic and dialectic. But a true renewal of philosophical life depends on the acknowledgment by our present spiritual culture of the existence of a fully conscious imagination, a fully conscious inspiration and a fully conscious intuition, and not only acknowledging the methods for attaining these capacities but putting their results to use in philosophical life. I will try to explain in the next two parts of my lecture how this relates to cosmology and religion.
When you consider that only through a higher form of inspiration can one arrive at the perception of the eternal core of man's being and how it lives in extra-terrestrial existence, then you will say that only through this higher inspiration and through initiation (as I have described it) can the human being really know himself. What plays into his own being out of the cosmos, he can know only through higher inspiration and intuition. Since this is the case, a genuine cosmology, that is, a picture of the cosmos that includes man's total being, can arise only on the level of inspired and intuitive perception. Only then does man gain insight into what is also working in his physical and etheric bodies during earth life.
In these organisms, the soul-spiritual nature of man is not merely hidden; during earth existence, it is actually transformed, metamorphosed in regard to waking, everyday life. As little as a root can reflect the exact form of the plant, so little can an observation of man's physical and etheric organisms reveal the eternal part of him. This is attained only when we look into what lives in man before birth and after death. Only then are we able to relate man's true being, which must be observed outside of earth existence, to the cosmos. This is why modern culture had no way of arriving at a cosmology that includes man during the period when it rejected any kind of clairvoyance. This I have indicated before, but it becomes especially clear from what I have described today. Nevertheless, in earlier times, even as late as the beginning of the last century, but chiefly at the end of the eighteenth century, a “rational cosmology,” as it was called, was developed from the philosophical direction as a part of philosophy.
This rational cosmology, which was supposed to be a part of philosophy, was also formed by philosophers with the aid of nothing but ordinary consciousness. But, if, with ordinary philosophy, one already had the above described difficulties in penetrating to the true nature of the soul, you will understand that it is quite impossible to gain a real content for a cosmology that includes man if one merely wants to stay within the ideas of ordinary consciousness. The contents of rational cosmology that the philosophers have developed even up to recent times, lived therefore in fact on the traditional cosmological ideas attained by humanity when a dreamlike clairvoyance still existed. These ideas can be renewed only by means of what has been described here as exact clairvoyance. In this sphere also, philosophers have not known that they actually borrowed from the old cosmology. Certain ideas occurred to them. They absorbed them from the history of cosmology and believed they had produced them out of themselves. But what they brought forth were merely logical connections, by means of which they assembled the old ideas and produced a new system. In such a way cosmologies arose in earlier times as a part of philosophy. But since one no longer had a living relationship to what one thus absorbed as ideas taken over from ancient clairvoyance, the ideas of the cosmologies became more and more abstract.
Just take a look at the chapters on cosmology in the philosophical books of earlier times and you will find how abstract and basically empty those ideas are that were developed on the subjects of the origin and end of the world, and so on. It is correct to say that they were all brought across from ancient times when they were alive, because man had a living relationship to what these ideas expressed. Gradually they had become unsubstantial and abstract, and people outlined only superficially what a cosmology should contain, a cosmology which extends not only to outer nature but can encompass the whole being of man, reaching to the soul-spiritual nature of the cosmos. In this connection, the extraordinary brilliant Emile Boutroux1Emile Boutroux, 1845-1921; especially in his De la Contingence des Lois de la Nature (Concerning the Contingency of Natural Laws). gave significant indications of how to arrive at a cosmology.
But since he also wanted to build only upon what ordinary consciousness could encompass, he too only arrived at an abstract cosmology.
Thus, cosmologies became more and more devoid of real content, becoming merely a sum of abstract ideas and characteristics. No wonder then that gradually this rational cosmology was discredited. The natural scientists appeared who could investigate nature in the manner that led in recent times to so many scientific triumphs. They could formulate natural laws, postulating an inner ordering of nature from observation and experiment, and from this they put together a naturalistic cosmology. What was thus assembled from the ideas concerning outer nature as a naturalistic cosmology, had, to be sure, a content, the external sensory content. In the face of this, the empty, rational cosmology constructed by the philosophers could not maintain itself. It fell into disrepute and was gradually abandoned. One therefore no longer speaks of a rational cosmology, arrived at merely by logic; one is satisfied now with naturalistic cosmology, which, however, does not encompass man. One can say, then, that it is cosmology in particular that teaches, more than ordinary philosophy, how one must have recourse again to imagination, inspiration and intuition.
Philosophy can at least observe the human soul, and, through unbiased observation of thinking whose dying nature refers to something other than its present state, it discovers that something lies outside all human existence on earth that includes man inwardly; in the same way, philosophy can point beyond death. Therefore, out of conclusions drawn from the soul's rich life of thinking, feeling and will, philosophy can at least make its abstractions rich and varied. This is still possible. But cosmology as a spiritual science can only be established if it is given its content also from spiritual perception. Here one can no longer arrive at a content by deduction. To attain a content, one must borrow it from the old clairvoyant perceptions, as was the case in the ideas adopted from tradition, or one must attain it again by a new method such as has now been presented.
If, therefore, philosophy is still in a position to carry on in accordance with logic, cosmology can no longer do so. As a rational cosmology based only on ordinary consciousness, it has therefore lost its content and with it its standing. If we wish to advance beyond a naturalistic cosmology to a new one that embraces man's totality, we must learn to perceive with the aid of inspiration and intuition that element in man in which the spiritual cosmos is reflected. In other words, cosmology even more than philosophy is dependent upon the acknowledgement by modern culture of the methods employed by spiritual science for attaining fully conscious imagination, inspiration and intuition—and not only acknowledging them but making use of their results to construct with their aid a genuinely real cosmology. What can be said concerning religion from this standpoint will be described in conclusion.
If our religious life is to be founded on knowledge the experience of the spiritual human being among other spirit beings must be brought back to earth and described. In these experiences we are dealing with something that is entirely unlike life on earth; it is utterly different. In them man stands wholly outside this life; therefore, these experiences can only be undergone by those human powers that are entirely independent of his physical and etheric organisms and for this reason certainly cannot lie within ordinary consciousness. Only when this ordinary consciousness advances and develops clairvoyant capacities can it give descriptions of those experiences that a human being has in the purely spiritual world. Therefore, a “rational theology,” a theology that wants to rely upon ordinary consciousness, is in an even worse position than a “rational cosmology.”
Rational cosmology still possesses something, after all, that at least sheds a certain amount of light on man's earthly existence. The reason for this is that in a round-about way, to be sure, the form and life of physical and etheric man are to an extent brought about by spiritual beings. But the experiences that the human being has in the purely spiritual worlds and which exact intuition gets to know, can in no way be discovered with the ordinary consciousness, as is the case of philosophy. They cannot even be guessed at. Today, when people want to arrive at all human knowledge by means of ordinary consciousness, these experiences can only be adopted—this is even more true than in the case of cosmological ideas—from ancient traditions dating from those times when men found their way in dreamlike clairvoyance into the spiritual worlds and carried across into the earthly world what they experienced.
If someone fancies that he could state something about man's experiences in the divine world in the form of ideas based only on ordinary consciousness, he is very much mistaken. Therefore, theology has come increasingly to a point of forming a kind of historic theology, adopting, even more than does cosmology, merely the old ideas of the kingdom of God acquired in earlier clairvoyant vision. These ideas then are made into a system by logic and dialectic. Men believe that here they have something fundamental and original, whereas it is only a subjective system of those who worked on this theology. It is a product of history, poured at times into new forms. But everything that is of real content is borrowed—by those who want only to draw from ordinary consciousness—from tradition, or from history. But for this reason, the formulations of various philosophers—who in earlier times created a rational cosmology and wanted to create a rational theology as well—were through this procedure discredited more than ever. On the one hand, rational cosmology as against naturalistic cosmology fell into discredit. On the other, in the field of religion, rational theology as against purely historic theology was discredited—the historic theology that renounced pure reality—both the direct formulation of ideas about the spiritual world and the experience of it.
This direct relationship, these living connections with experience in the spiritual world, vanished for more recent humanity when, in the Middle Ages, the question arose of proof for the existence of God. As long as a direct relation to experience of the kingdom of God existed, one did not speak of dialectic or logical proofs for divinity. Such proofs, when they were put forward, were in themselves proof that the living relationship to the kingdom of God had died away. Fundamentally, what Scholastic theology said was correct: ordinary reason is not in a position to make pronouncements about the kingdom of God. It can only elucidate the ideas already there, systematize them. It can contribute only something toward making doctrine readily acceptable.
We can observe how in recent times this incapacity of ordinary consciousness to determine anything about the kingdom of God has given rise to two errors. On the one side are the scientists who want to talk about religion, about God, but feel the incapacity of their ordinary consciousness and so formulate merely a history of religion. A religious content cannot at the present time be obtained in this way. Therefore, the existing, or once existing religions are considered historically. What is in fact considered? It is the religious content once provided by the old dreamlike, intuitive clairvoyance. Or, people consider that aspect of the religious life of the present time that has survived as a residue of the old clairvoyant state. This is then called “History of Religion,” and people do completely without producing any genuinely religious life of their own.
Still other people realize that man's clear day consciousness is powerless to determine anything about experiences in the purely spiritual kingdom of God. Therefore, they turn to the more subconscious regions of the human soul, to the world of feeling, to certain mystical faculties, and speak of an immediate, elemental experience of God. This is quite widespread today. It is just the advocates of this kind of experience who are especially characteristic of the spiritual state of mind at the present time. With all their might they shun the possibility of bringing their awareness of God into clear ideas that are logically formed. They give long explanations as to why this instinctive experience of God which, according to their interpretation, is the true religious experience, cannot be logically proved. They conclude therefore that the idea of expressing any religious content in intellectual form must be abandoned. But it must be said that these proponents of a direct awareness of God are the victims of illusions, because what is experienced in any region of the soul can in fact also be expressed in clear ideas. If we were to follow their example and put forward the theory that the religious content is weakened when it is expressed in clear ideas, this would prove nothing but that we should have abandoned all our truly substantial ideas in favor of a series of dreamed-up notions. It is a characteristic feature of present-day religious life that people rely on something which, as soon as it has to be made clear, at once falls into error.
From this it is quite evident that we can succeed in renewing religious life on a basis of knowledge only if we do not reject a method of cognition that can guide us into having a living experience of the spiritual human being and other spiritual beings. We have special need of this method of cognition precisely so that religious knowledge can be placed on a firm foundation. In the realm of religion, ordinary consciousness can at most systematize perceptions, clarify them, or formulate them into a doctrine, but it cannot find them. Without these perceptions, religion is limited to the traditional acceptance of what is derived from quite different soul conditions of humanity in earlier times. It is therefore limited to what would never satisfy a mind trained in modern science.
Therefore, if we are to base our religion upon knowledge, I must repeat for the third time something that I have already expressed today in regard to other areas of culture, but that must be expressed specifically for each separate area. If, out of the spiritual needs of the present time, religious life is to be renewed and undergo vital stimulation, the spiritual life of our age must acknowledge fully conscious imaginative, inspired, and intuitive cognition. Especially for the religious area must this not only be acknowledged but, for a living religious content, our modern spiritual life must also apply these spiritual-scientific results in appropriate ways.

Erkenntnis- und Willensäbungen
[ 1 ] Die Übungen, um zur Inspiration zu kommen, welche ich charakterisiert habe, sind eigentlich für eine weitergehende übersinnliche Erkenntnis doch nur Vorübungen. Man kommt allerdings durch diese Übungen dazu, den eigenen menschlichen Lebenslauf in der Art, wie ich es charakterisiert habe, schauen zu können, das schauen zu können, was sich als ätherische Tatsachenwelt hinter dem Denken, dem Fühlen und dem Wollen des Menschen in der Weite des Erdendaseins entfaltet. Man kommt dann durch das Fortschaffen derjenigen Bildanschauungen, die entweder in der Meditation oder infolge der Meditation im Bewußtsein gewonnen werden, man kommt durch diese Herstellung des leeren Bewußtseins auch dazu, die ätherische Wesenheit des Kosmos und die darin waltenden geistigen Wesenheiten in ihren Offenbarungen kennenzulernen. Allein, wenn man in dieser Weise nur das menschliche Seelenleben kennenlernt, also die astralische Organisation des Menschen, so wird einem zunächst klar, was in der Vererbungsentwickelung für die physische Organisation des Menschen vorliegt, mit anderen Worten, was der Mensch in den fortlaufenden Vererbungstatsachen von seinen Vorfahren für den physischen Leib ererbt. Man bekommt auch eine Anschauung darüber, was in dem ätherischen Organismus vom Kosmos herein gewirkt wird, was dann nicht der Vererbung unterliegt, sondern was sich der Vererbung entwindet und eine Bedeutung hat für die menschliche Individualität, was also den Menschen schon in seinem ätherischen Leib und in seiner astralischen Organisation frei macht von dem, was er von seinen Vorfahren ererbt, von denen er seinen physischen Leib bekommt.
[ 2 ] Es ist außerordentlich wichtig, auf diese Art genau zu der Unterscheidung zwischen demjenigen zu kommen, was im fortlaufenden Strome der physischen Vererbung von den Vorfahren auf die Nachkommen übertragen wird und was dagegen aus der ätherisch-kosmischen Welt heraus dem menschlichen Individuum gegeben wird, wodurch dieses menschliche Individuum eigentlich erst persönlich, individuell ist und sich den vererbten Merkmalen entwindet. Dieses klar zu durchschauen, ist insbesondere wichtig für die Erziehungswissenschaft, für die Pädagogik; und gerade durch solche Erkenntnisse, auf die hier hingedeutet wird, können bedeutsame Grundlagen für den Pädagogen gewonnen werden. Ich darf dabei vielleicht verweisen auf das Büchelchen, das vorhanden ist in der Fassung von Albert Steffen über den Pädagogischen Kursus, den ich hier in Dornach zu Weihnachten vorigen Jahres gehalten habe, und auch auf das, was in der letzten Juli/ August-Nummer der englischen Zeitschrift «Anthroposophy» enthalten ist, das auch mit Bezug auf das Erziehungswesen interessant ist.
[ 3 ] Was an inspirierter Erkenntnis durch die charakterisierten Übungen entwickelt wird, macht den Menschen nur bekannt mit der astralischen Organisation des Erdenlebens. Man lernt erkennen, was man als geistig-seelisches Wesen in seiner Entwickelung ist von der Geburt bis zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt, aber von dem, was man auf diese Weise erkennt, ist man aus diesen Erkenntnissen heraus noch nicht in der Lage, zu sagen, daß es mit dem Erdenlauf beginnt und auch mit dem Erdenlebenslauf endigt. Man kommt da sozusagen zu dem Geistig-Seelischen in seinem Erdenleben, aber man kommt nicht dazu, dieses Geistig-Seelische als ein Ewiges, als den ewigen Wesenskern des Menschen zu durchschauen. Dazu ist notwendig, daß die Übungen im Fortschaffen der durch die Meditation herbeigeführten Bilder so fortgesetzt und erweitert werden, daß die Seele immer kräftiger und energischer wird in diesem Fortschaffen. Dieses Weiterführen kann zunächst in nichts anderem bestehen als in fortdauerndem energischem Üben. Man muß immer und immer wieder sich anstrengen, solche Bilder, die durch das imaginative Bewußtsein entweder herbeigeführt oder geschaffen werden, mit einer Kraft aus dem Bewußtsein fortzuschaffen, so daß das Bewußtsein ein leeres wird. Nach und nach verstärkt sich die Kraft der Seele in diesem Fortschaffen so, daß sie zuletzt eine so große ist, daß man jenes eine große Bild des Lebenslaufes selbst seit der Geburt, das man durch Imagination vor die Seele hingestellt erhält, nun auch weg schaffen kann.
[ 4 ] Also wohlgemerkt: Es ist möglich, die Übungen für das Fortschaffen eines Seeleninhaltes und für die Herstellung eines leeren Bewußtseins so weit fortzuführen, daß die Seele so stark wird, auch von dem eigenen Lebenslauf zu abstrahieren. Und in diesem Moment, wo man dazu stark genug ist, lebt man in einem Bewußtsein, das nicht mehr vor sich hat den physischen Organismus, nicht mehr vor sich hat den ätherischen Organismus, damit aber auch alles dasjenige nicht mehr vor sich hat von der Welt, was durch den physischen und durch den ätherischen Organismus aufgenommen wird. Für dieses Bewußtsein ist nicht vorhanden die Sinneswelt mit allen ihren Sinneseindrücken, für dieses Bewußtsein ist aber auch nicht vorhanden die Summe alles ätherischen Geschehens im Kosmos, zu dem man sich ja erst durch das imaginative Erkennen aufgeschwungen hat. Man hat also alles das weggeschafft. Dadurch ist ein höherer Grad der Inspiration innerhalb der Menschenseele herbeigeführt. Was dann durch diesen höheren Grad der Inspiration auftritt, das ist der Zustand der Seele, in welchem sie war in einer geistig-seelischen Welt, bevor sie durch die Empfängnis, durch das embryonale Leben, durch die Geburt herabgestiegen ist in einen menschlichen physischen Organismus. Man gelangt also auf diese Weise zu einer Anschauung des vorirdischen Daseins der Menschenseele. Man schaut hinein in diejenigen Welten, in denen die Seele war, bevor sie hier auf der Erde, ich möchte sagen, das erste Atom eines Physischen mit der Empfängnis überliefert erhalten hat. Man schaut zurück in die Entwikkelung dieser Menschenseele in der geistig-seelischen Welt, man lernt das präexistente Leben dieser Menschenseele kennen. Damit erst hat man die eine Seite der Ewigkeit des menschlichen Seelenkernes ergriffen. Und wenn man das ergriffen hat, dann hat man im Grunde genommen erst die wahre Natur der menschlichen Ich-Wesenheit, des Geistesmenschen, erkannt. Der ist also erst jener Inspiration zugänglich, die auch abstrahieren kann nicht nur von dem eigenen physischen Leib und seinen Eindrücken, sondern auch von dem eigenen Ätherleib als Lebenslauf und seinen Eindrücken.
[ 5 ] Ist man bis zu dieser Erkenntnis der präexistenten Menschenseele in ihrem rein geistig-seelischen Dasein vorgeschritten, dann kann man auch eine Anschauung erhalten von dem, was eigentlich das Denken ist, das Vorstellen, das wir als Menschen in der Seele für das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein im Erdendasein haben. Durch die Fähigkeiten und Kräfte des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins kann man auch bei der sorgfältigsten Selbstanschauung der Seele nicht dazu kommen, die Wesenheit des Denkens oder des Vorstellens zu durchschauen.
[ 6 ] Soll ich nun klarmachen, wie sich für diese Inspiration die Wesenheit des menschlichen irdischen Vorstellens darstellt, so muß ich mich eines Bildes bedienen, aber dieses Bild spricht die volle Realität aus. Denken Sie sich einen menschlichen Leichnam. Dieser Leichnam hat noch die Formen, die der Mensch im Leben gehabt hat. Die Organe sind noch so gegliedert, wie der Mensch sie im Leben gegliedert hatte. Dennoch müssen wir sagen, wenn wir den Leichnam anschauen: Er ist nur der Rest desjenigen, was der lebendige Mensch war. — Aber wenn wir diesen Leichnam nun seiner Wesenheit nach studieren, müssen wir uns sagen: So wie er als Leichnam vor uns liegt, kann er keine ursprüngliche Wirklichkeit haben. Er ist nicht denkbar als etwas, das so entsteht, wie er als Leichnam ist; er kann nur als Rest eines lebendigen Organismus da sein. Der lebendige Organismus muß zuerst dagewesen sein. — Die Formen des Leichnams, die Glieder, alles weist nicht nur auf den Leichnam hin, sondern auf das, aus dem der Leichnam geworden ist. Und wer den Leichnam in dem Zusammenhang des Lebens richtig anschaut, der wird durch den Leichnam verwiesen auf das, aus dem der Leichnam geworden ist, auf den lebendigen Menschen. Die Natur, der wir den Leichnam übergeben, kann diesen nur zerstören. Sie kann ihn nicht als solchen aufbauen. Wollen wir auf die aufbauenden Kräfte im Leichnam sehen, so müssen wir auf den lebendigen Menschen hinschauen.
[ 7 ] Auf einer anderen Stufe, in einer ähnlichen Weise enthüllt sich für die inspirierte Erkenntnis die Wesenheit desjenigen Denkens oder Vorstellens, das wir im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein haben. Dieses ist nämlich eigentlich ein Leichnam, wenigstens etwas, das fortwährend im Erdenleben in das Leichnamhafte des Seelischen übergeht. Das lebendige Denken war vorhanden, als der Mensch noch nicht sein Erdendasein hatte, sondern in der geistig-seelischen Welt ein geistig-seelisches Wesen war. Da war dieses Denken und Vorstellen etwas ganz anderes; da war es ein Lebendiges im Geistesgeschehen. Und was wir als unsere Denkkraft im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein haben, das ist ein Übriggebliebenes von jenem Geistig-Lebendigen, das wir waren, bevor wir auf die Erde herabstiegen. Das ist übriggeblieben, so wie der Leichnam von dem lebendigen physischen Menschen übrigbleibt. Wie der Anschauung am Leichnam sich enthüllt, daß der Leichnam zurückführt auf den lebendigen Menschen, so stellt sich dem, der durch die inspirierte Erkenntnis jetzt auf das ersterbende, beziehungsweise schon tote Denken oder Vorstellen der Seele sieht, ihm stellt sich dar, wie er dieses Denken als den Leichnam des eigentlichen «Denkwesens» behandeln muß, wie er dieses irdische Denken zurückführen muß auf ein übersinnliches, lebensvolles Denken.
[ 8 ] Das ist es, was uns auch qualitativ das Verhältnis eines Teiles unseres Seelenlebens zu unserem vorgeburtlichen, rein geistig-seelischen Dasein enthüllt. Wir lernen einfach auf diese Weise wirklich erkennen, was das gewöhnliche Vorstellen und Denken bedeutet, wenn wir es zurückbeziehen auf seine lebendige Wesenheit, die nicht innerhalb des Erdendaseins zu finden ist, die im Erdendasein eben nur einen Abglanz hat. Und dieser Abglanz ist das gewöhnliche Denken oder Vorstellen. Daher steht dieses gewöhnliche Denken oder Vorstellen mit seiner Abstraktheit im Grunde genommen der wahren Wirklichkeit fern, wie der Leichnam des Menschen der wahren menschlichen Wirklichkeit fernsteht. Wenn wir von der Abstraktheit, von der bloßen Intellektualität des Denkens sprechen, dann ist es eben so, daß wir dunkel fühlen: So wie uns dieses Denken im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein entgegentritt, ist es nicht das, was es sein sollte; es ist aus etwas geworden, in dem eigentlich seine wahre Natur liegt. - Das ist das außerordentlich Wichtige, daß eine wahre Erkenntnis nicht bloß in allgemeinen Redensarten, sondern in konkreten Bildern dasjenige, was der Mensch hier im physischen Leibe erlebt, zu beziehen versteht auf seinen ewigen Wesenskern, so wie es jetzt mit dem Denken, mit dem Vorstellen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins geschehen ist. Dann gewinnt eigentlich erst die Anschauung über die Bedeutung der Imagination und Inspiration das rechte Licht, denn dann weiß man, daß das tote oder ersterbende Denken im Grunde genommen durch jene Übungen, die man macht, um die Inspiration herbeizuführen, wiederum belebt wird, belebt wird innerhalb des physischen Erdendaseins. Inspirierte Erkenntnis erwerben ist also im Grunde genommen Belebung des ersterbenden Denkens. Dadurch wird man nicht etwa vollständig zurückversetzt in das vorgeburtliche Dasein, aber man bekommt durch die seelische Anschauung ein wirkliches Bild dieses vorgeburtlichen Daseins, von dem man weiß, daß es nicht hier auf der Erde entstanden ist, sondern daß es hereinleuchtet aus einem vorirdischen menschlichen Dasein in dieses Menschendasein. Man erkennt es an dem Bilde, daß es das Erkenntniszeugnis ist für den Zustand der menschlichen Seele im vorirdischen Dasein.
[ 9 ] Welche Bedeutung dies hat für die philosophische Erkenntnis, soll im nächsten Teil dieses Vortrages auseinandergesetzt werden.
[ 10 ] Wie man auf diese Art in der Lage ist, die wahre Wesenheit des Denkens und Vorstellens des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins zu erforschen, so kann man auch durch die hier gemeinte übersinnliche Erkenntnis die Wesenheit, die hinter dem Wollen steckt, zur Anschauung bringen. Nur ist dazu notwendig nicht bloß die höhere Erkenntnis der Inspiration, sondern die höhere Erkenntnis der Intuition, die ich gestern charakterisiert habe und von der ich sagte, daß, um sie auszubilden, gewisse Willensübungen notwendig sind. Wenn man diese Willensübungen ausführt, gelangt man dazu, die eigene seelisch-geistige Wesenheit hinauszutragen sowohl aus dem physischen wie aus dem ätherischen Organismus. Man trägt sie hinaus in die Geisteswelt selbst. Die eigene Wesenheit als Ich-Mensch und als astralische Organisation trägt man hinaus in die geistige Welt. Man lernt auf diese Art erkennen, was es bedeutet, außerhalb seines physischen und seines ätherischen Organismus zu leben. Man lernt erkennen, in welchen Zustand die Menschenseele kommt, wenn sie den physischen und den ätherischen Organismus abgeworfen hat. Das aber heißt nichts Geringeres als: man bekommt auf diese Weise ein Vorgesicht desjenigen, was sich mit dem Menschen abspielt, wenn er durch das Ereignis des Todes geht.
[ 11 ] Durch das Ereignis des Todes werden der physische und der ätherische Organismus abgestreift. Sie werden so abgestreift, daß sie in der Form, die sie im Erdendasein getragen haben, nicht mehr die Umkleidung des Menschen bilden können. Was aber dann mit dem eigentlichen menschlichen Wesenskern geschieht, das lernt man in der intuitiven Erkenntnis schon im Vorgesicht kennen, wenn man mit seinem Geistesmenschen, statt daß man in seinem physischen Leibe ist, draußen ist in der Welt der geistigen Wesenheiten. Denn das ist man. Durch die intuitive Erkenntnis kommt man in die Lage, außerhalb seiner physischen und ätherischen Organisation so in anderen geistigen Wesenheiten drinnen zu sein, wie man sonst hier im Erdenleben in seinem physischen und in seinem ätherischen Leib drinnen ist. Was man also durch die Intuition bekommt, ist ein Erlebnisbild dessen, was man durchzumachen hat, wenn man durch das Ereignis des Todes geht. Erst in dieser Art ist eine wirkliche Anschauung zu gewinnen von dem, was der Idee der unsterblichen Menschenseele zugrunde liegt. Diese Menschenseele ist — das lehrt schon die inspirierte Erkenntnis — nach der einen Seite ungeboren. Nach der anderen Seite ist sie unsterblich.
[ 12 ] Das lehrt die Intuition. Auf diese Art aber, da man durch sie die wahre Wesenheit des menschlichen ewigen Wesenskernes kennenlernt, insofern er ein Leben nach unserem physischen Tode zu führen hat, lernt man auch dasjenige erkennen, was hinter dem menschlichen Wollen steckt. Was hinter dem menschlichen Denken steckt, ist soeben charakterisiert worden; das ist durch die Inspiration erkennbar. Was hinter dem menschlichen Wollen steckt, wird erkennbar, wenn man durch Willensübungen die Intuition herbeiführt. Dann enthüllt sich einem das Wollen so, daß hinter ihm etwas ganz anderes steckt, von dem das Wollen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins lediglich der Abglanz ist. Dann zeigt sich nämlich, daß das Wollen etwas hinter sich hat, das in gewissem Sinne ein jüngeres Glied des menschlichen Seelenlebens ist. Wenn wir vom Denken und vom Vorstellen als einem Ersterbenden, ja als von einem schon Toten sprechen und es ansehen als den älteren Teil der menschlichen Seele, dann müssen wir demgegenüber das Wollen als den jüngeren Teil der Menschenseele ansprechen. Wir können sagen, daß das Wollen, beziehungsweise das, was als eigentliches Seelisches hinter dem Wollen steckt, sich zu dem Denken so verhält wie ein junges Kind zu einem Greise. Nur ist, wenn wir auf Kind und Greis hinschauen, in der menschlichen Organisation die Greisenorganisation eigentlich zeitlich nach der kindlichen Organisation vorhanden. Im Seelischen dagegen bestehen das Kindliche und das Greisenhafte nebeneinander. Die Seele hat ihr Alter und ihre Jugend, ja sogar ihren Tod und ihre Geburt fortwährend in sich.
[ 13 ] Gegenüber einer solchen, von Inspiration und Intuition getragenen Seelenerkenntnis, die ganz konkret ist, ist das, was man heute Philosophie nennt, etwas außerordentlich Abstraktes, denn diese beschreibt einfach Denken und Wollen. Die wirkliche Seelenerkenntnis dagegen kann darauf hinweisen: wenn das Wollen alt ist, dann wird es ein Denken, und das altgewordene, ja erstorbene Denken hat sich aus einem Wollen entwickelt. Man lernt so wirklich das seelische Leben kennen, lernt auch hinschauen auf die Tatsache, daß dasjenige, was sich uns in diesem Erdenleben als ein Denken enthüllt, in einem früheren Erdenleben ein Wollen war, und was in diesem Erdenleben ein Wollen, also noch etwas Junges im Seelenleben ist, das wird im späteren Erdenleben - ein Denken.
[ 14 ] So lernt man auf diese Weise hineinschauen in die Seele und lernt sie eigentlich erst wirklich kennen. Dann enthüllt sich einem der wollende Teil der Menschenseele als etwas, was ein embryonales Leben führt. Wenn wir mit dem, was wir als ein Wollen in uns haben, hinausgehen in die geistige Welt, dann haben wir eine jugendliche Seele, die uns durch ihren eigenen Charakter darüber belehrt, daß sie eigentlich ein Kind ist. Und ebensowenig, wie wir von einem Kinde annehmen können, daß es nicht weiter wachse zum Greise hin, wenn es nicht gerade krank ist, ebensowenig können wir von dem, was wir als jugendliche Seele erkennen, nun annehmen - das enthüllt uns die Intuition -, daß sie sich mit dem Tode auflöst, denn sie hat ja erst ihr embryonales Leben erreicht. Wir lernen durch die Intuition kennen, wie sie mit dem Todesmoment hinausgeht in die geistige Welt. Das heißt, wirklich den ewigen Wesenskern des Menschen erkennen nach seiner Ungeborenheit und nach seiner Unsterblichkeit. Demgegenüber arbeitet die moderne Philosophie nur in Ideen, die dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein entnommen sind. Was heißt das aber: Ideen, die dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein entnommen sind? Nun, wir können es ja aus dem Angeführten sehen: das sind tote Seelenwesenheiten.
[ 15 ] Wenn also diese mit Ideen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins arbeitende Philosophie den denkenden Teil der Seele richtig anschauen will, um zu Ergebnissen zu kommen, so wird sie, wenn sie unbefangen genug dazu ist, rein durch die Untersuchung dessen, was im Denken und Vorstellen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins vorliegt, sich sagen: Das erklärt sein Dasein nicht aus sich selber -, gerade so, wie man bei einem Leichnam sich sagen muß: Der kann nicht aus einem Leichnam entstanden sein, der muß aus etwas anderem entstanden sein. — Die Physiologie weist durch Anschauung darauf hin. Die Philosophie sollte aus dem, was hier durch Intuition vorliegt, den Schluß ziehen: Gerade deshalb, weil das gewöhnliche Denken und Vorstellen einen ersterbenden Charakter hat, darf ich bei ihm auf ein Vorhergehendes schließen. — Was die Inspiration durch Anschauung ergründet, das kann die Philosophie durch logische Schlüsse, durch Dialektik, das heißt auf indirekte, beweisende Art finden.
[ 16 ] Was müßte also eine Philosophie tun, die innerhalb des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins stehenbleiben will? Sie müßte sagen: Wenn ich mich nicht zu irgendeiner übersinnlichen Erkenntnis aufschwingen will, müßte ich wenigstens analysieren, was im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein vorliegt. — Und wenn sie es unbefangen macht, findet sie, daß das Denken und Vorstellen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins etwas Leichnamhaftes hat. Sie müßte also sagen: Weil das etwas ist, was seine Wesenheit nicht aus sich selbst erklärt, darf ich darauf schließen, daß die wirkliche Wesenheit der Sache vorangeht. — Dazu gehört aber allerdings jene Unbefangenheit in der Analyse der Seele, die erkennt, daß das Denken und Vorstellen etwas Leichnamhaftes hat. Aber diese Unbefangenheit ist möglich. Denn nur Befangenheit erkennt im Denken, wie es dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein gegeben ist, etwas Lebendiges. Unbefangenheit enthüllt dieses Denken als etwas, was für sich selber abgestorben ist. Deshalb sagte ich auch im vorigen Vortrage: Es ist ganz gut möglich, in das erstorbene Denken den Inhalt der Naturwissenschaft hereinzunehmen. — Das auf der einen Seite.
[ 17 ] Die intellektualistische Philosophie kann also nur auf indirektem Wege zu einem Erkennen des ewigen Wesenskernes des Menschen kommen, und zwar nur durch das Erkennen dessen, was dem Erdenleben gegenüber als ein Vorangehendes zu betrachten ist. Wenn dann eine solche Philosophie nicht nur auf das Denken eingeht, wenn sie nicht nur intellektualistisch sein will, sondern auch eingeht auf ein inneres Erleben des Wollens, überhaupt der anderen Seelenkräfte, die im Weltenzusammenhange jünger sind als das Denken, dann kann eine solche Philosophie sich eine Vorstellung machen von dem Wechselspiel zwischen dem Denken und dem Wollen. Sie kommt dann auf der einen Seite zu dem logischen Schluß von dem Zusammenhang des ersterbenden Denkens zu dem vorirdischen Seelendasein, das sie nicht anschauen kann, das sie seiner Wesenheit nach nicht erkennen kann, auf das sie aber schließen kann als auf etwas, das in einem Unbekannten da ist. Und wenn sie eingeht auf das Wollen oder auf die Gemütskräfte und das Wechselspiel zwischen dem Denken und den Gemütskräften erlebt, dann wird sie darauf kommen, nicht nur ein Ersterbendes, sondern auch ein Embryonales im Wollen zu erkennen. Das können Sie, wenn Sie es nur unbefangen in die entsprechenden Worte kleiden, sogar bei Bergson finden. An der Art, wie er spricht, wie er philosophiert, merkt man bei ihm den Impuls, den er selber empfindet, und durch dessen Empfindung er sich selber hineinversetzt in die Erkenntnis eines ewigen Wesenskernes der Menschenseele. Aber da Bergson es ablehnt, zu einer übersinnlichen Erkenntnis zu kommen, so gelangt er nur zu einer Erkenntnis des menschlichen Wesenskernes, insofern er sich im Erdenleben offenbart; und er kann eigentlich nicht aus seiner Philosophie bündige Beweise bekommen für Ungeborenheit und Unsterblichkeit. Aber er charakterisiert auf der einen Seite, was alt geworden ist, als Denken — wenn er es auch anders benennt — und als Leichnamhaftes sich hinüberlegend über die Sinnesanschauungen. Auf der anderen Seite fühlt er durch die lebendige Art, wie er es charakterisiert - das Embryonale im Wollen, in das er sich lebendig versetzen kann und dem man anfühlt: es ist ein Ewiges darinnen. Aber er kommt auf diese Art doch nur zu der Charakteristik des geistig-seelischen Wesenskernes des Menschen im Erdenleben, nicht darüber hinaus.
[ 18 ] So kann man sagen: Alle bloß auf das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein bauende Ideen-Philosophie kann, wenn sie unbefangen ist, durch eine Analyse des Denkens und Wollens auf einem indirekten Wege nur zu einem Schlusse darüber kommen, daß die Seele ein ungeborenes und unsterbliches Wesen ist, aber nicht zu einer direkten Anschauung darüber. Diese direkte Anschauung, das heißt die Erfüllung der Ideenphilosophie, die Anschauung der wirklichen ewigen Wesenheit der Seele, die kann nur gewonnen werden durch Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition, wie sie hier geschildert wurden. Daher wird ein wirklicher Inhalt über das Ewige der Menschenseele, wenn er auch heute in der Philosophie auftritt, doch nur traditionell aus älteren traumhaften Erkenntnissen geschöpft sein, wenn es auch die Philosophen oft nicht wissen und glauben, daß sie es aus sich selbst herausholen. Dieser Inhalt kann durchzogen sein von Dialektik und Logik. Aber eine wirkliche Erneuerung des philosophischen Lebens ist davon abhängig, daß das Geistesleben der Gegenwart anerkennt vollbewußte Imagination, vollbewußte Inspiration, vollbewußte Intuition, und daß es diese Erkenntnismethoden nicht nur anerkennt, sondern deren Ergebnisse für das philosophische Leben auch wirklich verwendet. Wie sich das für Kosmologie und Religion ausnimmt, werde ich in den nächsten beiden Teilen der Betrachtung zu erläutern versuchen.
[ 19 ] Wenn Sie bedenken, daß man erst durch eine höhere Inspiration zur Anschauung des ewigen Wesenskernes des Menschen kommt, wie dieser Wesenskern im außerirdischen Dasein ist, so werden Sie sich sagen: Erst durch diese höhere Inspiration und — mit Rücksicht auf das, was ich über Intuition gesagt habe — erst durch die Intuition kann der Mensch sich selber eigentlich erkennen. — Also er kann das, was aus dem Kosmos in sein eigenes Wesen hereinspielt, erst durch die höhere Inspiration und durch die Intuition erkennen. Wenn er dasjenige, in das der Kosmos hereinspielt, nämlich sich selbst, eigentlich erst in Inspiration und Intuition kennenlernt, so kann eine wirkliche Kosmologie — das heißt ein Bild des Kosmos, das den Menschen nach seiner totalen Wesenheit mitumfaßt - erst entstehen innerhalb der inspirierten und intuitiven Erkenntnis. Dadurch erst erlangt der Mensch eine Anschauung von dem, was auch in seinem Erdendasein an seinem physischen und an seinem ätherischen Organismus arbeitet.
[ 20 ] In diesem physischen und ätherischen Organismus ist ja das GeistigSeelische des Menschen nicht nur verborgen, sondern es ist während des Erdendaseins für das wache Tagesleben geradezu umgewandelt, metamorphosiert. Ebensowenig, wie die Wurzel eine Pflanze in ihrer wirklichen Gestalt wiedergeben kann, ebensowenig kann eine Betrachtung des physischen und des ätherischen Organismus eine Anschauung von dem ewigen Wesenskern des Menschen geben. Diese gewinnt man nur, wenn man hineinschaut in das, was vom Menschen vor der Geburt und nach dem Tode liegt. Erst dann aber kann man die wahre Wesenheit des Menschen, die man außerhalb des Erdendaseins zu konstatieren hat, auf einen Kosmos beziehen. Daher hat auch das moderne Geistesleben in der Zeit, in welcher es irgendeine Clairvoyance abgelehnt hat, gar nicht die Möglichkeit gehabt, zu einer Kosmologie zu kommen, die den Menschen mitumfaßt, wie ich es schon angedeutet habe, wie es aber insbesondere aus dem ersichtlich sein muß, was ich heute geschildert habe. Dennoch hat man von philosophischer Seite immer in früheren Zeiten, noch im Beginne des vorigen Jahrhunderts, namentlich aber am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts, als einen Teil der Philosophie eine, wie man sagte, «rationelle Kosmologie» ausgebildet.
[ 21 ] Diese rationelle Kosmologie, die ein Teil der Philosophie sein sollte, wurde von den Philosophen auch nur mit Hilfe des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins ausgebildet. Aber wenn man schon mit der gewöhnlichen Philosophie die eben charakterisierten Schwierigkeiten hatte, zur wahren Wesenheit der Seele vorzudringen, so wird man verstehen, daß es ganz unmöglich ist, einen wirklichen Inhalt für eine Kosmologie zu gewinnen, die den Menschen mitumfaßt, wenn man sich nur in den Ideen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins bewegen will. Die rationelle Kosmologie, welche die Philosophen noch bis vor kurzer Zeit ausgebildet haben, lebte daher ihrem Inhalte nach in Wahrheit von den aus der Tradition empfangenen kosmologischen Ideen, die von der Menschheit gewonnen worden sind, als noch ein traumhaftes Hellsehen vorhanden war, und die nur erneuert werden können durch das, was hier als exakte Clairvoyance geschildert wird. Die Philosophen haben auch auf diesem Gebiete nicht gewußt, daß sie eigentlich Anleihen machten bei der alten Kosmologie. Sie bekamen gewisse Ideen; diese nahmen sie auf aus der Geschichte der Kosmologie und glaubten, sie hätten diese Ideen aus sich selber heraus produziert. Aber was sie herausbrachten, waren nur logische Zusammenhänge, durch die sie die alten Ideen zusammenstellten und etwa eine neue Systematik brachten. So entstanden solche Kosmologien in früheren Zeiten als Teil der Philosophie, aber da man kein lebendiges Verhältnis mehr hatte zu dem, was man als Ideen aufnahm, was man aus dem alten Hellsehen herübernahm, so wurden die Ideen der Kosmologien immer abstrakter.
[ 22 ] Man sehe sich nur einmal die philosophischen Bücher früherer Zeiten an in den Kapiteln, die über die Kosmologie sprechen, und man wird finden, wie abstrakt und im Grunde genommen leer diese Ideen sind, die da über Weltenwerden, über Weltenende und so weiter entwickelt werden. Man kann sagen, die Ideen sind herübergenommen worden. In uralten Zeiten waren diese Ideen lebendig, weil der Mensch ein lebendiges Verhältnis hatte zu dem, was diese Ideen ausdrückten. Allmählich waren diese Ideen dünn und abstrakt geworden und man charakterisierte nur in äußerlicher Weise, was eine Kosmologie enthalten soll, die nicht nur auf die äußere Naturordnung geht, die den Menschen seiner ganzen Wesenheit nach mitumfassen kann und die auf das Geistig-Seelische des Kosmos geht. In dieser Beziehung hat der außerordentlich geistvolle Emile Boutroux bedeutsame Charakteristiken gegeben, wie zu einer Kosmologie zu kommen sei. Da aber auch er nur auf das bauen will, was das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein umfassen kann, so kam er auch nur zu einer abstrakten Kosmologie.
[ 23 ] So wurden die Kosmologien immer leerer und leerer an wirklichem Inhalt, wurden eine Summe von abstrakten Ideen und Charakteristiken. Daher ist es kein Wunder, daß diese rationelle Kosmologie allmählich sehr in Mißkredit gekommen ist. Die Naturforscher kamen herauf, welche die Natur so durchforschen konnten, als Triumpf der Naturwissenschaft, wie das in der neueren Zeit geschehen ist. Sie können Naturgesetze formulieren, aus Beobachtung und Experiment eine innere Regelmäßigkeit der Natur konstatieren und daraus eine naturalistische Kosmologie zusammenstellen. Was man so aus den Ideen über die äußere Natur als naturalistische Kosmologie zusammenstellte, hatte zwar nun einen Inhalt, den äußeren sinnlichen Inhalt. Gegen den kam die inhaltlose rationelle Kosmologie, welche die Philosophen konstruierten, nicht auf. Sie kam daher in Mißkredit; man ließ sie allmählich fallen und spricht deshalb nicht mehr von einer rationellen, das heißt bloß logisch erschlossenen Kosmologie, sondern man begnügt sich jetzt mit einer naturalistischen Kosmologie, die aber den Menschen nicht umfaßt.
[ 24 ] So kann man sagen: Gerade die Kosmologie lehrt, noch mehr als die gewöhnliche Philosophie, wie man wiederum zur Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition seine Zuflucht nehmen muß. Die Philosophie kann wenigstens die Menschenseele beobachten und sie findet bei unbefangener Beobachtung des Denkens, das als Ersterbendes auf etwas anderes hinweist, daß außerhalb des ganzen Menschendaseins etwas liegt, was den Menschen innerlich umfaßt; und ebenso kann sie über den Tod hinausweisen. Also kann die Philosophie wenigstens aus Schlüssen, die aus dem reichen Seelenleben des Denkens, Fühlens und Wollens gezogen sind, ihre Abstraktionen reich und mannigfaltig machen. Das ist noch möglich. Die Kosmologie als geistige Wissenschaft kann nur begründet werden, wenn man ihr einen Inhalt auch aus der geistigen Anschauung heraus gibt. Da kann man nicht einmal mehr auf einen Inhalt schließen. Will man einen Inhalt haben, muß man ihn aus den alten hellseherischen Anschauungen entlehnen, wie man ihn in den traditionell übernommenen Ideen hatte, oder man muß auf eine neue Art, wie es dargestellt worden ist, wiederum dazu kommen.
[ 25 ] Ist also die Philosophie noch in der Lage, den logischen Weg durchmachen zu können, so ist eine Kosmologie dazu nicht mehr in der Lage. Daher hat sie auch nach und nach als rationelle Kosmologie, die nur auf das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein bauen konnte, ihren Inhalt und damit ihren Kredit verloren. Und wollen wir wieder über die naturalistische Kosmologie hinaus zu einer neuen Kosmologie kommen, die den Menschen in seiner Totalität umfaßt, so müssen wir uns dazu bequemen, durch Inspiration und Intuition dasjenige im Menschen anzuschauen, in das der geistige Kosmos sich hereinspiegelt. Mit anderen Worten: Noch mehr als die Philosophie ist die Kosmologie darauf angewiesen, daß das neue Geistesleben die Methoden der vollbewußten Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition anerkennt, und nicht nur diese Methoden anerkennt, sondern die Ergebnisse dieser Methoden auch für eine wirkliche Kosmologie verwendet.
[ 26 ] Was für die Religion von dieser Seite aus zu sagen ist, soll dann im letzten Teile dargestellt werden.
[ 27 ] Zu einer erkenntnismäßigen Grundlage des religiösen Lebens ist notwendig, daß die Erlebnisse, die der geistige Mensch unter den geistigen Wesenheiten machen kann, in das Erdenleben hereingetragen und innerhalb desselben geschildert werden. Man hat es in diesen ErJebnissen mit etwas zu tun, was dem irdischen Leben völlig unähnlich ist, von ihm ganz verschieden ist. Man hat es mit etwas zu tun, worinnen der Mensch eigentlich nur außerhalb des irdischen Lebens steht, was daher auch nur erfaßt werden kann mit denjenigen Menschenkräften, die ganz unabhängig sind von dem physischen und ätherischen menschlichen Organismus, die also ganz gewiß nicht innerhalb des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins liegen können. Nur wenn dieses gewöhnliche Bewußtsein zu hellseherischen Fähigkeiten aufsteigt, kann es Schilderungen derjenigen Erlebnisse entwerfen, die der Mensch in der rein geistigen Welt macht. Daher ist eine «rationelle Theologie», eine Theologie, welche sich bloß auf das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein stützen will, in einer noch übleren Lage als eine «rationelle Kosmologie».
[ 28 ] Die rationelle Kosmologie hat immerhin noch etwas, was wenigstens hereinleuchtet in das menschliche Erdendasein, da ja — allerdings auf indirekte Weise, auf einem Umwege - auch der physische und der ätherische Mensch etwas in ihrer Form, in ihrem Leben bewirkt werden von geistigen Wesenheiten. Die Erlebnisse aber, die der Mensch in reinen Geisteswelten hat und die durch exakte Intuition erfahren werden können, sie können nicht irgendwie aus dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein erschlossen werden, wie es in der Philosophie der Fall ist. Sie können auch nicht einmal geahnt werden, sondern sie können heute, wo man alles, was menschliche Erkenntnis ist, aus dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein heraus gestalten will, in einer noch deutlicheren Weise als dies bei den kosmologischen Ideen der Fall ist, nur traditionell aus jenen Zeiten übernommen werden, in denen die Menschen in traumhaftem Hellsehen sich hineingelebt haben in die geistigen Welten und in diese irdische Welt das herübergetragen haben, was sie dort erlebt haben.
[ 29 ] Wenn sich jemand einbildet, er könne irgendwie in Ideen, die nur auf Grundlage des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins errichtet sind, irgend etwas aussagen über die Wesenheit dessen, was der Mensch in der Gotteswelt erlebt, so irrt er sich gewaltig. Daher ist die Theologie immer mehr und mehr dazu gekommen, eine Art historischer Theologie zu bilden, und dabei noch mehr als die Kosmologie nur die alten, in einem früheren Hellsehen erworbenen Ideen über das Gottesreich aufzunehmen. Diese werden dann durch Logik und Dialektik in ein System gebracht. Man glaubt dann, etwas elementar Ursprüngliches darin zu haben, aber es ist doch nur als Systematik das Eigentum derjenigen, die diese Theologie bearbeitet haben. Es ist ein historisches Produkt, zuweilen in neue Formen gegossen. Aber alles, was an wirklichem Inhalt vorhanden ist, das ist bei denen, die nur aus dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein schöpfen wollen, eben der Tradition, der Geschichte entlehnt. Dadurch aber ist das, was einzelne Philosophen, die in früheren Zeiten eine rationelle Kosmologie ausgebildet haben und auch als rationelle Theologie noch ausbilden wollten, noch mehr in Mißkredit gekommen. Dort ist die rationelle Kosmologie in Mißkredit gekommen gegenüber der naturalistischen Kosmologie; hier, auf religiösem Gebiete, ist die rationelle Theologie in Mißkredit gekommen gegenüber dem, was sich als rein historische Theologie herausbildete, die auf die reine Wirklichkeit verzichtete, auf das, was unmittelbares Hervorbringen von Ideen über die geistige Welt ist, von einem Erleben der geistigen Welt.
[ 30 ] Dieses unmittelbare Verhältnis, diese lebendigen Beziehungen zu dem Erleben in der geistigen Welt waren der neueren Menschheit eigentlich schon in dem Zeitalter hingeschwunden, als im Mittelalter die Gottesbeweise aufkamen. Solange ein unmittelbares Verhältnis zu dem im Gottesreich Erlebten vorhanden war, redete man nicht von dialektischen oder logischen Gottesbeweisen. Die Gottesbeweise selbst sind ein Beweis dafür, daß, als sie aufkamen, das lebendige Verhältnis zum Gottesreich erstorben war. Im Grunde genommen hatte die scholastische Theologie recht, die sagte: Die gewöhnliche Vernunft ist nicht imstande, etwas auszusagen über das Gottesreich; sie kann nur die Ideen, die schon da sind, verdeutlichen, in ein System bringen. Sie kann nur etwas beitragen, um die Lehrgestalt in eine dem Menschen annehmbare Form zu bringen.
[ 31 ] In der neueren Zeit können wir beobachten, wie aus dieser Ohnmacht des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins, über das Gottesreich etwas auszumachen, zwei Verirrungen entstanden sind. Da sind auf der einen Seite die Wissenschafter, die über Religion, über Gott reden wollen, die aber die Ohnmacht des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins gegenüber dem Gottesreich fühlen und dann bloß eine Religionsgeschichte begründen. Ein religiöser Gehalt kann in der unmittelbaren Gegenwart auf diese Weise nicht hervorgebracht werden. Daher betrachtet man die bestehenden Religionen oder die bestandenen Religionen geschichtlich. Was betrachtet man da eigentlich? Man betrachtet das, was einmal als religiöser Gehalt da war durch das alte traumhafte intuitive Hellsehen. Oder man betrachtet das vom religiösen Leben in der Gegenwart, was noch als Rest aus dem alten traumhaft hellseherischen Zustande sich erhalten hat. Das bezeichnet man als Religionsgeschichte und verzichtet völlig auf die Hervorbringung eines eigenen religiösen Lebens.
[ 32 ] Andere wieder merken, daß dieses gewöhnliche Bewußtsein, dieses klare Alltagsbewußtsein im Menschen doch ohnmächtig ist, irgend etwas auszusagen über die Erlebnisse im rein geistigen Gottesreich. Daher wendet man sich an die mehr unterbewußten Regionen der Menschenseele, an die Gefühlswelt, an gewisse mystische Fähigkeiten und spricht von einem unmittelbaren, elementaren Gotteserleben. Das ist ja heute sehr verbreitet, daß man von einem unmittelbaren, elementaren Gotteserleben spricht. Ja, gerade die Vertreter dieses elementaren Gotteserlebens sind für den Zustand der Geistesverfassung der Gegenwart besonders charakteristisch. Sie fliehen mit aller Macht die Möglichkeit, ihr Gottesbewußtsein in klare Ideen, die logisch gestaltet sind, zu bringen. Sie machen lange Ausführungen darüber, daß eben dieses die wahre Religion nach ihrer Meinung enthaltende elementare Gotteserleben nicht in logische Beweise gebracht werden könne, daß man darauf verzichten müsse, den religiösen Gehalt in intellektualistischen Formen auszudrücken. Solche Vertreter eines elementaren Gottesbewußtseins geben sich aber doch nur Illusionen hin, denn das, was irgendwo in einer Seelenregion erlebt wird, kann auch in klare Ideen gebracht werden. Und stellt man nach dem Muster dieser Leute die Theorie auf, der religiöse Gehalt verliere, wenn er in klare Ideen umgesetzt wird, so zeigt man damit, daß man sich nicht einem wirklichen, sondern nur einem erträumten Ideengehalt hingegeben hat. Es ist ganz besonders charakteristisch für die Gegenwart in bezug auf das religiöse Leben, daß man an etwas appelliert, das, wenn es zur Klarheit gebracht werden soll, eigentlich in den Irrtum verfällt.
[ 33 ] Daraus geht ganz besonders hervor, daß wir zur Erneuerung der Erkenntnisgrundlage des religiösen Lebens nur gelangen können, wenn wir eine Erkenntnismethode nicht abweisen, die hineinführen kann in die lebendige Anschauung des Erlebens des Geistesmenschen und der geistigen Wesenheiten. Gerade für die erkenntnismäßige Grundlegung der Religion brauchen wir diese Erkenntnismethode ganz besonders. Denn für die Religion kann das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein höchstens Erkenntnisse systematisieren oder verdeutlichen oder in eine Lehrgestalt bringen; finden kann es sie nicht. Sonst muß sich die Religion beschränken auf das bloß traditionelle Aufnehmen des aus ganz anderen menschlichen Seelenverfassungen in früheren Zeiten Hervorgegangenen. Damit müßte sie sich beschränken auf das, was dem an moderner Wissenschaft herangeschulten Bewußtsein niemals genügen würde.
[ 34 ] Daher muß für die erkenntnismäßige Grundlegung der Religion ein Satz ausgesprochen werden, den ich heute schon für andere Gebiete ausgesprochen habe, der aber für die einzelnen Zweige ganz besonders ausgesprochen werden muß. Ich muß ihn zum dritten Male jetzt für die erkenntnismäßige Grundlegung der Religion aussprechen:
[ 35 ] Soll das religiöse Leben aus den geistigen Bedürfnissen der Gegenwart heraus erneuert werden und eine lebendige Anfachung erfahren, so muß das Geistesleben der Gegenwart vollbewußte imaginative, inspirierte und intuitive Erkenntnis anerkennen — und insbesondere für das religiöse Gebiet nicht nur anerkennen, sondern für den lebendigen religiösen Gehalt muß dieses unser modernes Geistesleben diese geisteswissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse auch in entsprechender Weise verwenden.

Insight and Willpower Exercises
[ 1 ] The exercises I have described for finding inspiration are actually only preliminary exercises for more advanced extrasensory perception. However, through these exercises, one is able to see one's own human life in the way I have described, to see what unfolds as the etheric world of facts behind human thinking, feeling, and willing in the vastness of earthly existence. By removing the images that are gained either in meditation or as a result of meditation, by creating this empty consciousness, one also comes to know the etheric essence of the cosmos and the spiritual beings that reign within it in their revelations. However, if one only learns about human soul life in this way, that is, the astral organization of the human being, then one first becomes aware of what is present in hereditary development for the physical organization of the human being, in other words, what the human being inherits for the physical body from his ancestors in the continuous facts of heredity. One also gains an insight into what is brought into the etheric organism from the cosmos, which is not subject to heredity but which withdraws from heredity and has a significance for human individuality, that is, what already frees the human being in his etheric body and in his astral organization from what he inherits from his ancestors, from whom he receives his physical body.
[ 2 ] It is extremely important to arrive at a precise distinction between what is transmitted from ancestors to descendants in the continuous stream of physical heredity and what, on the other hand, is given to the human individual from the etheric-cosmic world, whereby this human individual actually becomes personal, individual, and breaks free from inherited characteristics. It is particularly important for educational science and pedagogy to understand this clearly; and it is precisely through such insights as those indicated here that significant foundations can be gained for educators. I would like to refer you to the booklet available in Albert Steffen's version of the Pedagogical Course I gave here in Dornach last Christmas, and also to the article in the July/August issue of the English magazine Anthroposophy, which is also interesting in relation to education.
[ 3 ] What is developed through inspired insight gained from the exercises described above merely familiarizes people with the astral organization of earthly life. One learns to recognize what one is as a spiritual-soul being in one's development from birth to the present moment, but from what one recognizes in this way, one is not yet able to say that it begins with the earthly life and also ends with the earthly life. One arrives, so to speak, at the spiritual-soul aspect of one's earthly life, but one does not arrive at seeing this spiritual-soul aspect as something eternal, as the eternal core of the human being. For this, it is necessary that the exercises in bringing forth the images brought about by meditation be continued and expanded so that the soul becomes ever stronger and more energetic in this bringing forth. At first, this continuation can consist of nothing other than continuous, energetic practice. One must strive again and again to remove images that have been brought about or created by the imaginative consciousness with a force from the consciousness, so that the consciousness becomes empty. Gradually, the power of the soul in this removal becomes so strong that it is finally great enough to remove the one great image of the course of life itself since birth, which has been placed before the soul through imagination.
[ 4 ] So, mind you: it is possible to continue the exercises for removing the contents of the soul and for creating an empty consciousness to such an extent that the soul becomes strong enough to abstract itself from its own life course. And at that moment, when one is strong enough to do so, one lives in a consciousness that no longer has the physical organism before it, no longer has the etheric organism before it, but also no longer has before it anything of the world that is taken in through the physical and etheric organisms. For this consciousness, the sensory world with all its sensory impressions does not exist, but neither does the sum of all etheric events in the cosmos, to which one has only risen through imaginative cognition. One has thus removed everything. This brings about a higher degree of inspiration within the human soul. What then arises through this higher degree of inspiration is the state of the soul in which it was in a spiritual-soul world before it descended into a human physical organism through conception, embryonic life, and birth. In this way, one arrives at a view of the pre-earthly existence of the human soul. One looks into those worlds in which the soul was before it received, here on earth, I would say, the first atom of a physical body through conception. One looks back into the development of this human soul in the spiritual-soul world and learns about the pre-existing life of this human soul. Only then has one grasped one side of the eternity of the human soul core. And once you have grasped that, then you have basically recognized the true nature of the human I-being, of the spiritual human being. Only then is one accessible to inspiration that can abstract not only from one's own physical body and its impressions, but also from one's own etheric body as a life course and its impressions.
[ 5 ] Once you have advanced to this realization of the pre-existing human soul in its purely spiritual-soul existence, you can also gain an insight into what thinking and imagining actually are, which we as human beings have in our souls for ordinary consciousness in earthly existence. Even with the most careful self-observation of the soul, the abilities and powers of ordinary consciousness cannot enable us to understand the essence of thinking or imagining.
[ 6 ] If I am now to explain how the essence of human earthly imagination presents itself for this inspiration, I must use an image, but this image expresses the full reality. Think of a human corpse. This corpse still has the forms that the human being had in life. The organs are still arranged as they were in life. Nevertheless, when we look at the corpse, we must say: It is only the remnant of what the living human being was. But when we study this corpse in terms of its essence, we must say: As it lies before us as a corpse, it cannot have any original reality. It is inconceivable as something that comes into being as a corpse; it can only exist as the remnant of a living organism. The living organism must have existed first. The forms of the corpse, the limbs, everything points not only to the corpse, but to that from which the corpse has become. And whoever looks at the corpse correctly in the context of life will be referred by the corpse to that from which the corpse has become, to the living human being. Nature, to which we surrender the corpse, can only destroy it. It cannot build it up as such. If we want to see the constructive forces in the corpse, we must look at the living human being.
[ 7 ] On another level, in a similar way, the essence of the thinking or imagining that we have in ordinary consciousness is revealed to inspired knowledge. This is actually a corpse, or at least something that continually passes into the corpse-like nature of the soul during earthly life. Living thinking existed when human beings did not yet have their earthly existence, but were spiritual-soul beings in the spiritual-soul world. There, this thinking and imagining was something completely different; there it was something living in the spiritual process. And what we have as our power of thinking in ordinary consciousness is a remnant of that spiritual life we had before we descended to earth. It has remained, just as the corpse remains of the living physical human being. Just as contemplation of the corpse reveals that the corpse leads back to the living human being, so it appears to those who, through inspired knowledge, now look at the dying or already dead thinking or imagining of the soul, that they must treat this thinking as the corpse of the actual “thinking being,” that they must trace this earthly thinking back to a supersensible, life-filled thinking.
[ 8 ] This is what also reveals to us, qualitatively, the relationship of a part of our soul life to our pre-birth, purely spiritual-soul existence. In this way, we simply learn to truly recognize what ordinary imagination and thinking mean when we trace them back to their living essence, which cannot be found within earthly existence, which has only a reflection in earthly existence. And this reflection is ordinary thinking or imagining. Therefore, this ordinary thinking or imagining, with its abstractness, is basically far removed from true reality, just as the corpse of a human being is far removed from true human reality. When we speak of the abstract nature, of the mere intellectuality of thinking, we feel intuitively that this thinking, as it appears to us in ordinary consciousness, is not what it should be; it has become something other than its true nature. This is extremely important: true knowledge does not merely relate what a person experiences here in the physical body to its eternal core in general terms, but in concrete images, just as has now happened with thinking, with the imagination of ordinary consciousness. Only then does the view of the significance of imagination and inspiration gain its true light, for then one knows that dead or dying thinking is, in essence, revived by those exercises one does to bring about inspiration, revived within physical earthly existence. Acquiring inspired knowledge is therefore, in essence, the revival of dying thinking. This does not mean that one is completely transported back to pre-birth existence, but through spiritual perception one gains a real picture of this pre-birth existence, which one knows did not originate here on earth, but shines into this human existence from a pre-earthly human existence. One recognizes from the picture that it is the testimony of knowledge about the state of the human soul in pre-earthly existence.
[ 9 ] The significance of this for philosophical knowledge will be discussed in the next part of this lecture.
[ 10 ] Just as one is able in this way to investigate the true nature of thinking and imagining in ordinary consciousness, so too can one, through the supersensible knowledge referred to here, bring to light the nature that lies behind the will. However, this requires not only the higher knowledge of inspiration, but also the higher knowledge of intuition, which I characterized yesterday and said that certain exercises of the will are necessary to develop it. When one carries out these exercises of the will, one succeeds in carrying one's own soul-spiritual essence out of both the physical and the etheric organism. One carries it out into the spiritual world itself. One carries one's own being as an I-human being and as an astral organization out into the spiritual world. In this way, one learns to recognize what it means to live outside one's physical and etheric organism. One learns to recognize the state into which the human soul enters when it has cast off the physical and etheric organism. This means nothing less than that one gains a foretaste of what happens to a human being when they go through the event of death.
[ 11 ] Through the event of death, the physical and etheric organisms are cast off. They are cast off in such a way that they can no longer form the covering of the human being in the form they had during earthly existence. But what happens to the actual core of the human being is already known in intuitive knowledge in the foreknowledge, when one is outside in the world of spiritual beings with one's spirit-human being, instead of being in one's physical body. For that is what one is. Through intuitive knowledge, one is enabled to be outside one's physical and etheric organization and within other spiritual beings, just as one is otherwise here in earthly life within one's physical and etheric bodies. What one gains through intuition, then, is an experiential image of what one has to go through when one passes through the event of death. Only in this way can one gain a real insight into what lies at the basis of the idea of the immortal human soul. This human soul is — as inspired knowledge already teaches us — on the one hand unborn. On the other hand, it is immortal.
[ 12 ] This is what intuition teaches us. But in this way, because we come to know the true nature of the eternal core of the human being, insofar as it has a life to lead after our physical death, we also learn to recognize what lies behind human will. What lies behind human thinking has just been characterized; this can be recognized through inspiration. What lies behind human will becomes recognizable when one brings about intuition through exercises of the will. Then the will reveals itself in such a way that something completely different lies behind it, of which the will of ordinary consciousness is merely a reflection. Then it becomes apparent that the will has something behind it that is, in a certain sense, a younger member of the human soul life. If we speak of thinking and imagining as something that dies first, indeed as something that is already dead, and regard it as the older part of the human soul, then we must address the will as the younger part of the human soul. We can say that the will, or rather what lies behind the will as the actual soul, relates to thinking as a young child relates to an old man. However, when we look at children and old people, in the human organization the organization of old age actually comes after the organization of childhood. In the soul, on the other hand, the childlike and the aged exist side by side. The soul has its age and its youth, even its death and its birth, continually within itself.
[ 13 ] Compared to such soul knowledge, which is carried by inspiration and intuition and is very concrete, what we call philosophy today is something extremely abstract, because it simply describes thinking and wanting. Real soul knowledge, on the other hand, can point out that when the will is old, it becomes thinking, and thinking that has grown old, even died, has developed from a will. In this way, one really gets to know the soul life and also learns to look at the fact that what reveals itself to us in this earthly life as thinking was a will in a previous earthly life, and what is a will in this earthly life, i.e., something still young in the soul life, becomes thinking in a later earthly life.
[ 14 ] In this way, one learns to look into the soul and actually get to know it for the first time. Then the willing part of the human soul reveals itself as something that leads an embryonic life. When we go out into the spiritual world with what we have within us as will, we have a youthful soul which, through its own character, teaches us that it is actually a child. And just as we cannot assume that a child will not continue to grow into an old person unless it is ill, we cannot assume from what we recognize as a youthful soul—as intuition reveals to us—that it will dissolve with death, for it has only just reached its embryonic life. Through intuition, we learn how it passes into the spiritual world at the moment of death. This means truly recognizing the eternal essence of the human being after its unborn state and after its immortality. In contrast, modern philosophy works only with ideas taken from ordinary consciousness. But what does that mean: ideas taken from ordinary consciousness? Well, we can see it from what has been said: these are dead soul beings.
[ 15 ] So if this philosophy, which works with ideas from ordinary consciousness, wants to look correctly at the thinking part of the soul in order to arrive at results, it will, if it is unbiased enough, say to itself, purely through the investigation of what is present in the thinking and imagining of ordinary consciousness: This does not explain its existence from itself—just as one must say of a corpse: It cannot have arisen from a corpse; it must have arisen from something else. Physiology points this out through observation. Philosophy should draw the conclusion from what is here intuitively present: precisely because ordinary thinking and imagining have a perishable character, I can infer something preceding them. What inspiration fathoms through intuition, philosophy can find through logical conclusions, through dialectic, that is, in an indirect, demonstrative way.
[ 16 ] What, then, must a philosophy do that wishes to remain within ordinary consciousness? It must say: If I do not wish to rise to any supersensible knowledge, I must at least analyze what is present in ordinary consciousness. — And if it does so impartially, it finds that the thinking and imagining of ordinary consciousness has something corpse-like about it. It would therefore have to say: Because this is something that does not explain its essence from itself, I may conclude that the real essence of the thing precedes it. — But this requires impartiality in the analysis of the soul, which recognizes that thinking and imagining have something corpse-like about them. But this impartiality is possible. For only partiality recognizes something living in thinking as it is given to ordinary consciousness. Impartiality reveals this thinking as something that is dead to itself. That is why I also said in the previous lecture: It is quite possible to incorporate the content of natural science into dead thinking. — That is on the one hand.
[ 17 ] Intellectualistic philosophy can therefore only arrive at a recognition of the eternal essence of the human being by indirect means, and only through the recognition of what is to be regarded as preceding earthly life. If such a philosophy does not deal only with thinking, if it does not want to be merely intellectualistic, but also deals with an inner experience of the will, and indeed of the other soul forces that are younger than thinking in the world context, then such a philosophy can form a conception of the interplay between thinking and willing. On the one hand, it arrives at the logical conclusion of the connection between dying thinking and pre-earthly soul existence, which it cannot see, which it cannot recognize in its essence, but which it can infer as something that exists in the unknown. And when it enters into willing or the forces of the soul and experiences the interplay between thinking and the forces of the soul, it will come to recognize not only something perishing, but also something embryonic in willing. You can even find this in Bergson, if you just put it into the appropriate words without bias. In the way he speaks, the way he philosophizes, one can sense the impulse he himself feels, and through this feeling he places himself in the knowledge of an eternal core of the human soul. But since Bergson rejects the possibility of supernatural knowledge, he can only arrive at an understanding of the core of human nature as it reveals itself in earthly life; and he cannot actually derive clear proof of unbornness and immortality from his philosophy. On the one hand, he characterizes what has become old as thinking—even if he calls it something else—and as something corpse-like that extends beyond sensory perceptions. On the other hand, through the lively way in which he characterizes it, he feels the embryonic in the will, into which he can place himself alive and in which one senses that there is something eternal. But in this way he only arrives at a characterization of the spiritual-soul core of the human being in earthly life, not beyond it.
[ 18 ] So kann man sagen: Alle bloß auf das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein bauende Ideen-Philosophie kann, wenn sie unbefangen ist, durch eine Analyse des Denkens und Wollens auf einem indirekten Wege nur zu einem Schlusse darüber kommen, daß die Seele ein ungeborenes und unsterbliches Wesen ist, aber nicht zu einer direkten Anschauung darüber. Diese direkte Anschauung, das heißt die Erfüllung der Ideenphilosophie, die Anschauung der wirklichen ewigen Wesenheit der Seele, die kann nur gewonnen werden durch Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition, wie sie hier geschildert wurden. Daher wird ein wirklicher Inhalt über das Ewige der Menschenseele, wenn er auch heute in der Philosophie auftritt, doch nur traditionell aus älteren traumhaften Erkenntnissen geschöpft sein, wenn es auch die Philosophen oft nicht wissen und glauben, daß sie es aus sich selbst herausholen. Dieser Inhalt kann durchzogen sein von Dialektik und Logik. Aber eine wirkliche Erneuerung des philosophischen Lebens ist davon abhängig, daß das Geistesleben der Gegenwart anerkennt vollbewußte Imagination, vollbewußte Inspiration, vollbewußte Intuition, und daß es diese Erkenntnismethoden nicht nur anerkennt, sondern deren Ergebnisse für das philosophische Leben auch wirklich verwendet. Wie sich das für Kosmologie und Religion ausnimmt, werde ich in den nächsten beiden Teilen der Betrachtung zu erläutern versuchen.
[ 19 ] If you consider that it is only through a higher inspiration that one can perceive the eternal core of human nature as it exists in extraterrestrial existence, you will say to yourself: Only through this higher inspiration and — with regard to what I have said about intuition — only through intuition can human beings actually recognize themselves. — So they can only recognize what plays into their own being from the cosmos through higher inspiration and intuition. If he only really gets to know what the cosmos plays into him, namely himself, through inspiration and intuition, then a real cosmology — that is, a picture of the cosmos that encompasses the whole of human nature — can only arise within inspired and intuitive knowledge. Only then does man gain a view of what is also at work in his physical and etheric organism during his earthly existence.
[ 20 ] In this physical and etheric organism, the spiritual soul of the human being is not only hidden, but during earthly existence it is actually transformed, metamorphosed for waking daily life. Just as the root cannot reproduce a plant in its true form, so consideration of the physical and etheric organisms cannot give us a view of the eternal core of the human being. This can only be gained by looking into what lies before birth and after death. Only then can one relate the true essence of the human being, which must be found outside of earthly existence, to a cosmos. That is why modern intellectual life, in an age when it rejected any form of clairvoyance, has had no possibility of arriving at a cosmology that encompasses human beings, as I have already indicated and as must be evident from what I have described today. Nevertheless, in earlier times, even at the beginning of the last century, but especially at the end of the 18th century, philosophers developed what was called a “rational cosmology” as part of philosophy.
[ 21 ] This rational cosmology, which was supposed to be a part of philosophy, was developed by philosophers using only ordinary consciousness. But if even ordinary philosophy had the difficulties just described in penetrating to the true essence of the soul, it will be understood that it is quite impossible to obtain any real content for a cosmology that encompasses human beings if one wishes to remain within the ideas of ordinary consciousness. The rational cosmology that philosophers developed until recently therefore lived, in terms of its content, from the cosmological ideas received from tradition, which had been gained by humanity when dreamlike clairvoyance still existed, and which can only be renewed by what is described here as exact clairvoyance. Philosophers in this field were also unaware that they were actually borrowing from ancient cosmology. They acquired certain ideas; they took these from the history of cosmology and believed that they had produced these ideas themselves. But what they produced were only logical connections through which they compiled the old ideas and brought about a new system. This is how such cosmologies arose in earlier times as part of philosophy, but since people no longer had a living relationship to what they took up as ideas, what they borrowed from ancient clairvoyance, the ideas of cosmologies became increasingly abstract.
[ 22 ] Just look at the philosophical books of earlier times in the chapters that discuss cosmology, and you will find how abstract and basically empty these ideas are that are developed there about the becoming of worlds, the end of worlds, and so on. One can say that the ideas have been taken over. In ancient times, these ideas were alive because people had a living relationship with what they expressed. Gradually, these ideas became thin and abstract, and people characterized only in an external way what a cosmology should contain, which should not only deal with the external natural order that can encompass the whole of human existence, but also with the spiritual and soul aspects of the cosmos. In this regard, the extraordinarily intelligent Emile Boutroux provided significant characteristics of how to arrive at a cosmology. However, since he too wanted to build only on what ordinary consciousness can comprehend, he arrived only at an abstract cosmology.
[ 23 ] Thus, cosmologies became increasingly empty of real content, becoming a sum of abstract ideas and characteristics. It is therefore no wonder that this rational cosmology gradually fell into disrepute. Natural scientists emerged who were able to investigate nature in such a way that it became a triumph of natural science, as has happened in recent times. They can formulate laws of nature, establish an inner regularity of nature from observation and experiment, and compile a naturalistic cosmology from this. What was thus compiled from ideas about external nature as naturalistic cosmology now had content, external sensory content. The contentless rational cosmology constructed by philosophers could not compete with this. It therefore fell into disrepute; it was gradually abandoned, and as a result we no longer speak of a rational, i.e., merely logically deduced cosmology, but are now content with a naturalistic cosmology, which, however, does not encompass human beings.
[ 24 ] Thus, we can say: Cosmology, even more than ordinary philosophy, teaches us how we must resort to imagination, inspiration, and intuition. Philosophy can at least observe the human soul, and in its unbiased observation of thought, which as the first thing to perish points to something else, it finds that there is something outside the whole of human existence that encompasses man inwardly; and it can also point beyond death. Thus, philosophy can at least make its abstractions rich and manifold from conclusions drawn from the rich soul life of thinking, feeling, and willing. That is still possible. Cosmology as a spiritual science can only be justified if its content is also derived from spiritual intuition. Here, it is no longer possible to infer any content. If one wants to have content, one must borrow it from the old clairvoyant intuitions, as they were traditionally handed down, or one must arrive at it in a new way, as has been described.
[ 25 ] So if philosophy is still capable of following the logical path, cosmology is no longer capable of doing so. That is why, as a rational cosmology that could only build on ordinary consciousness, it has gradually lost its content and thus its credibility. And if we want to move beyond naturalistic cosmology to a new cosmology that encompasses the human being in its totality, we must resign ourselves to looking through inspiration and intuition at that part of the human being in which the spiritual cosmos is reflected. In other words, even more than philosophy, cosmology depends on the new spiritual life recognizing the methods of fully conscious imagination, inspiration, and intuition, and not only recognizing these methods, but also using the results of these methods for a real cosmology.
[ 26 ] What can be said about religion from this point of view will be presented in the last part.
[ 27 ] For a cognitive basis of religious life, it is necessary that the experiences which the spiritual human being can have among spiritual beings be brought into earthly life and described within it. In these experiences, one has to do with something that is completely unlike earthly life, that is entirely different from it. One is dealing with something in which the human being actually stands outside of earthly life, which can therefore only be grasped with those human powers that are completely independent of the physical and etheric human organism, and which therefore certainly cannot lie within ordinary consciousness. Only when this ordinary consciousness rises to clairvoyant abilities can it sketch descriptions of the experiences that human beings have in the purely spiritual world. Therefore, a “rational theology,” a theology that wants to rely solely on ordinary consciousness, is in an even worse position than a “rational cosmology.”
[ 28 ] Rational cosmology at least has something that shines into human earthly existence, since — albeit indirectly, by a roundabout route — the physical and etheric human beings are also influenced in their form and life by spiritual beings. However, the experiences that human beings have in pure spiritual worlds and that can be experienced through precise intuition cannot be deduced in any way from ordinary consciousness, as is the case in philosophy. They cannot even be guessed at, but today, when everything that is human knowledge is sought to be formed out of ordinary consciousness, they can only be taken over in an even clearer way than is the case with cosmological ideas they can only be taken over traditionally from those times when people lived in dreamlike clairvoyance and carried over into this earthly world what they experienced there.
[ 29 ] If anyone imagines that he can somehow, on the basis of ideas built up from ordinary consciousness, say anything about the nature of what human beings experience in the world of God, he is greatly mistaken. Therefore, theology has increasingly come to form a kind of historical theology, and in doing so, even more than cosmology, it has only taken up the old ideas about the kingdom of God acquired in earlier clairvoyance. These are then brought into a system through logic and dialectic. People then believe that they have something elementally original in this, but it is only as a system that it is the property of those who have worked on this theology. It is a historical product, sometimes cast in new forms. But everything that is of real substance is borrowed from tradition and history by those who wish to draw solely from ordinary consciousness. This has further discredited the work of individual philosophers who, in earlier times, developed a rational cosmology and sought to develop it further as rational theology. There, rational cosmology has fallen into disrepute in comparison with naturalistic cosmology; here, in the religious sphere, rational theology has fallen into disrepute in comparison with what has emerged as purely historical theology, which renounces pure reality, renounces what is the immediate production of ideas about the spiritual world, of an experience of the spiritual world.
[ 30 ] This direct relationship, these living connections with experience in the spiritual world, had actually already disappeared from modern humanity in the age when the proofs of God's existence arose in the Middle Ages. As long as there was a direct relationship with what was experienced in the kingdom of God, there was no talk of dialectical or logical proofs of God's existence. The proofs of God's existence themselves are proof that, when they arose, the living relationship with the kingdom of God had died. Basically, scholastic theology was right when it said: Ordinary reason is incapable of saying anything about the kingdom of God; it can only clarify ideas that already exist and organize them into a system. It can only contribute to bringing the form of teaching into a form that is acceptable to human beings.
[ 31 ] In recent times, we can observe how two aberrations have arisen from this powerlessness of ordinary consciousness to discern anything about the kingdom of God. On the one hand, there are scientists who want to talk about religion and God, but who feel the powerlessness of ordinary consciousness in relation to the kingdom of God and then merely establish a history of religion. Religious content cannot be produced in the immediate present in this way. Therefore, existing religions or religions that have existed are viewed historically. What is actually being viewed here? One looks at what once existed as religious content through the old dreamlike intuitive clairvoyance. Or one looks at what remains of religious life in the present that has been preserved as a remnant of the old dreamlike clairvoyant state. This is called religious history and completely dispenses with the creation of a religious life of one's own.
[ 32 ] Others realize that this ordinary consciousness, this clear everyday consciousness in human beings, is powerless to say anything about experiences in the purely spiritual realm of God. Therefore, people turn to the more subconscious regions of the human soul, to the world of feelings, to certain mystical abilities, and speak of a direct, elementary experience of God. It is very common today to speak of a direct, elementary experience of God. Indeed, it is precisely the representatives of this elementary experience of God who are particularly characteristic of the present state of mind. They flee with all their might from the possibility of expressing their consciousness of God in clear ideas that are logically structured. They make long explanations about how, in their opinion, the elementary experience of God, which they believe to be the true religion, cannot be expressed in logical proofs, and that one must refrain from expressing religious content in intellectual forms. However, such representatives of an elementary awareness of God are merely indulging in illusions, for what is experienced somewhere in a region of the soul can also be expressed in clear ideas. And if, following the pattern of these people, one puts forward the theory that religious content is lost when it is translated into clear ideas, one thereby shows that one has not devoted oneself to real content, but only to imagined content. It is particularly characteristic of the present day, with regard to religious life, that people appeal to something which, if it is to be made clear, actually falls into error.
[ 33 ] This shows very clearly that we can only renew the basis of knowledge of religious life if we do not reject a method of knowledge that can lead us to a living understanding of the experience of the spiritual human being and of spiritual beings. We need this method of cognition particularly for the cognitive foundation of religion. For religion, ordinary consciousness can at best systematize or clarify insights or put them into a doctrinal form; it cannot find them. Otherwise, religion must limit itself to merely traditionally accepting what emerged from completely different human states of mind in earlier times. This would restrict it to what would never satisfy a consciousness trained in modern science.
[ 34 ] Therefore, for the epistemological foundation of religion, a statement must be made which I have already made today for other areas, but which must be made quite specifically for the individual branches. I must now make it for the third time for the epistemological foundation of religion:
[ 35 ] If religious life is to be renewed out of the spiritual needs of the present and experience a lively revival, then the spiritual life of the present must recognize fully conscious imaginative, inspired, and intuitive knowledge—and, especially in the religious sphere, not only recognize it, but for the sake of living religious content, our modern spiritual life must also make use of these spiritual-scientific results in an appropriate manner.
