Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Awakening to Community
GA 257

6 February 1923, Stuttgart

Lecture III

In view of the deliberations that have been going on here with reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society as their object, I would like to shape today's lecture in a way that may help my hearers form independent judgments in these decisive days. To this end I shall be speaking somewhat more briefly and aphoristically than I usually do when discussing aspects of anthroposophy, and shall confine myself to commenting on the third phase of our anthroposophical work. This evening I will speak for the same reason on the subject of the three phases of the Anthroposophical Movement.

We often hear references being made these days to the great change that came over Western spiritual life when Copernicus substituted his new picture of the heavens for the one previously held. If one were to try to state just what the nature of this change was, it might be put as follows. In earlier times man thought of the earth realm as the object of his study and the chief concern of learning, with little or no attention being paid to the heavenly bodies circling overhead.

In recent times the heavenly bodies have come to assume a great deal more importance than they used to be accorded. Indeed, the earth came to be thought of as a mere grain of dust in the universe, and man felt himself to be living on a tiny speck of an earth quite insignificant by contrast with the rest of the cosmos and its countless thousand worlds. But if you will permit me to give just a sketch of this matter for the sake of characterizing the third phase of our Anthroposophical Movement, it must be pointed out that by reducing the earth to a mere grain of dust on the one hand, man also lost the possibility on the other of arriving at valid judgments about the rest of the universe other than those based on such physical and more recent chemical concepts as may apply. Research that goes beyond this and devotes itself to a study of soul and spiritual aspects of the universe is ignored. This is, of course, quite in keeping with the whole stance of modern learning. Man loses the possibility of seeing what he calls his soul and spirit as in any way connected with what rays down to us from the starry world. You can judge from certain passages in my book, An Outline Of Occult Science, how intent anthroposophy is on creating a renewed understanding of the fact that the whole universe is suffused with soul and spirit, that human thoughts are connected with cosmic thoughts, human souls with cosmic souls, human spirits with cosmic spirits, with the creative spirituality of the universe. Anthroposophy aims at re-creating the possibility of knowing the cosmos as spirit.

In this quest anthroposophy encounters a serious obstacle on its path, an obstacle that I am going to describe without reservation.

People come forward, quite rightly proclaiming anthroposophy with great enthusiasm. But they emphasize that what they are proclaiming is a doctrine based not on their own experience but on that of a spiritual investigator. This makes for instant conflict with the way of thinking prevailing in present day civilization, which condemns anyone who advances views based on authority. Such condemnation would disappear if people only realized that the findings of spiritual research recognized by anthroposophy can be arrived at with the use of various methods suited to various ways of investigation, but that once they are obtained, these results can readily be grasped by any truly unprejudiced mentality. But findings acceptable to all truly unprejudiced mentalities can be made and still not lead to fruitful results unless those presenting anthroposophical material do so with attitudes required for anthroposophical presentations that are not always prevailing.

Let me be explicit. Let me refer to my book, The Philosophy of Freedom, published about thirty years ago, and recall my description in its pages of a special kind of thinking that is different from that generally recognized as thinking today. When thinking is mentioned—and this holds especially true in the case of those whose opinions carry greatest weight—the concept of it is one that pictures the thinking human spirit as rather passive. This human spirit devotes itself to outer observation, studying phenomena or experimenting, and then using thought to relate these observations. Thus it comes to set up laws of nature, concerning the validity and metaphysical or merely physical significance of which disputes may arise. But it makes a difference whether a person just entertains these thoughts that have come to him from observing nature, or proceeds instead to try to reach some clarity as to his own human relationship to these thoughts that he has formed at the hand of nature, thoughts that, indeed, he has only recently developed the ability to form about it. For if we go back to earlier times, say to the thirteenth or twelfth or eleventh century, we find that man's thoughts about nature were the product of a different attitude of soul. People of today conceive of thinking as just a passive noting of phenomena and of the consistency—or lack of it—with which they occur. One simply allows thoughts to emerge from the phenomena and passively occupy one's soul. In contrast to this, my Philosophy of Freedom stresses the active element in thinking, emphasizing how the will enters into it and how one can become aware of one's own inner activity in the exercise of what I have called pure thinking. In this connection I showed that all truly moral impulses have their origin in this pure thinking. I tried to point out how the will strikes into the otherwise passive realm of thought, stirring it awake and making the thinker inwardly active.

Now what kind of reader approach did the Philosophy of Freedom count on? It had to assume a special way of reading. It expected the reader as he read to undergo the sort of inner experience that, in an external sense, is really just like waking up out of sleep in the morning. The feeling one should have about it is such as to make one say, “My relation to the world in passive thoughts was, on a higher level, that of a person who lies asleep. Now I am waking up.” It is like knowing at the moment of awakening that one has been lying passively in bed, letting nature have her way with one's body. But then one begins to be inwardly active. One relates one's senses actively to what is going on in the color-filled, sounding world about one. One links one's own bodily activity to one's intentions. The reader of The Philosophy of Freedom should experience something like this waking moment of transition from passivity to activity, though of course on a higher level. He should be able to say, “Yes, I have certainly thought thoughts before. But my thinking took the form of just letting thoughts flow and carry me along. Now, little by little, I am beginning to be inwardly active in them. I am reminded of waking up in the morning and relating my sense activity to sounds and colors, and my bodily motions to my will.” Experiencing this awakening as I have described it in my book, The Riddle of Man, where I comment on Johann Gottlieb Fichte, is to develop a soul attitude completely different from that prevalent today. But the attitude of soul thus arrived at leads not merely to knowledge that must be accepted on someone else's authority but to asking oneself what the thoughts were that one used to have and what this activity is that one now launches to strike into one's formerly passive thoughts. What, one asks, is this element that has the same rousing effect on one's erstwhile thinking that one's life of soul and spirit have on one's body on awakening? (I am referring here just to the external fact of awaking.) One begins to experience thinking in a way one could not have done without coming to know it as a living, active function.

So long as one is only considering passive thoughts, thinking remains just a development going on in the body while the physical senses are occupying themselves with external objects. But when a person suffuses this passive thinking with inner activity, he lights upon another similar comparison for the thinking he formerly engaged in, and can begin to see what its passivity resembled. He comes to the realization that this passive thinking of his was exactly the same thing in the soul realm that a corpse represents in the physical. When one looks at a corpse here in the physical world, one has to recognize that it was not created as the thing one sees, that none of nature's ordinary laws can be made to account for the present material composition of this body. Such a configuration of material elements could be brought about only as a result of a living human being having dwelt in what is now a corpse. It has become mere remains, abandoned by a formerly indwelling person; it can be accounted for only by assuming the prior existence of a living human being.

An observer confronting his own passive thinking resembles someone who has never seen anything but corpses, who has never beheld a living person. Such a man would have to look upon all corpses as miraculous creations, since nothing in nature could possibly have produced them. When one suffuses one's thinking with active soul life, one realizes for the first time that thought is just a left-over and recognizes it as the remains of something that has died. Ordinary thinking is dead, a mere corpse of the soul, and one has to become aware of it as such through suffusing it with one's own soul life and getting to know this corpse of abstract thinking in its new aliveness. To understand ordinary thinking, one has to see that it is dead, a psychic corpse whose erstwhile life is to be sought in the soul's pre-earthly existence. During that phase of experience the soul lived in a bodiless state in the life-element of its thinking, and the thinking left to it in its earthly life must be regarded as the soul corpse of the living soul of pre-earthly existence.

This becomes the illuminating inner experience that one can have on projecting will into one's thinking. One has to look at thinking this way when, in accordance with mankind's present stage of evolution, one searches for the source of ethical and moral impulses in pure thinking. Then one has the experience of being lifted by pure thinking itself out of one's body and into a realm not of the earth. Then one realizes that what one possesses in this living thinking has no connection whatsoever with the physical world, but is nonetheless real. It has to do with a world that physical eyes cannot see, a world one inhabited before one descended into a body: the spiritual world. One also realizes that even the laws governing our planetary system are of a kind unrelated to the world we enter with enlivened thinking. I am deliberately putting it in an old-fashioned way and saying that one would have to go to the ends of the planetary system to reach the world where what one grasps in living thinking has its true significance. One would have to go beyond Saturn to find the world where living thoughts apply, but where we also discover the cosmic source of creativity on earth.

This is the first step we take to go out again into the universe in an age that otherwise regards itself as living on a mere speck of dust in the cosmos. It is the first advance toward a possibility of seeing what is really out there, seeing it with living thinking. One transcends the bounds of the planetary system.

If you consider the human will further as I have done in my Philosophy of Freedom, though in that book I limited the discussion entirely to the world of the senses, keeping more advanced aspects for later works because matters like these have to be gradually developed, one finds that just as one is carried beyond Saturn into the universe when the will strikes into formerly passive thinking, so one can advance on the opposite side by entering deeply into the will to the extent of becoming wholly quiescent, by becoming a pole of stillness in the motion one otherwise engenders in the world of will. Our bodies are in motion when we will. Even when that will is nothing more than a wish, bodily matter comes into movement. Willing is motion for ordinary consciousness. When a person wills, he becomes a part of the world's movement.

Now if one does the exercises described in my book, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment, and thereby succeeds in opposing one's own deliberate inner quiet to this motion in which one is caught up in every act of willing, if—to put it in a picture that can be applied to all will activity—one succeeds in keeping the soul still while the body moves through space, succeeds in being active in the world while the soul remains quiet, carries on activity and at the same time quietly observes it, then thinking suffuses the will just as the will previously suffused thinking.

When this happens, one comes out on the opposite side of the world. One gets to know the will as something that can also free itself from the physical body, that can even transport one out of the realm subject to ordinary earth laws. This brings one knowledge of an especially significant fact that throws light on man's connection with the universe. One learns to say, “You harbor in your will sphere a great variety of drives, instincts and passions. But none of them belong to the world about which you learn in your experiments, restricted as they are to the earthly sense world. Nor are they to be found in corpses. They belong to a different world that merely extends into this one, a world that keeps its activity quite separate from everything that has to do with the sense world.”

I am only giving you a sketch of these matters today because I want to characterize the third phase of anthroposophy. One comes to enter the universe from its opposite side, the side given its external character by the physical moon. The moon repels rather than absorbs sunlight; it leaves sunlight just as it was by reflecting it back from its surface, and it rays back other cosmic forces in a similar way. It excludes them, for it belongs to a different world than that that gives us the capacity to see. Light enables us to see, but the moon rays back the light, refusing to absorb it. Thinking that lays hold on itself in inner activity carries us on the one side as far as Saturn; laying hold on our will leads us on the other side into the moon's activity. We learn to relate man to the cosmos. We are led out of and beyond a grain-of-dust earth. Learning elevates itself again to a concern with the cosmos, and we re-discover elements in the universe that live in us too as soul-spiritual beings. When, on the one hand, we have achieved a soul condition in which our thinking is rendered active by its suffusion with will, and, on the other hand, achieve the suffusion of our will with thinking, then we reach the boundaries of the planetary system, going out into the Saturn realm on the one side while we go out into the universe on the other side and enter the moon sphere. When our consciousness feels as much at home in the universe as it does on earth, and then experiences what goes on in the universe as familiarly as our ordinary consciousness experiences things of earth, when we live thus consciously in the universe and achieve self-awareness there, we begin to remember earlier earth lives. Our successive incarnations become a fact experienced in the cosmic memory to which we have now gained access.

It need not surprise us that we cannot remember earlier lives on earth while we are incarnated. For what we experience in the intervals between them is not earthly experience, and the effect of one life on the next takes place only as a result of man's lifting himself out of the realm of earth. How could a person recall his earlier incarnations unless he first raised his consciousness to a heavenly level?

I wanted just to sketch these things today, for they have often been discussed by me here before. What I had in mind was to indicate the regions in which, in recent years, anthroposophy has been carrying on its research. Those interested in weighing what has been going on surely recall how consistently my more recent lectures have concerned themselves with just these realms. Their purpose was gradually to clarify the process whereby one develops from an ordinary consciousness to a higher one. Though I have always said that ordinary thinking can, if it is unprejudiced, grasp the findings of anthroposophical research, I have also emphasized that everybody can attain today to a state of consciousness whereby he is able to develop a new kind of thinking and willing, which give him entry to the world whereof anthroposophy speaks. The essential thing would be to change the habit of reading books like my Philosophy of Freedom with the mental attitude one has toward other philosophical treatises. The way it should be read is with attention to the fact that it brings one to a wholly different way of thinking and willing and looking at things. If this were done, one would realize that such an approach lifts one's consciousness out of the earth into another world, and that one derives from it the kind of inner assurance that makes it possible to speak with conviction about the results of spiritual research. Those who read The Philosophy of Freedom as it should be read, speak with inner conviction and assurance about the findings of researchers who have gone beyond the state one has oneself reached as a beginner. But the right way of reading The Philosophy of Freedom makes everyone who adopts it the kind of beginner I am describing. Beginners like these can report the more detailed findings of advanced research in exactly the same way in which a person at home in chemistry would talk of research in that field. Although he may not actually have seen it done, it is familiar to him from what he has learned and heard and knows as part of reality. The vital thing in discussing anthroposophy is always to develop a certain soul attitude, not just to project a picture of the world different from the generally accepted one.

The trouble is that The Philosophy of Freedom has not been read in the different way I have been describing. That is the point, and a point that must be sharply stressed if the development of the Anthroposophical Society is not to fall far behind that of anthroposophy itself. If it does fall behind, anthroposophy's conveyance through the Society will result in its being completely misunderstood, and its only fruit will be endless conflict!

Now I want to try to improve the present state of things by speaking briefly about the three phases of the Anthroposophical Society. A start was made with the presentation of anthroposophy about two decades ago. I say two decades, but it was definitely already there in seed form in such writings as my Philosophy of Freedom and works on Goethe's world conception. But the presentation of anthroposophy as such began two decades ago. You will see from what I am about to say that it did begin to be presented as anthroposophy at that time.

When, in the opening years of the Twentieth Century, I gave my first Berlin lectures (those printed under the title, Mysticism at the Dawn of the New Age), I was invited by the Theosophical Society to participate in its work. I myself did not seek out the Theosophical Society. People who belonged to it thought that what I was saying in my lectures, purely in pursuit of my own path of knowledge, was something they too would like to hear. I saw that the theosophists wanted to listen to what was being presented, and my attitude about it was that I would always address any audience interested in hearing me. Though my previous comments on the Theosophical Society had not always been exactly friendly and continued in the same vein afterwards, I saw no reason to refuse its invitation to lay before it material that had been given me for presentation by the spiritual world. That I presented it as anthroposophy is clear from the fact that at the very moment when the German section of the Theosophical Society was being founded, I was independently holding a lecture cycle [From Zarathustra to Nietzsche. History of Human Evolution Based on the World Conception of the Orient up to the Present, or Anthroposophy, 1902–3. No manuscript of these lectures is available.] not only about anthroposophy but with the name anthroposophy included in the title. The founding of the German section of the Theosophical Society and my lecture cycle on anthroposophy took place simultaneously. The aim, right from the beginning, was to present pure anthroposophy.

That was the start of the first phase of the Anthroposophical Movement. It was first exemplified in those members of the German section who were ready to absorb anthroposophy, and further groups of theosophists joined them.

During this first phase, the Anthroposophical Society led an embryonic existence within the Theosophical Society. It grew, as I say, within the Theosophical Society, but developed nevertheless as the Anthroposophical Society. In this first phase it had a special mission, that of counterposing the spirituality of Western civilization, centered in the Mystery of Golgotha, to the Theosophical Society's course, which was based on a traditional acceptance of ancient Oriental wisdom.

This first phase of the Anthroposophical Movement lasted until 1908 or 1909. Anyone who goes back over the history of the Movement can easily see for himself how definitely all the findings made on the score of prenatal existence, reincarnation and the like—findings made on the basis of direct experience in the present, not of ancient traditions handed down through the ages—were oriented around that evolutionary development in man's life on earth that centered in the Mystery of Golgotha and the Christ impulse. The Gospels were worked through, along with a great deal else. By the time it became possible for the Anthroposophical Movement to make the transition over into artistic forms of revelation, as was done with the presentation of my mystery plays, the content of anthroposophy had been worked out and related to its central core, the Mystery of Golgotha.

Then came the time when the Theosophical Society was sidetracked into a strange development. Since it had no understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha, it committed the absurdity, among others, of proclaiming to the world that a certain young man of the present was the reincarnated Christ. Certainly no serious person could have tolerated any such nonsense; it appeared ridiculous in Western eyes. But anthroposophy had been developed as part of Western civilization, with the result that the Mystery of Golgotha appeared in a wholly new light in anthroposophical teaching. This led to the differences with the Theosophical Society that culminated in the virtual expulsion of all the anthroposophists. They didn't mind that because it didn't change anthroposophy in any way. I myself had never presented anything but anthroposophy to those interested in hearing about it, and that includes the period during which anthroposophy was outwardly contained by the Theosophical Society.

Then the second phase of the Anthroposophical Movement began. This phase was built on a foundation that already included the most important teachings about destiny, repeated earth-lives, and the Mystery of Golgotha in a spiritual illumination fully keyed to present day civilization. It included interpretations of the Gospels that reconciled tradition with what modern man can grasp with the help of the Christ who lives and is active in the present.

The second phase, which lasted to 1916 or 1917, was spent in a great survey of the accepted science and practical concerns of contemporary civilization. We had to show how anthroposophy can be related to and harmonized with modern science and art and practical life at their deeper levels. You need only consider such examples as my lecture cycles of that period, one held in Christiania in 1910 on the European folk souls, the other at Prague in 1911 on the subject of occult physiology, and you will see that anthroposophy's second phase was devoted to working out its relationship to the sciences and practical concerns of the day. The cycles mentioned are just two examples; the overall aim was to find the way to relate to modern science and practice.

During this second phase of the Society's life, everything centered around the goal of finding a number of people whose inner attitude was such that they were able to listen to what anthroposophy was saying. More and more such people were found. All that was necessary was for people to come together in a state of soul genuinely open to anthroposophy. That laid the foundation for an anthroposophical community of sorts. The task became one of simply meeting the interest of these people who, in the course of modern man's inner evolution, had reached the point where they could bring some understanding to anthroposophy. They had to be given what they needed for their soul development. It was just a matter of presenting anthroposophy, and it was not a matter of any great concern whether the people who found their way to anthroposophy during the Society's first two phases foregathered in sect-like little groups or came to public lectures and the like. What was important was to base absolutely everything on a foundation of honestly researched knowledge, and then to go ahead and present it. It was quite possible to do this satisfactorily in the kind of Anthroposophical Society that had been developing.

Another aspect of the second phase was the further development of the artistic element. About halfway through it, the plan to build the Goetheanum took shape. A trend that began with the Mystery Plays was thus carried into the realms of architecture, sculpture and painting. Then eurythmy, the elements of which I have often characterized in my introductory talks at performances, was brought into the picture. All this came into existence from sources to which access is gained on the path sketched in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment, sketched in sufficient detail, however, to be understood and followed by anyone really desirous of taking that path.

This second phase of the Society's life was made especially difficult by the outbreak of the frightful war that then overran Europe and modern civilization. It was especially hard to bring the tiny ship of anthroposophy through the storms of this period, when mistrust and hatred were flooding the entire civilized world. The fact that the Goetheanum was located in a neutral country in a time when borders were closed often made it hard to reach. But the reasons for believing in the sincerity of anthroposophical efforts were more firmly founded on fact, even during the war, than any reasons for mistrusting it afterwards. It can truly be said that the war period brought no real disruption of the work; it continued on. As I have already mentioned, a large number of individuals from many different European countries confronting one another in hate and enmity on the battlefields worked together in a peaceful and anthroposophical spirit on the Goetheanum, which we have now lost in the terrible disaster of the fire.

Then came the third phase of the Movement, the phase in which a number of individuals started all kinds of activities. As I have stressed here as well as elsewhere, these undertakings were good things in themselves. But they had to be started with an iron will and appropriately followed through. The Threefold Movement, later called the Union for Free Spiritual Life, the Union for Higher Education, and so on, had to be undertaken with the clear intention of putting one's whole being irrevocably behind them. It was no longer possible, in the third phase, to rest content with the simple presentation of anthroposophy and merely to foregather with people whose inner search had led them to it. Instead, a number of individuals wanted to undertake this or that project, and they did so. This created all kinds of groupings in addition to the original purely anthroposophical community.

One of them was the scientific movement. It was built on the foundation of relationships of anthroposophy to science that had been established during the second phase. Scientists made their appearance in our midst. They had the task of giving modern science what anthroposophy had to offer. But there should have been a continuation of what I had begun in the way of building relationships to contemporary science. Perhaps I may remind you of lectures I gave during the second phase of the Movement. I was always calling attention, for example, to the way modern physicists come to their particular mode of thinking. I did not reject their thinking; I accepted it and took it for my own point of departure, as when I said that if we start where the physicists leave off, we will get from physics into anthroposophy. I did the same thing in the case of other aspects of learning. This attitude, this way of relating, should have continued to prevail. If that had happened, the result would have been a different development of scientific activity than the one we have been witnessing during this third phase. Most importantly, we would have been saved from what I described at the earlier meeting as fruitless argumentation and polemics. Then we would presently be faced with a positive task, and could say that anthroposophy does indeed have a contribution to make to science, that it can help science go forward along a certain path, and in what specific way that can be accomplished. The outcome would have been a different attitude toward science than that evidenced in a recent issue of Die Drei, indeed in several issues that I looked over in connection with the cycle of lectures on science given by me last Christmastide in Dornach. I was horrified at the way science and anthroposophy were treated there; it was harmful to both. Anthroposophy is put in an unfavorable light when anthroposophists engage in such unfruitful polemics. I say this not for the sake of criticizing but to point out what the task of the scientists in the Society is.

Something of the same kind ought to be happening in other respects as well. Let us take a case in point; I called attention to it on the occasion of my last lecture here.

In the third phase of the Movement, we saw the Union for Higher Education come into being. It had an excellent program. But somebody should have stayed with it and put all of himself behind it, made himself fully responsible for it. My only responsibility was for anthroposophy itself. So when someone else starts an independent enterprise founded on anthroposophy, that project becomes his responsibility. In the case I am discussing, nobody stayed with that responsibility, though I had called attention to the necessity of doing so at the time the program was being drawn up. I said that programs of this kind should be started only if an iron determination exists to carry them through; otherwise, they ought never to be launched. In this case it was the group guiding the Society that failed to stay behind it.

What was the outcome? The outcome was that a number of young people from the student movement, motivated by an intense longing for true anthroposophy but unable to find what they were looking for in the Society, sought out the living source of anthroposophy. They said expressly that they wanted to know the artistic aspects of anthroposophy as well as the others. They approached Frau Dr. Steiner with the intention of being helped by recitation and declamation to experience what I might call the anthroposophical swing of things.

Another development was taking place alongside this one, my dear friends. In the third phase of the Movement, the spiritual worlds were being described in the way I described them at the beginning of my lecture today when I gave a short sketch of a certain matter from the standpoint of purely spiritual contemplation, from a level where it is possible to show how one develops a different consciousness and thereby gains access to the spiritual world. The first and second phases were concerned with relating the Movement to the Mystery of Golgotha, to science, to the practical conduct of life. The third phase added the direct portrayal of spiritual realms. Anyone who has kept up with the efforts that were made during these three phases in Dornach and here too, for example, anyone with a real feeling for the advance represented by the third phase over the first and second phases, anyone aware to what extent it has been possible in recent years to spread anthroposophy beyond the boundaries of Central Europe, will notice that we are concerned with bringing into being a really new third phase in direct continuation and further development of the first two phases. Had we not entered the third phase, it would not really have been possible to develop the Waldorf School pedagogy, which is based on taking man's eternal as well as temporal nature into account.

Now please compare the discussions of yesterday and the week before with what I have just been saying in the interests of frank speaking and without the least intention of criticizing anyone, and ask yourselves what changes these three phases of our work have effected in the Society. Would not these same discussions, identical as to content, have been just as conceivable sixteen or eighteen years ago as they are today, when we have two decades of anthroposophical work behind us? Does it not seem as though we were back at the founding of the Society?

I repeat that I have no desire to criticize anybody. But the Anthroposophical Society can amount to something only if it is made the nurturing ground of everything that anthroposophy is working to achieve, and only if our scientists, to take an example, always keep in mind that anthroposophy may not be neglected in favor of science, but rather made the crowning peak of science's most recent developments. Our scientists should take care not to expose anthroposophy to scientific attack with their fruitless polemics.

Teachers have a similar task, and, to a special degree, people engaged in practical life. For their functions are of the kind that draws the heaviest fire against anthroposophy, which, despite its special potential for practicality, is most viciously attacked as being impractical.

So the Society is presently faced with the necessity of being more than a mere onlooker at really anthroposophical work going on elsewhere, more than just the founder of other enterprises that it fails to provide with truly anthroposophical zeal and enthusiasm. It needs to focus consciously on anthroposophical work. This is a completely positive statement of its mission, which needs only be worked out in detail. If this positive task is not undertaken, the Anthroposophical Society can only do anthroposophy more and more harm in the world's regard. How many enemies has the Threefold Movement not created for the Anthroposophical Movement with its failure to understand how to relate itself to anthroposophy! Instead, it made compromise after compromise, until people in certain quarters began to despise anthroposophy. We have seen similar things happen elsewhere. As I said in my first lecture here, we must realize that anthroposophy is the parent of this movement. That fact should be recognized. If it had been, a right relationship to the Movement for Religious Renewal, which I helped launch, would have resulted. Instead, everything in that area has also gone amiss. I am therefore concerned, on this grave occasion, to find words that can serve as guides to positive work, to get us beyond fruitless talk of the sort that takes us back two decades and makes it seem as though no anthroposophical work had been accomplished.

Please do not take offense at my speaking to you as I have today, my dear friends. I had to do it. As I said in Dornach on January 6th last, the Anthroposophical Society is good; it is capable of listening receptively to even the sharpest parts of my characterization. But the guiding elements in the Society must become aware that if the Society is to earn its name in future, they must make themselves responsible for keeping it the conscious carrier of the work. The conflicts that have broken out will end at the moment when the need for such a consciousness is clearly and adequately recognized in a spirit of goodwill. But there has to be goodwill for that need to be brought out into the open and any fruitless criticism dropped. Furthermore, there is no use giving oneself up to comfortable illusions, making compromises in adjustments between one movement and another, only to end up again in the same old jog-trot. It is time to be absolutely serious about anthroposophical work, and all the single movements must work together to achieve this goal. We cannot rest content to have a separate Waldorf School movement, a separate Movement for Religious Renewal, a separate Movement for Free Spiritual Life. Each will flourish only if all feel that they belong to the Anthroposophical Movement.

I am sure that everyone truly concerned for the Movement is saying the same thing in his heart. That is the reason I allowed myself to express it as sharply as I did today. Most of you were already aware of the need for a clear statement that could lead to the establishment of the consciousness I have described as so essential.

The Movement has now gone through three phases, during the last of which anthroposophy has been neglected in favor of various offspring movements. It must be re-discovered as the living spiritual movement demanded by modern civilized life and, most especially, by modern hearts. Please take my words as meant to serve that purpose. If they have sounded sharp, please consider them the more sincerely offered. They were intended not as an invitation to any further caustic deliberations but as a challenge to join in a Movement guided by a true heart for anthroposophy.

Dritter Vortrag

Angesichts der Verhandlungen, welche jetzt hier gepflogen werden zu einer Art Reorganisation der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, möchte ich heute meinen Vortrag so einrichten, daß er vielleicht manchem nützlich sein kann, um sich in diesen entscheidenden Tagen ein unabhängiges Urteil zu bilden. Ich möchte zu diesem Zweck heute zuerst einmal verhältnismäßig zusammenfassender und kürzer sprechen, als ich sonst auf anthroposophischem Boden zu sprechen pflege zu dem, was ich die dritte Phase unserer anthroposophischen Arbeit nennen möchte. Und dann möchte ich eben zu dem angegebenen Zweck heute abend einiges zu Ihnen sprechen über die drei Phasen unserer anthroposophischen Bewegung.

Wir vernehmen es ja heute sehr häufig, daß hingewiesen wird auf jenen großen Umschwung, den das abendländische Geistesleben genommen hat, als Kopernikus das alte Himmelsbild zu dem neueren umgestaltete. Und wenn dann ausgedrückt werden soll, was das bedeutet, so spricht man wohl so davon, daß man sagt: In einer älteren Zeit habe der Mensch zunächst die Erde als das Gebiet seiner Erkenntnis angesehen, es zur Hauptsache seiner Erkenntnisbetrachtung gemacht und den Inhalt des ganzen Himmelsraumes um die Erde herumkreisen lassen. In der neueren Zeit haben sich in einer gewissen Weise für die menschliche Anschauung die andern Himmelskörper weit über das Gebiet hinaus vergrößert, das man ihnen früher zugewiesen hatte, die Erde sei wie eine Art Staubkorn im Weltenraum geworden und der Mensch fühle sich auf der gegenüber der Gesamtheit des Universums unbedeutenden Erde unter Tausenden und aber Tausenden von Welten wie eben auf einem Staubkorn dieses Weltenalls. Man muß aber heute Sie gestatten mir die skizzenartige Darstellung, denn ich will gewissermaßen nur den Charakter der dritten Phase unserer anthroposophischen Bewegung damit charakterisieren - schon auch darauf hinweisen, daß der Mensch, indem er auf der einen Seite die Erde in seiner Betrachtung zu einem Staubkorn des Weltenalls gemacht hat, auf der andern Seite die Möglichkeit verloren hat, über das übrige Weltenall überhaupt noch sich Erkenntnisurteile zu bilden außer denjenigen, welche dieses Weltenall nach den Begriffen der Physik vorstellen, höchstens noch in der neueren Zeit nach den Begriffen der Chemie. Von dem vor allem, was darüber hinausgeht, von einer Betrachtung, die nach der Beseelung, nach der Durchgeistigung dieses Weltenalls hinblickt, sieht man heute — und das ist ja bei der Gesamthaltung unserer modernen Erkenntnis natürlich - ab. Man verliert die Möglichkeit, irgendwie das, was der Mensch als sein Seelisches, als sein Geistiges bezeichnet, in irgendeinen Zusammenhang zu bringen mit dem, was uns von den Sternen aus dem Weltenraum herunterleuchtet. Anthroposophie - Sie können das aus den andeutenden Skizzen meiner «Geheimwissenschaft im Umriß» ersehen — will wiederum die Durchseelung und Durchgeistigung des ganzen Weltenalls, den Zusammenhang des Menschengedankens mit den Weltengedanken, den Zusammenhang der Menschenseele mit andern Weltenseelen, den Zusammenhang des Menschengeistes mit andern Weltengeistern, mit der schaffenden Geistigkeit des Universums überhaupt durchschauen. Anthroposophie will also wiederum die Möglichkeit herbeiführen, Geist im Weltenall zu erkennen. Indem Anthroposophie dieses anstrebt, tritt ihr auf ihrem Wege ein starkes Hindernis entgegen; dieses starke Hindernis möchte ich heute einmal ganz unbefangen charakterisieren. Es treten Menschen auf, die das Anthroposophische mit Recht, mit vollem Recht, mit Enthusiasmus verkünden. Sie betonen dabei aber, daß sie bei dieser Verkündung eine Lehre geben, die ihrer Erfahrung zunächst nicht zugänglich sei, die sie vertreten als eine Lehre, die nur dem Geistesforscher als solchem zugänglich sei. Dadurch wird ein Konflikt herbeigeführt mit der Geisteshaltung der heutigen Zivilisation. Die heutige Zivilisation macht dem Menschen einen Vorwurf, wenn er gewissermaßen doch auf eine Art Autorität hin irgendeine Weltanschauung vertritt. Dieser Vorwurf würde ja wegfallen, wenn man gründlich einmal hüben und drüben einsehen würde, daß die Ergebnisse der Geistesforschung, wie sie in der Anthroposophie gemeint sind, zwar gefunden werden müssen mit Methoden, die der einzelne sich auf verschiedenen Wegen aneignen muß, daß diese Ergebnisse aber von dem wirklich unbefangenen Menschenverstande, wenn sie einmal da sind, tatsächlich auch eingesehen werden können. Aber dasjenige, was auf einem gemeinsamen Boden des wirklich unbefangenen Menschenverstandes gefunden werden könnte, das wird dennoch nicht immer zu etwas Fruchtbarem führen, wenn nicht gerade auf dem Boden der Anthroposophie noch etwas auftritt wie eine Art anderer Haltung als es diejenige ist, die viele von denen einnehmen, die heute auch Anthroposophie verkünden. Es handelt sich dabei um folgendes.

Ich möchte zurückverweisen auf mein Buch «Die Philosophie der Freiheit», das ja vor drei Jahrzehnten der Öffentlichkeit übergeben worden ist. Und ich möchte darauf aufmerksam machen, daß ich in diesem Buche bereits hingewiesen habe auf eine besondere Art des Denkens, die anders ist als diejenige, die man gewöhnlich heute zugibt. Wenn man heute vom Denken spricht, gerade wenn man in maßgebendsten Kreisen vom Denken spricht, dann verbindet man mit diesem Begriffe vom Denken den einer gewissen Passivität in der Haltung des Menschengeistes. Man übergibt sich als Menschengeist der äußeren Beobachtung, man beobachtet oder experimentiert, und man verknüpft die Beobachtungen durch das menschliche Denken, kommt dabei zu Naturgesetzen, streitet vielleicht auch über die Geltung dieser Naturgesetze, über ihre metaphysische oder bloß physische Bedeutung. Aber etwas anderes ist, diese Gedanken, die man sich so an der Natur macht, zu haben - oder sich nun wirklich aufzuklären darüber, wie man sich als Mensch verhält zu diesen Gedanken, die man sich bildet über die Natur, die man sich, so wie man sie heute über die Natur sich bildet, erst in der neuesten Zeit bilden kann. Denn die Naturgedanken einer älteren Zeit — noch des 13., 12., 11. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts waren eben in bezug auf die menschliche Seelenhaltung ganz andere. Denken heißt für den Menschen von heute, passiv die Erscheinungen verfolgen und über ihre Regelmäßigkeit oder Unregelmäßigkeit sich eben Vorstellungen zu bilden. Man läßt die Gedanken gewissermaßen an den Erscheinungen auftreten, man läßt sie passiv anwesend sein in der menschlichen Seele. Demgegenüber habe ich in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» das aktive Element im menschlichen Denken betont, habe betont, wie der Wille einschlägt in das Gedankenelement, wie man gewahr werden kann die eigene innere Tätigkeit im sogenannten reinen Denken, indem ich zugleich gezeigt habe, daß aus diesem reinen Denken herausfließt alles dasjenige, was in Wirklichkeit moralische Impulse sein können. So daß ich also den Einschlag des Willens in die passive Gedankenwelt, dadurch die Auferweckung der passiven Gedankenwelt zu etwas, was der Mensch innerlich tätig, aktiv verrichtet, aufzuzeigen versucht habe.

Was für eine Art von Lesen war nun vorausgesetzt bei dieser «Philosophie der Freiheit»? Bei dieser «Philosophie der Freiheit» war eine besondere Art des Lesens vorausgesetzt. Es war vorausgesetzt, daß der Leser, während er das Buch liest, eine Art inneren Erlebnisses durchmacht, welches man wirklich äußerlich vergleichen kann mit dem Aufwachen, das man morgens früh erlebt, wenn man vom Schlaf- in den Wachzustand übergeht. Man sollte sich gewissermaßen so fühlen: In dem passiven Denken habe ich auf einer höheren Stufe der Welt gegenüber doch nur geschlafen, jetzt wache ich auf -, so wie man des Morgens, wenn man aufwacht, weiß: Du bist passiv im Bette gelegen, du hast dich hingegeben dem Lauf des Naturgeschehens in deinem Leibe, du fängst jetzt an, innerlich tätig zu sein, du verbindest jetzt die Tätigkeit deiner Sinne mit dem, was draußen in der tönenden, farbigen Welt vorgeht, du verbindest jetzt die Tätigkeit deines eigenen Leibes mit deinen Intentionen. - Dieses Moment des Übergehens aus einem bloßen Erleiden in ein Tätigsein, das ist es, was auf einer höheren Stufe in ähnlicher Weise beim Lesen der «Philosophie der Freiheit» in dem Menschen auftauchen sollte. Er sollte sich gewissermaßen sagen: Ja, ich habe bisher gedacht, aber dieses Denken bestand eigentlich darin, daß ich die Gedanken in mir strömen ließ, ich gab mich hin dem Strom der Gedanken. Jetzt beginne ich Stück für Stück meine innere Tätigkeit zu verbinden mit dem Gedanken; jetzt ist es so mit den Gedanken, wie wenn ich des Morgens aufwache und die Tätigkeit meiner Sinne verbinde mit der Farben- und Tonwelt oder die Tätigkeit meines Organismus verbinde mit meinem Willen. - Dadurch aber, daß man ein solches Aufwache-Erlebnis hat - ich habe darauf hingedeutet in meinem Buche «Vom Menschenrätsel», da wo ich über Johann Gottlieb Fichte spreche -, kommt man zu einer Seelenhaltung, die eben durchaus eine andere Seelenhaltung ist als diejenige, die heute die gewöhnliche ist. Diese Seelenhaltung aber, zu der man da kommt, die führt einen nach und nach nicht bloß zu einer Erkenntnis, die man auf Autorität hinzunehmen hat, sondern sie führt einen dazu, sich zu sagen: Ja, was sind denn diese Gedanken, die du früher gehabt hast, und was ist denn die Tätigkeit, die du jetzt in deine passiven Gedanken, in die Gedanken, die du bloß zu erleiden hattest, hast hineinschlagen lassen? Was ist denn dasjenige, was da in dein früheres Denken hineingefahren ist, so wie das seelisch-geistige Leben des Morgens in den Leib fährt? Ich meine damit nichts anderes als die äußere Tatsache des Aufwachens. Da kommt man eben dazu, ein Erlebnis zu haben über das Denken, welches man gar nicht haben kann, solange man nicht das Denken auch als Lebendiges, als Aktives kennenlernt.

Solange man bloß auf das passive Denken hinblickt, ist einem eben das Denken dasjenige, was sich im Menschenleibe entwickelt, wenn dieser Menschenleib durch seine Sinne die äußeren Dinge ansieht. Läßt man aber in dieses passive Denken hineinfahren die Aktivität des inneren Menschen, dann kann man dasjenige, was man früher gehabt hat, mit etwas anderem vergleichen; dann kann man erst anfangen, über das Wesen dieses passiven Denkens sich aufzuklären. Und dann kommt man dazu, daß dieses passive Denken ja eigentlich im Seelenleben sich so ausnimmt wie ein Leichnam eines Menschen in der physischen Welt. Wenn man den Leichnam eines Menschen in der physischen Welt hat, dann sagt man sich: So etwas kann ja nicht primär entstehen; es kann durch keine gewöhnlichen Naturgesetze eine solche Zusammenfügung der Materien stattfinden, wie sie da in einem Leichnam vor mir liegt. Diese Zusammenfügung der Materien ist nur dadurch möglich, daß der Leichnam früher belebt war von einem Menschenwesen, daß er ein Rest ist, daß er übriggeblieben ist von einem belebten Menschen, der diesen Leib an sich getragen hat. - Der Leichnam als solcher ist nur erklärlich unter der Voraussetzung des früher vorhandenen lebendigen Menschen. Vor seinem passiven Denken steht der Mensch so, wie ein Wesen, das niemals Menschen gesehen hätte, sondern nur Leichname. Ein solches Wesen müßte alle Leichname als ebenso viele Wunder empfinden; denn sie könnten gar nicht entstehen aus dem, was in der übrigen Natur um die Leichname herum ist. So lernt man — in dem Augenblicke, wo das aktive Element des Seelenlebens in das Denken hineinschießt - das Denken erst erkennen als etwas, was ein Rest ist. Man lernt es erkennen als Rest von etwas. Das gewöhnliche Denken ist tot, es ist ein Seelenleichnam, und man muß aufmerksam werden auf diesen Seelenleichnam dadurch, daß man das eigene Leben der Seele hineinschießen läßt und den Leichnam, das abstrakte Denken nun in seiner Lebendigkeit kennenlernt. Will man einen Leichnam verstehen, so muß man daneben einen lebendigen Menschen anschauen. Will man das gewöhnliche Denken verstehen, so muß man sich sagen: Es ist tot, es ist ein Seelenleichnam, und das Lebendige davon war in dem vorirdischen Leben; da lebte die Seele ohne den Leib in der Lebendigkeit dieses Denkens, und das, was mir geblieben ist hier im irdischen Leben, das muß ich betrachten wie den Seelenleichnam der lebendigen Seele des vorirdischen Lebens.

Das wird innere Erfahrung. Darüber kann man sich innerlich aufklären, wenn man eben den Willen hineinschießen läßt in das Denken. In der Art muß man dieses Denken schon betrachten, indem man im Sinne der heutigen Menschheitsentwickelung die ethischen, die moralischen Impulse im reinen Denken aufsucht. Dann kommt man dazu, durch das reine Denken selber hinausgehoben zu werden aus seinem Leib in eine Welt, die nicht die irdische ist, und man weiß jetzt: Das, was du in deinem lebendigen Denken hast, das geht eigentlich diese physische Welt zunächst nichts an, aber es ist eine Realität; das geht eine Welt an, die deine Augen hier nicht sehen, in der du warst, bevor du in deinen physischen Leib heruntergestiegen bist. Das geht eine geistige Welt an. Und man kommt zuletzt dazu, sich aufzuklären darüber, daß auch die Gesetze unseres Planetensystems solche sind, daß sie mit der Welt, in die man nun hineinversetzt ist durch das belebte Denken, nichts zu tun haben. So daß man bis zum Ende des Planetensystems — ich will absichtlich im alten Sinne die Sache charakterisieren — gehen muß, um in eine Welt zu kommen, für die dasjenige eine Bedeutung hat, was man im lebendigen Denken erfaßt. Das heißt, man muß über den Saturn hinaus gehen, um die Welt zu finden, auf die jetzt die lebendigen Gedanken anwendbar sind, aber in der dasjenige zu finden ist, was aus dem Universum herein auch auf unserer Erde schöpferisch ist. - Jetzt hat man einen ersten Schritt gemacht in dem Zeitalter, das sich sonst nur versetzt fühlt auf das Staubkorn Erde im Weltenraum, jetzt hat man einen ersten Schritt gemacht, um wiederum hinauszugehen in das Weltenall, um ein Mittel zu haben, da draußen wiederum etwas schauen zu können, etwas schauen zu können mit dem lebendigen Denken. Man kommt jenseits des Planetensystems.

Und betrachtet man in der Weise, wie ich es in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» getan habe, weiter den menschlichen Willen - ich habe in dieser «Philosophie der Freiheit» mich beschränken wollen auf die bloß sinnengemäße Welt, bin erst in den folgenden Schriften weitergegangen, weil die Dinge ja nach und nach entwickelt werden mußten -, so kommt man dazu, daß ebenso wie in das passive Denken, in das Denken, das man nur zu erleiden hat, der Wille einschlägt und man hinausgeführt wird über den Saturn in das Universum, daß man ebenso, indem man in den Willen sich hineinvertieft, so, daß man gewissermaßen mit seinem ganzen Wesen ruhig wird, wie ein ruhender Pol in der Bewegtheit der Willenswelt, die man sonst entfaltet, man nach der andern Seite weiterkommt. Wenn wir innerhalb unseres Leibes wollen, sind wir eigentlich in Bewegung. Selbst wenn das Wollen nur ein Wunsch ist, so liegt eine innere Stoffbewegung vor. Wollen ist, so wie es beim Menschen für das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein auftritt, Bewegung. Der Mensch ist gewissermaßen in die Bewegung der Welt hinein versetzt, indem er will. Gelingt es einem nun durch jene Übungen, die ich angegeben habe in meinem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?», dieser Bewegung, in der man innerhalb des Wollens steht, die Ruhe des eigenen Wesens entgegenzusetzen, gelingt es einem, wenn ich mich bildlich ausdrücken will, in der Seele stehenzubleiben, während man mit dem Leibe im Raume geht - es ist nur ein Bild, es muß angewendet werden auf alle Betätigungen des Willens -, gelingt es einem, in der Welt tätig zu sein und in der Seele ruhig zu bleiben, gewissermaßen die eigene Tätigkeit sich fortbewegen zu lassen und ruhig zuzuschauen seiner eigenen Tätigkeit: dann trägt man das Denken in den Willen hinein wie früher den Willen in das Denken. Dann kommt man nach der andern Seite aus der Welt heraus. Man kommt nämlich dadurch dazu, den Willen zu erkennen als etwas, das nun wiederum sich loslöst von dem physischen Leibe, das sogar einen herausführt aus der gewöhnlichen Erdengesetzmäßigkeit, und man lernt auf diese Weise kennen eine ganz besonders bedeutsame Tatsache bezüglich des Zusammenhanges des Menschen mit dem Universum. Man lernt sich sagen: Du hast in dir allerlei Triebe, Instinkte, Leidenschaften, die schon innerhalb des Willensmäßigen liegen. Aber diese Triebe, Instinkte, Leidenschaften, die beim Leichnam fehlen, die gehören gar nicht der Welt an, die du mit deinen Experimenten erkennen kannst, indem du dich auf die irdische Sinnenwelt beschränkst. Das gehört einer andern Welt an, die in diese Welt hineingestellt ist und die von ihrer Wirksamkeit alles dasjenige zurückwirft, was in dieser Sinneswelt liegt.

Ich will heute nur skizzenhaft die Dinge andeuten, weil ich den Charakter der dritten Phase der Anthroposophie darlegen will. Man kommt dazu, nach der andern Seite in das Universum hineinzukommen, nämlich nach der Seite, die äußerlich-physisch durch den Mond charakterisiert wird. So wie der Mond das Sonnenlicht zurück wirft, es nicht aufnimmt, sondern in sich das Sonnenlicht freiläßt, indem er alles zurückstrahlt, so strahlt er auch andere Kräfte des Universums zurück. Er schließt sie aus, er gehört einer andern Welt an, als diejenige ist, durch die wir die Dinge sehen. Wir sehen die Dinge durch das Licht, der Mond strahlt uns das Licht zurück, er nimmt es nicht in sich auf. Wir werden auf der einen Seite durch das Denken, das sich selbst erfaßt in innerer Tätigkeit, bis auf den Saturn hinaufgeführt. Wir werden auf der andern Seite, indem wir den Willen erfassen, in die Mondentätigkeit hineingeführt, lernen den Menschen in Beziehung setzen zum Universum, werden hinausgeführt über das Staubkorn Erde, schwingen wieder unsere Erkenntnis auf zum Universum, finden wiederum etwas im Universum, was verwandt ist demjenigen, was in uns seelisch-geistig lebt. Und wenn wir dann auf der einen Seite das vom Willen durchtränkte aktive Denken in unserer Seelenhaltung haben, auf der andern Seite den vom Denken durchtränkten Willen und uns bewußt geworden sind: auf der einen Seite kommen wir an die Grenze des Planetensystems bis ins Saturnische, auf der andern Seite, innerhalb des Irdischen, aus dem Planetensystem hinaus über das Universum in das Mondenhafte, wenn wir uns fühlen mit unserem Bewußtsein im Universum, so wie wir uns hier auf der Erde mit unserem Bewußtsein im Irdischen fühlen, und dann mit diesem Bewußtsein, das nun, so wie das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein das Irdische miterlebt, das Universell-Himmlische miterlebt,wenn wir mit einem solchen Bewußtsein im Himmlischen darinnenstehen und da das Selbstbewußtsein erlangen, dann taucht die Erinnerung auf an die früher zugebrachten Erdenleben, dann werden die wiederholten Erdenleben eine Tatsache des Weltengedächtnisses, das wir uns angeeignet haben. Man braucht sich nicht zu wundern darüber, daß im Irdischen nicht erinnert werden können die wiederholten Erdenleben; denn dasjenige, was dazwischen liegt, wird ja nicht auf der Erde durchgemacht, und die Wirksamkeit des einen Erdenlebens in das spätere kommt nur dadurch zustande, daß der Mensch sich vom Irdischen erhebt. Wie sollte der Mensch sich an die früheren Erdenleben erinnern, wenn er nicht sich zuerst aufschwingen würde zu einem himmlischen Bewußtsein!

Ich habe heute nur skizzenhaft darüber reden wollen, denn ich habe ja über solche Dinge hier auch schon oftmals geredet. Ich habe gewissermaßen andeuten wollen die Regionen, in denen sich die anthroposophische Forschung bewegt, namentlich in den letzten Jahren bewegt hat. Diejenigen, die prüfen wollen, was hier vorgegangen ist, die werden wissen, wie sich die Haltung meiner Vorträge in den letzten Jahren gerade in solchen Regionen bewegt hat. Es hat sich darum gehandelt, allmählich eine Klärung darüber hervorzurufen, wie man aus dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein in ein erhöhtes Bewußtsein hineinkommen kann. Und obwohl ich immer wieder gesagt habe, der gewöhnliche, unbefangene Menschenverstand kann die Ergebnisse der Anthroposophie einsehen, so habe ich auch betont, daß für jeden heute zugänglich ist eine solche Bewußtseinshaltung, durch die er unmittelbar selber ein neues Denken und ein neues Wollen erreicht, wodurch er sich hineinversetzt fühlt in diejenige Welt, von der Anthroposophie redet. Dasjenige, was notwendig gewesen wäre, das ist, daß man abgekommen wäre davon, so etwas wie meine «Philosophie der Freiheit» mit derselben Seelenhaltung zu lesen, wie man etwa andere philosophische Darstellungen liest. Man hätte sie in der Seelenhaltung lesen müssen, durch die man aufmerksam wird darauf, daß man in eine ganz andere Art des Denkens, des Anschauens und des Wollens hineinkommt. Dann aber würde man gewußt haben: Man erhebt sich mit dieser andern Bewußtseinshaltung von der Erde in eine andere Welt hinein, und dann entspringt aus dem Bewußtsein einer solchen Seelenhaltung eben jene innere Festigkeit, welche mit Überzeugung reden darf von demjenigen, was die Geistesforschung ergründen kann. Liest man die «Philosophie der Freiheit» in richtigem Sinne, dann redet man über das, was der Geistesforscher zu sagen hat, der eben mehr ergründen kann als dasjenige, was der Anfänger kann, mit Sicherheit, mit innerer Überzeugung. Aber ein solcher Anfänger, wie ich ihn jetzt charakterisiert habe, kann eben schon durch das richtige Lesen der «Philosophie der Freiheit» jeder werden. Dieser Anfänger kann dann von dem Ausführlicheren, das der entwickelte Geistesforscher sagen kann, so reden wie derjenige, der Chemie gelernt hat, von Forschungsresultaten redet, die er auch nicht angesehen hat, von denen er aber weiß aus dem, was er gelernt hat, aus dem, wie man über die Sachen redet und wie sie der realen Sphäre des Lebens angehören. Immer kommt es darauf an, wenn es sich um Anthroposophie handelt, daß eine gewisse Seelenhaltung eintritt, nicht bloß das Behaupten eines andern Weltbildes, als man es im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein hat. Das hat man eben nicht mitgemacht, die «Philosophie der Freiheit» anders zu lesen, als andere Bücher gelesen werden. Und das ist es, worauf es ankommt, und das ist es, worauf jetzt mit aller Schärfe hingewiesen werden muß, weil sonst eben einfach die Entwickelung der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft ganz und gar zurückbleibt hinter der Entwickelung der Anthroposophie. Dann muß die Anthroposophie auf dem Umwege durch die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft von der Welt ja gänzlich mißverstanden werden, und dann kann nichts anderes herauskommen als Konflikt über Konflikt!

Ich möchte nun, um eben der unmittelbaren anthroposophischen Gegenwart zu dienen, von den drei Phasen in der Entwickelung der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft ganz kurz sprechen. Vor etwa zwei Jahrzehnten wurde begonnen, Anthroposophie zu verkünden - im wesentlichen, möchte ich sagen, denn im Keim liegt es durchaus zum Beispiel in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit», schon in meinen Schriften über Goethes Weltanschauung — aber im wesentlichen wurde es begonnen vor zwei Jahrzehnten. Und daß es als Anthroposophie begonnen hat verkündet zu werden, mag Ihnen aus Folgendem hervorgehen.

Als ich meine ersten Berliner Vorträge gehalten habe, die in dem Büchlein «Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens und ihr Verhältnis zur modernen Weltanschauung» enthalten sind, als ich diese Vorträge im Anfange des 20. Jahrhunderts in Berlin gehalten habe, da forderte man mich von seiten der Theosophischen Gesellschaft auf, dort mitzumachen, wenn ich so sagen darf. Ich habe die Theosophische Gesellschaft nicht gesucht. Man hat dasjenige, was in jenen Vorträgen rein aus der Verfolgung meiner eigenen Weltanschauung entsprungen war, für dasjenige gehalten, was man dort hören wollte. Das hat dazu geführt, zu sagen: Die Theosophen wollen dasjenige hören, was da zu hören ist, und ich wiederum werde jederzeit da reden, wo man mich hören will. - Daher fand ich für mich, trotzdem ich früher die Theosophische Gesellschaft nicht gerade freundlich charakterisiert habe - ich habe es früher so gemacht, und habe es später so gemacht -, keine Veranlassung, nicht nachzukommen der Aufforderung, innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft das zu vertreten, was ich selber aus der geistigen Welt heraus zu vertreten habe. Daß es aber als Anthroposophie vertreten worden ist, mag eben daraus hervorgehen, daß in derselben Zeit, und zwar in denselben Stunden, als die Deutsche Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft in Berlin gegründet worden ist, ich abgesondert davon meinen damaligen Vortragszyklus über Anthroposophie gehalten habe, der auch so benannt war. Auf der einen Seite ist die Deutsche Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft gegründet worden, und ich habe meinen Vortragszyklus über Anthroposophie damals gehalten. Also es hat sich von Anfang an darum gehandelt, nicht irgend etwas anderes zu vertreten als Anthroposophie. Und nun beginnt damit die erste Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung, verkörpert durch dasjenige, was dazumal sich gefunden hat, um die anthroposophische Weltanschauung aufzunehmen innerhalb zunächst der Deutschen Sektion und dann auch weiterer Kreise der Theosophischen Gesellschaft. Durch die erste Phase hindurch war also gewissermaßen die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in einer Art embryonalen Lebens innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft. Ich möchte sagen, eine Art Embryo war sie in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft, aber sie hat sich entwickelt eben als Anthroposophische Gesellschaft. Sie hatte innerhalb dieser ersten Phase ihre ganz besondere Aufgabe: sie hatte die Aufgabe, zunächst demjenigen, was in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft vorlag - und das war die traditionelle Aufnahme uralter orientalischer Weistümer -, entgegenzusetzen die Spiritualität der abendländischen Zivilisation mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha als Mittelpunkt.

Nun haben wir die erste Periode der anthroposophischen Bewegung, die etwa bis zum Jahre 1908 oder 1909 dauert. Diejenigen, welche die Geschichte der Entwickelung der anthroposophischen Bewegung zurückverfolgen, werden sehen können, wie hinorientiert worden ist alles dasjenige, was nun — nicht durch Übernahme alter Traditionen, sondern aus dem unmittelbaren Bewußtsein der Gegenwart heraus — gefunden werden konnte über präexistentes Leben, über wiederholte Erdenleben und so weiter, wie das hinorientiert worden ist zu jener geschichtlichen Entwickelung innerhalb des menschlichen Erdendaseins, die ihren Mittelpunkt hat in dem Mysterium von Golgatha und in dem ChristusImpuls. Es wurden da die Evangelien ausgearbeitet, es wurde anderes ausgearbeitet, und man hatte — ungefähr in der Zeit, in der man beginnen konnte mit dem Übergang der anthroposophischen Bewegung zu einer Art künstlerischen Offenbarung, was dann zunächst geschehen ist durch meine Mysteriendramen — man hatte da zunächst ausgearbeitet die Anthroposophie und sie bis zu jenem Mittelpunkte gebracht, der in dem Mysterium von Golgatha lag.

Dann war die Zeit gekommen, in welcher die theosophische Bewegung in eine Art Absurdität ausgeartet ist, denn diese theosophische Bewegung konnte eben nicht herankommen an das Mysterium von Golgatha, hat dann die Absurdität vollbracht, eine Art wiederverkörperten Christus in einer gegenwärtigen menschlichen Jünglingsgestalt der Welt zu verkündigen im Zusammenhang mit allerlei andern Absurditäten. Es war ganz selbstverständlich, daß ein ernster Mensch sich auf diese Absurditäten überhaupt nicht einlassen konnte, daß diese Absurditäten lächerlich waren gegenüber der abendländischen Zivilisation. Aber Anthroposophie war hineingearbeitet in diese abendländische Zivilisation, so hineingearbeitet worden, daß das Mysterium von Golgatha in einer erneuerten Auffassung innerhalb des Anthroposophischen erschien. Und es kam zu jenen Differenzen mit der Theosophischen Gesellschaft, die dann dazu geführt haben, daß alle Anthroposophen eigentlich ausgeschlossen worden sind aus der’Theosophischen Gesellschaft. Das hat ihnen nichts gemacht aus dem Grunde, weil sich ja an der Anthroposophie nichts dadurch geändert hat. Ich selber habe nie etwas anderes als Anthroposophie mit denen, die sie hören wollten, getrieben, auch in der Zeit nicht, in der Anthroposophie äußerlich enthalten war in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft.

Nun kam die zweite Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung. Diese zweite Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung hatte also zu ihrer Voraussetzung die wichtigsten Lehren über Schicksal und wiederholte Erdenleben, sie hatte das Mysterium von Golgatha in einer spirituellen Beleuchtung, die im Einklang stand mit der Zivilisation der Gegenwart; sie hatte ferner eine Evangelieninterpretation, welche die Tradition wiederum in Einklang erscheinen ließ mit dem, was man auch heute noch erfassen kann durch den lebendig gegenwärtigen und wirkenden Christus. In der zweiten Phase, die dann etwa bis zum Jahre 1916 oder 1917 dauert, hatte man zunächst, ich möchte sagen, Umschau zu halten auf alles dasjenige, was die äußere wissenschaftliche und praktische Zivilisation der Gegenwart ist. Man hatte zu zeigen, wie Anthroposophie in Einklang gebracht werden kann mit demjenigen, was heute wissenschaftlich ist, was heute künstlerisch ist, natürlich in einem tieferen Sinn, und dem, was heute praktisches Leben ist. Sie brauchen nur solche Dinge, wie den Vortragszyklus, den ich 1911 in Prag und 1910 in Kristiania gehalten habe, den einen über «Okkulte Physiologie», den andern über die europäischen Völkerseelen, zu nehmen, und Sie werden sehen, wie in der zweiten Phase der Anthroposophie ausgearbeitet worden ist der Zusammenhang mit den wissenschaftlichen Fragen der Gegenwart und mit den Fragen des praktischen Lebens der Gegenwart. Das sind aber nur Beispiele; die Aufgabe war, die Beziehungen zu suchen zu Wissenschaft und Lebenspraxis der Gegenwart. Während dieser zweiten Phase der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft kam ja nichts anderes in Betracht, als daß sich in der Welt eine Anzahl von Menschen fand, die der Anthroposophie durch ihre innere Seelenverfassung Gehör schenken konnten. Diese Menschen haben sich in immer größerer und größerer Zahl gefunden. Es war nichts anderes notwendig, als daß sich Menschen zusammenfanden, die der Anthroposophie aus ihrer ehrlichen Seelenhaltung heraus Gehör schenken konnten. Dadurch konnte eine Art anthroposophische Gemeinde entstehen, und die Aufgabe war eigentlich nur diese, solchen Menschen, die gemäß dem inneren Entwickelungsgange der Menschheit in der Gegenwart etwas entgegenbrachten der anthroposophischen Erkenntnis, diesen Menschen - darum konnte es sich nur handeln - gerecht zu werden, diesen Menschen etwas zu geben, was sie brauchten für ihre Seelenentwickelung. Es bedurfte also nur der Verkündigung der Anthroposophie. Und im Grunde genommen konnte es einem gleichgültig sein, ob sich die Bekenner der Anthroposophie in diesen zwei ersten Phasen der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft zusammenfanden in sektenartigen Zirkeln, ob sie für öffentliche Vorträge herbeikamen und dergleichen. Man brauchte sich nur auf die Grundlage der ehrlich erworbenen Erkenntnis zu stellen und das zu sagen, was von dieser ehrlich erworbenen Erkenntnisgrundlage aus zu sagen war. Und man konnte innerhalb dessen, was sich da als Anthroposophische Gesellschaft herausgebildet hatte, durchaus zurechtkommen.

Ein weiteres in dieser Phase war die Weiterentfaltung des Künstlerischen. Ungefähr in der Mitte dieser Phase ist aufgetreten die Intention, das Goetheanum, den Dornacher Bau aufzuführen. Dasjenige, was in den Mysterien künstlerisch gegeben worden ist, das ist dadurch in das Architektonische, Bildhauerische, Malerische ausgedehnt worden. Es kam das Eurythmische dazu, das ich ja öfter in den Einleitungen zu eurythmischen Darstellungen in seinem Wesen charakterisieren konnte. Und das alles entsprang gewissermaßen aus dem Quell heraus, der eben eröffnet war durch die Wege, die ich in dem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» skizzenhaft angedeutet habe, aber so weit, daß jeder, der will, eine Vorstellung davon bekommen kann, wie man solche Wege zu gehen hat. Eine besondere Schwierigkeit ergab sich für diese zweite Phase der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft dadurch, daß man hineinkam in jene furchtbare Zeit Europas und der neueren Zivilisation, die dann den entsetzlichen Weltkrieg gesehen hat. Und es war insbesondere schwierig in dieser Zeit, in der Mißtrauen und Haß die ganze neuere Zivilisation durchsetzten, das Schifflein der Anthroposophie durchzubringen, besonders auch deshalb, weil ja das Goetheanum auf einem neutralen Boden stand, der nicht immer ganz leicht in der Zeit der Absperrung zu erreichen war. Aber es war dasjenige, was man begründen konnte als Vertrauen in die Ehrlichkeit des anthroposophischen Wollens, eben doch größer, auch während der Zeit des Krieges, als dasjenige, was als Mißtrauen wider sie aufgetreten ist in der Nachkriegszeit. Und man kann sagen: In der anthroposophischen Arbeit hat die Kriegszeit eigentlich keine Störung hervorgerufen, es konnte in dieser Arbeit fortgefahren werden. - Und es ist ja oft hervorgehoben worden, wie eine große Anzahl von Menschen aus den verschiedensten europäischen Nationen, die sich äußerlich auf den Kriegsschauplätzen in Haß und Feindschaft im Kampfe gegenüberstanden, in Dornach friedlich miteinander in anthroposophischer Gesinnung den Bau, der uns jetzt durch das furchtbare Unglück entrissen ist, aufgeführt haben.

Und dann kam die dritte Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung, jene dritte Phase, in der aufgenommen worden ist von einer Anzahl Persönlichkeiten allerlei Tätigkeit. Ich habe schon betont, auch hier: der Inhalt dieser Tätigkeit war gut. Aber die Tätigkeiten mußten mit eisernem Willen aufgenommen und in ihrer Art verfolgt werden. Man mußte dasjenige, was man aufnahm - damals hat es sich genannt «Dreigliederungsbewegung», später «Bund für freies Geistesleben», Hochschulbund und so weiter -, man mußte all das so aufnehmen, daß man wußte, man ist so dabei, daß man mit seinem ganzen Wesen untrennbar davon ist. In der dritten Phase der Anthroposophie war es nicht mehr möglich, die Sache so zu halten, daß Anthroposophie einfach verkündet wurde und sich diejenigen zusammenfanden, die ihr ehrlicher innerer Sinn zu dieser Anthroposophie brachte, sondern es war jetzt so gekommen, daß eine Anzahl von Persönlichkeiten dieses oder jenes tun wollten, von sich aus tun wollten und auch taten, so daß innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung allerlei entstand von andern Gemeinschaften, als die ursprünglich anthroposophische ist. Zum Beispiel eine wissenschaftliche Bewegung. Diese wissenschaftliche Bewegung, sie hat sich erhoben auf Grundlage dessen, was von der Anthroposophie an Beziehungen zur Wissenschaft in der zweiten Phase festgelegt worden ist. Wissenschafter traten auf. Sie hatten die Aufgabe, gerade dasjenige der neueren Wissenschaft zu geben, was eben von der Anthroposophie aus der neueren Wissenschaft gegeben werden kann. Aber es hätte fortgesetzt werden sollen dasjenige, was von mir angefangen worden ist an der Hand des Herstellens der Beziehungen zur neueren Wissenschaft. Ich darf an Vorträge erinnern, welche eben in der zweiten Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung gehalten worden sind. Ich habe zum Beispiel immer darauf aufmerksam gemacht: Man sehe, wie die neueren Physiker zu dieser oder jener Denkweise kommen. Ich bin ausgegangen von dem, wozu die neueren Physiker kommen, ich habe es zunächst nicht verneint, sondern bejaht, ich habe gesagt: Fangen wir da an, wo die Physiker aufhören, dann kommen wir von der Physik in die Anthroposophie hinein. Und so habe ich es für verschiedene andere Gebiete gemacht. Diese Orientierung hätte fortgesetzt werden sollen, dann wäre ein anderes Bild von wissenschaftlicher Tätigkeit in der dritten Phase entstanden, als entstanden ist. Dann wäre vor allen Dingen nicht das herausgekommen, was von mir schon das letzte Mal eine unfruchtbare Polemik und eine unfruchtbare Diskussion genannt worden ist. Und heute wäre die positive Aufgabe da, zu sagen: Gewiß, Anthroposophie hat etwas in der Wissenschaft zu sagen, die Wissenschaft kann eine bestimmte Fortsetzung unter dem Einflusse der Anthroposophie gewinnen, das ist so und so zu machen. - Dann würde eine andere Haltung gegenüber der Wissenschaft herauskommen, als in einem der letzten Hefte der «Drei» herausgekommen ist oder in einer Anzahl von Heften, die ich durchnehmen mußte wegen des Vortragszyklus über Naturwissenschaft, den ich letzte Weihnachten in Dornach zu halten hatte. Sie hat mich erschreckt durch die der Anthroposophie ebenso wie der Wissenschaft schädliche Art, sich auseinanderzusetzen mit Wissenschaft und Anthroposophie. Mit dieser unfruchtbaren Polemik der Anthroposophen führt man nur die Anthroposophie einem gewissen Mißkredit entgegen. Damit habe ich nicht bloß eine Kritik geliefert, sondern zugleich angedeutet, was der Wissenschafter heute innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft zu tun hat.

In anderer Beziehung hat ähnliches zu geschehen. Man beachte einmal einen andern Fall. Ich habe auch darauf schon das letzteMal aufmerksam gemacht. Wir haben in der dritten Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung den Hochschulbund sich begründen sehen. Dieser Hochschulbund ist aufgetreten mit einem ausgezeichneten Programm; aber man hätte dabei bleiben müssen, mit seinem ganzen Wesen dafür einstehen müssen, irgend jemand. Ich selber hatte nur für Anthroposophie einzustehen. Wenn irgend jemand auf dem Boden der Anthroposophie etwas unternahm, das selbständig war, hatte er selber dafür einzustehen. Man blieb nicht hinter dem Programm stehen, trotzdem ich, als das Programm gemacht wurde, ausdrücklich aufmerksam gemacht habe — die Worte habe ich gebraucht: Man mache solche Programme nur, wenn man den eisernen Willen hat, sie durchzuführen; sonst unterlasse man sie. - Also man unterlasse sie, wenn man nicht dabei stehenbleiben will. Wer nicht dabei stehengeblieben ist, das ist die führende Welt der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gewesen, Was hat sich herausentwickelt? Etwas hat sich herausentwickelt, was zur Anthroposophie wiederum hinkommt, das heißt, zur lebendigen Quelle der Anthroposophie hinkommt: eine Anzahl von jüngeren Menschen der studentischen Welt, die mit aller Sehnsucht zur echten Anthroposophie wiederum hinwollen und die ihrerseits in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft dasjenige nicht finden können, was sie suchen, die ausdrücklich darauf aufmerksam gemacht haben: Wir wollen uns zum Beispiel auch von der künstlerischen Seite aus dem anthroposophischen Impuls nähern. — Zu Frau Dr. Steiner sind die Leute gekommen, um von der Rezitation und Deklamation aus hineinzukommen in den anthroposophischen Schwung, wenn ich mich so ausdrücken darf.

Daneben ging ein anderes, meine lieben Freunde. Daneben ging es so, daß in der dritten Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung eben die geistigen Welten so geschildert wurden, wie ich sie jetzt am Anfange meines heutigen Vortrages kurz skizziert habe für ein bestimmtes Kapitel, das gewissermaßen erhoben wurde in die Sphäre rein geistiger Betrachtung, wo man zeigen kann, wie der Mensch zu einem andern Bewußtsein kommt, um in die geistige Welt hineinzukommen. Zu der Orientierung nach dem Mysterium von Golgatha, zu der Orientierung gegenüber Wissenschaft und Lebenspraxis in der ersten und zweiten Phase kam die dritte Phase, ich möchte sagen, die unmittelbare Darstellung der geistigen Welten. Und wer verfolgt hat, was während der drei Phasen nach dieser Richtung in Dornach versucht worden ist, versucht worden ist zum Beispiel auch hier, wer ein Herz und einen Sinn gehabt hat für den Fortschritt, der darin lag gegenüber der ersten und zweiten Phase, wer namentlich verfolgt hat das, was auch außerhalb der mitteleuropäischen Zivilisation in der letzten Zeit als anthroposophischer Inhalt verkündet werden kann, der wird bemerken, daß es sich darum handelt, eine wirkliche dritte Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung zu begründen, die aber in geradem Aufstieg, in gerader Fortentwickelung der beiden ersten liegt. Und im Grunde genommen wäre es nicht möglich gewesen, die Waldorfschul-Pädagogik, die ebenso aus dem ewigen wie aus dem zeitlichen Wesen des Menschen heraus geschaffen werden mußte, zu schaffen, ohne diese dritte Phase der anthroposophischen Bewegung.

Nun vergleichen Sie mit alledem, was ich Ihnen jetzt gesagt habe ich will niemanden kritisieren, aber ich muß jetzt aus einem offenen Herzen zu Ihnen sprechen -, die beiden Diskussionen, die hier gepflegt worden sind gestern und eine Woche vorher, und fragen Sie sich, wie an der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft die drei Phasen der anthroposophischen Arbeit vorbeigegangen sind. Wären nicht diese Diskussionen vor achtzehn Jahren oder meinetwillen sechzehn Jahren in genau demselben Wortinhalte möglich gewesen, wie jetzt nach zwei Jahrzehnte langer anthroposophischer Arbeit? Ist es nicht, als ob die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft im Anfange bei ihrer Gründung wäre? Wie gesagt, ich will niemandem irgendwie kritisch nahetreten, aber Anthroposophische Gesellschaft kann nur etwas sein, wenn sie die Pflegestätte desjenigen ist, was in anthroposophischer Arbeit errungen wird, wenn diejenigen, die zum Beispiel als Wissenschafter in ihr tätig sind, eingedenk dessen sind, daß sie die Anthroposophie nicht über der Wissenschaft vergessen dürfen, sondern daß sie gerade die neueste Phase der Wissenschaft mit Anthroposophie krönen müssen, nicht in unfruchtbarer Polemik die Anthroposophie, ich möchte sagen, bloßstellen vor der Wissenschaft. Diejenigen, die als Lehrer tätig sind, haben eine ähnliche Aufgabe. Und insbesondere hätten diejenigen eine ähnliche Aufgabe, die als Praktiker tätig sind; denn gerade die Lebenspraxis wird am meisten Einwendungen machen gegen Anthroposophie, die gerade sehr praktisch sein kann, der man es aber am allerintensivsten streitig machen will, praktisch zu sein. Heute steht eben die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft vor der Notwendigkeit, nicht bloß zuzusehen der wirklichen anthroposophischen Arbeit und daneben allerlei zu begründen, ohne daß man diesen Begründungen den anthroposophischen Eifer und anthroposophischen Enthusiasmus zugrunde legt, heute steht die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft vor der Notwendigkeit, sich bewußt zu werden der anthroposophischen Arbeit. Das ist eine ganz positive Bezeichnung ihrer Aufgabe, die nur in den Einzelheiten ausgeführt zu werden braucht. Sonst, wenn dieses Positive nicht unternommen wird, führt das dazu, daß Anthroposophie durch die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft vor der Welt geschädigt und immer mehr geschädigt würde. Wie viele Gegnerschaft hat zum Beispiel die Dreigliederungsbewegung der anthroposophischen Bewegung deshalb gebracht, weil die Dreigliederungsbewegung nicht verstanden hat, sich auf anthroposophischen Boden zu stellen, sondern sich auf den Boden aller möglichen Kompromisse gestellt hat, und man nach und nach in einzelnen Kreisen anfing, Anthroposophie zu verachten. In ähnlicher Weise geht es auf anderen Gebieten. Was wir zu sehen haben, ist eben, daß Anthroposophie, wie ich im ersten der Vorträge, die ich vor Ihnen hier halten durfte, gesagt habe, die Mutter ist dieser Bewegung. Dessen muß man sich bewußt werden; das hätte auch dazu geführt, die richtige Orientierung gegenüber der von mir ja inaugurierten Bewegung für religiöse Erneuerung zu finden. Statt dessen sind nur Schiefheiten auch auf diesem Gebiete zutage getreten. Heute handelt es sich darum, in dieser ernsten Stunde die Worte zu finden, die in positive Arbeit hineinführen, hinauszugehen über das unfruchtbare Reden in dem Sinne, als ob man heute in der Zeit vor zwei Jahrzehnten stünde und als ob keine anthroposophische Arbeit geleistet worden wäre.

Sie müssen, meine lieben Freunde, nicht übelnehmen, daß ich in dieser Weise jetzt zu Ihnen gesprochen habe; ich mußte es tun, denn es liegt das vor, was ich am 6. Januar bereits in Dornach ausgesprochen habe: die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft ist gut, die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft kann aufnehmen dasjenige, was ich auch mit den schärfsten Worten jetzt charakterisiert habe. Aber es muß die Führerschaft der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sich der Aufgabe bewußt werden, daß die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, wenn sie sich Anthroposophische Gesellschaft weiterhin nennen will, eben ein Bewußtsein davon in sich tragen muß, daß sie die Trägerin der anthroposophischen Arbeit sei. In dem Augenblicke, wo mit gutem Willen dieses Bewußtsein hinlänglich klar ausgesprochen wird, in dem Augenblicke hören die Konflikte, die jetzt ausgebrochen sind, auf. In dem Augenblick ist auch die Krisis vorüber. Aber es gehört der gute Wille dazu, dieses auch wirklich auszusprechen, nicht bloß unfruchtbare Kritik zu üben; allerdings auch nicht sich in Illusionen zu wiegen, wenn man ein paar Kompromisse zwischen dieser oder jener Bewegung herbeigeführt hat, um dann wieder im alten Trott fortzusegeln, sondern es handelt sich darum, ganz und gar ernst zu machen mit der anthroposophischen Arbeit. Alle einzelnen Strömungen innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung müssen zusammenwirken, um diesen Ernst herbeizuführen. Da darf es nicht geben abgesondert eine Waldorfschul-Bewegung, eine Bewegung für freies Geistesleben, eine Bewegung für religiöse Erneuerung, sondern das alles kann nur gedeihen, wenn es sich fühlt innerhalb der Mutterbewegung, der anthroposophischen Bewegung. Ich weiß, daß schließlich doch das aus aller Herzen heraus gesprochen ist für alle diejenigen, die es ehrlich mit der anthroposophischen Bewegung meinen. Deshalb durfte ich es auch heute vor Ihnen hier mit etwas schärferen Worten aussprechen. Die meisten von Ihnen werden sich schon bewußt geworden sein, daß es jetzt darauf ankommt, die Dinge mit klar umrissenen Worten auszusprechen, damit eben dieses Bewußtsein entsteht, von dem ich die Notwendigkeit darlegen wollte.

Drei Phasen hat die anthroposophische Bewegung durchgemacht. In der dritten Phase hat man die Anthroposophie in einem gewissen Sinne über allerlei Einzelbewegungen vergessen. Sie muß wiedergefunden werden, wiedergefunden werden als lebendige Geistesbewegung, als solche lebendige Geistesbewegung, die gerade von dem modernen Zivilisationsleben und vor allen Dingen von einem echten Empfinden moderner Herzen der Menschen gefordert wird. In diesem Sinne nehmen Sie diese Worte auf. Haben sie auch hart geklungen, meine lieben Freunde, denken Sie, daß sie um so herzlicher gemeint gewesen sind, daß sie auffordern wollen nicht zu irgendeiner kaustischen Überlegung, sondern zu einer Bewegung aus gutem anthroposophischem Herzen heraus.

Third Lecture

In view of the negotiations currently taking place here regarding a kind of reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society, I would like to structure my lecture today in such a way that it may be useful to some in forming an independent judgment during these decisive days. To this end, I would first like to speak in a relatively concise and brief manner, more so than I usually do when speaking on anthroposophical ground, about what I would like to call the third phase of our anthroposophical work. And then, for the purpose stated, I would like to say a few words to you this evening about the three phases of our anthroposophical movement.

We hear very often today about the great upheaval that took place in Western intellectual life when Copernicus transformed the old view of the heavens into the newer one. And when people want to express what this means, they often say that in earlier times, human beings initially regarded the earth as the domain of their knowledge, made it the main focus of their cognitive observation, and had the contents of the entire celestial space revolve around the earth. In more recent times, in a certain sense, the other heavenly bodies have expanded far beyond the realm that had previously been assigned to them in human perception; the earth has become like a speck of dust in space, and human beings feel themselves to be on the insignificant earth, among thousands and thousands of worlds, just as on a speck of dust in this universe. But today we must—allow me to sketch this out, for I only want to characterize the nature of the third phase of our anthroposophical movement — also point out that by making the earth a speck of dust in the universe on the one hand, humans have lost the ability to form any judgments about the rest of the universe except those that represent this universe according to the concepts of physics, or at most, in more recent times, according to the concepts of chemistry. Today, we refrain from anything that goes beyond this, from a view that looks toward the animation, the spiritualization of this universe — and this is, of course, in keeping with the overall attitude of our modern knowledge. We lose the possibility of somehow connecting what human beings describe as their soul and spirit with what shines down on us from the stars in outer space. Anthroposophy — as you can see from the suggestive sketches in my “Outline of Esoteric Science” — seeks to understand the spiritualization of the entire universe, the connection between human thought and world thought, the connection between the human soul and other world souls, the connection between the human spirit and other world spirits, and the creative spirituality of the universe in general. Anthroposophy therefore seeks to bring about the possibility of recognizing spirit in the universe. In striving for this, anthroposophy encounters a powerful obstacle on its path; today I would like to characterize this powerful obstacle quite impartially. There are people who proclaim anthroposophy with justification, with complete justification, with enthusiasm. In doing so, however, they emphasize that in this proclamation they are teaching something that is not initially accessible to their experience, something they represent as a teaching that is only accessible to spiritual researchers as such. This creates a conflict with the mindset of today's civilization. Today's civilization reproaches people for advocating a worldview based on a kind of authority. This reproach would disappear if people on both sides thoroughly understood that the results of spiritual research, as understood in anthroposophy, must indeed be found using methods that individuals must acquire in various ways, but that these results, once they are there, can actually be understood by truly unbiased human understanding. But what could be found on the common ground of truly unbiased human understanding will not always lead to something fruitful unless something else emerges on the basis of anthroposophy, something other than the attitude taken by many of those who proclaim anthroposophy today. The following is at issue here.

I would like to refer back to my book The Philosophy of Freedom, which was published three decades ago. And I would like to point out that in this book I have already referred to a special kind of thinking that is different from what is commonly accepted today. When people talk about thinking today, especially when they talk about thinking in the most authoritative circles, they associate this concept of thinking with a certain passivity in the attitude of the human spirit. As human beings, we surrender ourselves to external observation, we observe or experiment, and we link our observations through human thinking, thereby arriving at natural laws, perhaps also arguing about the validity of these natural laws, about their metaphysical or merely physical significance. But it is one thing to have these thoughts about nature, and quite another to truly understand how we as human beings relate to these thoughts about nature, which, as we form them today, can only be formed in the most recent times. For the thoughts about nature in earlier times — even in the 13th, 12th, and 11th centuries AD — were quite different in relation to the human soul. For people today, thinking means passively observing phenomena and forming ideas about their regularity or irregularity. Thoughts are allowed to arise from phenomena, so to speak; they are allowed to be passively present in the human soul. In contrast, in my Philosophy of Freedom, I emphasized the active element in human thinking, emphasizing how the will impacts the element of thought, how one can become aware of one's own inner activity in so-called pure thinking, while at the same time showing that everything that can actually be moral impulses flows out of this pure thinking. So I have tried to show the impact of the will on the passive world of thought, thereby awakening the passive world of thought to something that man does inwardly, actively.

What kind of reading was required for this Philosophy of Freedom? This Philosophy of Freedom required a special kind of reading. It presupposed that, while reading the book, the reader would undergo a kind of inner experience that could really be compared externally to the awakening one experiences early in the morning when one transitions from sleep to wakefulness. One should feel, in a sense, that in passive thinking, one has only been sleeping on a higher level of the world, and now one is waking up—just as one knows in the morning when one wakes up: You have been lying passively in bed, you have surrendered yourself to the course of natural events in your body, you are now beginning to be active inwardly, you are now connecting the activity of your senses with what is going on outside in the sounding, colorful world, you are now connecting the activity of your own body with your intentions. This moment of transition from mere suffering to activity is what should arise in a similar way in a person at a higher level when reading The Philosophy of Freedom. They should say to themselves, in a sense: Yes, I have thought until now, but this thinking actually consisted of letting thoughts flow within me; I surrendered myself to the stream of thoughts. Now I am beginning, bit by bit, to connect my inner activity with thought; now it is with thoughts as when I wake up in the morning and connect the activity of my senses with the world of colors and sounds, or connect the activity of my organism with my will. But by having such an awakening experience — I have pointed this out in my book The Riddle of Man, where I talk about Johann Gottlieb Fichte — one arrives at a state of mind that is quite different from the one that is common today. But this state of mind that one arrives at gradually leads one not only to a realization that one must accept on authority, but also to say to oneself: Yes, what are these thoughts that you had before, and what is the activity that you have now allowed to enter into your passive thoughts, into the thoughts that you merely had to endure? What is it that has entered into your former thinking, just as the soul-spiritual life of the morning enters into the body? By this I mean nothing other than the external fact of waking up. This is how one comes to have an experience of thinking that one cannot have at all as long as one does not also get to know thinking as something living, as something active.

As long as one looks only at passive thinking, thinking is simply that which develops in the human body when this human body perceives external things through its senses. But if one allows the activity of the inner human being to enter into this passive thinking, then one can compare what one had before with something else; only then can one begin to understand the nature of this passive thinking. And then one comes to the conclusion that this passive thinking actually appears in the soul life like a human corpse in the physical world. When one has a human corpse in the physical world, one says to oneself: Something like this cannot arise primarily; no ordinary laws of nature can bring about such a combination of materials as lies before me in a corpse. This combination of materials is only possible because the corpse was once animated by a human being, because it is a remnant, a remnant of a living human being who carried this body. The corpse as such can only be explained on the assumption that a living human being once existed. Before his passive thinking, man stands like a being who has never seen human beings, but only corpses. Such a being would have to perceive all corpses as just as many miracles, for they could not possibly arise from what is in the rest of nature around the corpses. Thus, at the moment when the active element of soul life bursts into thinking, one learns to recognize thinking as something that is a remnant. One learns to recognize it as a remnant of something. Ordinary thinking is dead; it is a soul corpse, and one must become attentive to this soul corpse by allowing one's own soul life to rush into it and now get to know the corpse, abstract thinking, in its liveliness. If one wants to understand a corpse, one must look at a living human being alongside it. If you want to understand ordinary thinking, you must say to yourself: it is dead, it is a corpse of the soul, and what was alive in it was in the pre-earthly life; there the soul lived without the body in the liveliness of this thinking, and what has remained for me here in earthly life, I must regard as the corpse of the soul of the living soul of the pre-earthly life.

This becomes an inner experience. One can enlighten oneself inwardly about this by letting the will flow into thinking. One must view this thinking in this way, seeking out the ethical and moral impulses in pure thinking in the sense of today's human development. Then, through pure thinking itself, one is lifted out of one's body into a world that is not the earthly one, and one now knows: what you have in your living thinking is actually of no concern to this physical world at first, but it is a reality; it concerns a world that your eyes cannot see here, in which you were before you descended into your physical body. It concerns a spiritual world. And finally, one comes to realize that the laws of our planetary system are such that they have nothing to do with the world into which one is now transported through animated thinking. So that one must go to the end of the planetary system — I deliberately want to characterize the matter in the old sense — in order to come to a world for which what one grasps in living thinking has meaning. This means that one must go beyond Saturn to find the world to which living thoughts are now applicable, but in which one can find that which is creative on our Earth from the universe. Now we have taken a first step in the age that otherwise feels only displaced on the speck of dust that is Earth in outer space. Now we have taken a first step to go out again into the universe, to have a means of seeing something out there again, of seeing something with living thinking. We come beyond the planetary system.

And if one continues to consider the human will in the way I have done in my “Philosophy of Freedom” — in this “Philosophy of Freedom” I wanted to limit myself to the purely sensory world, and only went further in the following writings because things had to be developed gradually — one comes to the conclusion that just as in passive thinking, in thinking that one merely has to endure, the will strikes and one is led out beyond Saturn into the universe, so also, by immersing oneself in the will in such a way that one becomes calm, as it were, with one's whole being, like a calming influence in the turbulence of the world of the will that one otherwise unfolds, we progress to the other side. When we will within our body, we are actually in motion. Even if the will is only a desire, there is an inner movement of matter. Willing, as it appears to ordinary consciousness in human beings, is movement. In a sense, human beings are placed in the movement of the world by their will. If, through the exercises I have described in my book “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds,” one succeeds in countering this movement, in which one stands within the will, with the calmness of one's own being, one succeeds, if I may express it figuratively, in remaining in the soul while walking with the body in space — it is only an image, it must be applied to all activities of the will — one succeeds in being active in the world and remaining calm in the soul, in a sense allowing one's own activity to move forward and calmly observing one's own activity: then one carries thinking into the will as one used to carry the will into thinking. Then one comes out of the world on the other side. For in this way one comes to recognize the will as something that now in turn detaches itself from the physical body, that even leads one out of the ordinary laws of the earth, and in this way one learns a particularly significant fact concerning the connection of the human being with the universe. You learn to say to yourself: You have all kinds of drives, instincts, and passions within you that already lie within the realm of the will. But these drives, instincts, and passions, which are absent from the corpse, do not belong to the world that you can recognize with your experiments by limiting yourself to the earthly sensory world. They belong to another world that is placed within this world and whose activity reflects back everything that lies within this sensory world.

Today I want to give only a rough outline of things, because I want to explain the character of the third phase of anthroposophy. One comes to enter the universe from the other side, namely the side that is characterized externally and physically by the moon. Just as the moon reflects sunlight, not absorbing it but allowing it to pass through, reflecting everything back, so it also reflects other forces of the universe. It excludes them; it belongs to a different world than the one through which we see things. We see things through light; the moon reflects the light back to us; it does not absorb it. On the one hand, through thinking, which grasps itself in inner activity, we are led up to Saturn. On the other hand, by grasping the will, we are led into the activity of the moon, learn to relate the human being to the universe, are led out beyond the speck of dust that is Earth, swing our knowledge back up to the universe, and again find something in the universe that is related to what lives in us spiritually and soulfully. And when we then have, on the one hand, active thinking imbued with will in our soul attitude, and on the other hand, will imbued with thinking, and have become aware that, on the one hand, we reach the boundary of the planetary system as far as Saturn, and on the other hand, within the earthly, out of the planetary system across the universe into the lunar, when we feel ourselves with our consciousness in the universe, just as we feel ourselves here on earth with our consciousness in the earthly, and then with this consciousness, which now, just as ordinary consciousness experiences the earthly, experiences the universal-heavenly, when we stand within the heavenly with such consciousness and attain self-consciousness there, then the memory of previous earthly lives emerges, then the repeated earthly lives become a fact of the world memory that we have acquired. It is not surprising that repeated earthly lives cannot be remembered in the earthly realm, for what lies in between is not experienced on earth, and the effect of one earthly life on the next comes about only when the human being rises above the earthly realm. How could human beings remember their previous earthly lives if they did not first rise to a heavenly consciousness?

Today I have only wanted to speak about this in outline, for I have already spoken about such things here many times. I have wanted, as it were, to indicate the regions in which anthroposophical research is moving, and has been moving in recent years. Those who want to examine what has been going on here will know how the tone of my lectures in recent years has moved in precisely these regions. The aim has been to gradually bring about a clarification of how one can enter into a higher consciousness from ordinary consciousness. And although I have repeatedly said that ordinary, unbiased common sense can understand the results of anthroposophy, I have also emphasized that everyone today has access to a state of consciousness through which they can immediately attain a new way of thinking and a new will, whereby they feel transported into the world of which anthroposophy speaks. What would have been necessary is to have abandoned the idea of reading something like my Philosophy of Freedom with the same attitude of mind as one reads other philosophical works. It should have been read with an attitude of mind that makes one aware that one is entering into a completely different way of thinking, feeling, and willing. Then, however, one would have known that with this different attitude of consciousness one rises from the earth into another world, and then from the consciousness of such an attitude of soul springs precisely that inner firmness which allows one to speak with conviction about what spiritual research can fathom. If one reads The Philosophy of Freedom in the right sense, then one speaks with certainty and inner conviction about what the spiritual researcher has to say, who can explore more deeply than the beginner can. But anyone can become such a beginner, as I have now characterized, simply by reading The Philosophy of Freedom correctly. This beginner can then speak of the more detailed things that the developed spiritual researcher can say in the same way that someone who has studied chemistry speaks of research results that they have not seen themselves, but which they know from what they have learned, from how people talk about these things and how they belong to the real sphere of life. When it comes to anthroposophy, it is always important that a certain attitude of mind is adopted, not just the assertion of a worldview different from that which one has in ordinary consciousness. One has not experienced reading The Philosophy of Freedom in a different way from how other books are read. And that is what matters, and that is what must now be pointed out with all sharpness, because otherwise the development of the Anthroposophical Society will simply lag far behind the development of anthroposophy. Then anthroposophy, via the detour through the Anthroposophical Society, must be completely misunderstood by the world, and then nothing else can come of it but conflict upon conflict!

In order to serve the immediate anthroposophical present, I would now like to speak very briefly about the three phases in the development of the Anthroposophical Society. About two decades ago, anthroposophy began to be proclaimed — essentially, I would say, because the seeds of it are already present, for example, in my Philosophy of Freedom and in my writings on Goethe's worldview — but essentially it began two decades ago. And that it began to be proclaimed as anthroposophy may be clear to you from the following.

When I gave my first lectures in Berlin, which are contained in the booklet “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life and Its Relationship to the Modern Worldview,” when I gave these lectures in Berlin at the beginning of the 20th century, I was asked by the Theosophical Society to join them, if I may say so. I did not seek out the Theosophical Society. What had arisen in those lectures purely from the pursuit of my own worldview was considered to be what people there wanted to hear. This led me to say: The theosophists want to hear what there is to hear, and I, in turn, will speak whenever and wherever people want to hear me. Therefore, even though I had not characterized the Theosophical Society in a particularly friendly manner in the past — I did so in the past and did so later — I found no reason not to comply with the request to represent within the Theosophical Society what I myself had to represent from the spiritual world. However, the fact that it was represented as anthroposophy may be due to the fact that at the same time, and indeed at the same hours, as the German Section of the Theosophical Society was founded in Berlin, I gave my lecture series on anthroposophy, which was also named as such. On the one hand, the German Section of the Theosophical Society was founded, and on the other, I gave my lecture series on anthroposophy at that time. So from the very beginning, it was a matter of representing nothing other than anthroposophy. And now the first phase of the anthroposophical movement begins, embodied by what came together at that time to take up the anthroposophical worldview, first within the German Section and then also in wider circles of the Theosophical Society. Throughout the first phase, the Anthroposophical Society was, in a sense, in a kind of embryonic state within the Theosophical Society. I would say that it was a kind of embryo within the Theosophical Society, but it developed into the Anthroposophical Society. It had its own special task during this first phase: its task was initially to counter what existed in the Theosophical Society – which was the traditional acceptance of ancient Eastern wisdom – with the spirituality of Western civilization, with the mystery of Golgotha at its center.

Now we have the first period of the anthroposophical movement, which lasts until about 1908 or 1909. Those who trace the history of the development of the anthroposophical movement will be able to see how everything that could now be found — not by adopting old traditions, but from the immediate consciousness of the present — could be found about pre-existing life, about repeated earthly lives, and so on, how it has been oriented toward that historical development within human existence on earth that has its center in the mystery of Golgotha and in the Christ impulse. The Gospels were worked out, other things were worked out, and — around the time when the anthroposophical movement could begin its transition to a kind of artistic revelation, which then initially took place through my mystery dramas — anthroposophy had first been worked out and brought to that center which lay in the mystery of Golgotha.

Then the time came when the theosophical movement degenerated into a kind of absurdity, because this theosophical movement could not approach the Mystery of Golgotha and then committed the absurdity of proclaiming a kind of reincarnated Christ in the form of a present-day human youth in connection with all kinds of other absurdities. It was quite natural that a serious person could not engage with these absurdities at all, that these absurdities were ridiculous in the context of Western civilization. But anthroposophy had been worked into this Western civilization, worked into it in such a way that the mystery of Golgotha appeared in a renewed conception within anthroposophy. And this led to those differences with the Theosophical Society which then resulted in all anthroposophists actually being excluded from the Theosophical Society. That did not bother them, because it did not change anything in anthroposophy. I myself never pursued anything other than anthroposophy with those who wanted to hear it, even during the time when anthroposophy was outwardly contained within the Theosophical Society.

Then came the second phase of the anthroposophical movement. This second phase of the anthroposophical movement was based on the most important teachings about fate and repeated earthly lives, it had the mystery of Golgotha in a spiritual illumination that was in harmony with the civilization of the present; it also had an interpretation of the Gospels that brought tradition into harmony with what can still be grasped today through the living, present, and active Christ. In the second phase, which lasted until about 1916 or 1917, one had to first, I would say, take a look at everything that constitutes the external scientific and practical civilization of the present. It was necessary to show how anthroposophy could be brought into harmony with what is scientific today, what is artistic today, in a deeper sense, of course, and with what is practical life today. You need only take such things as the lecture cycles I gave in Prague in 1911 and in Kristiania in 1910, one on “Occult Physiology” and the other on the souls of the European peoples, and you will see how, in the second phase of anthroposophy, the connection with the scientific questions of the present and with the questions of practical life in the present has been worked out. But these are only examples; the task was to seek connections with science and practical life in the present. During this second phase of the Anthroposophical Society, nothing else was considered except that a number of people could be found in the world who, through their inner soul disposition, could listen to anthroposophy. These people found each other in ever greater numbers. Nothing else was necessary except that people could come together who, out of their honest soul disposition, could listen to anthroposophy. This allowed a kind of anthroposophical community to develop, and the task was really only to do justice to those people who, in accordance with the inner development of humanity in the present, responded to anthroposophical knowledge — that was the only thing that mattered — to give these people something they needed for their soul development. So all that was needed was the proclamation of anthroposophy. And basically, it didn't matter whether the adherents of anthroposophy in these first two phases of the Anthroposophical Society gathered in sect-like circles, whether they came for public lectures and the like. One only needed to stand on the foundation of honestly acquired knowledge and say what needed to be said from this honestly acquired knowledge base. And one could get along quite well within what had developed as the Anthroposophical Society.

Another aspect of this phase was the further development of the artistic. Approximately in the middle of this phase, the intention arose to build the Goetheanum, the building in Dornach. What had been given artistically in the mysteries was thus extended into architecture, sculpture, and painting. Eurythmy was added, the nature of which I have often been able to characterize in the introductions to eurythmic performances. And all of this sprang, as it were, from the source that had just been opened up by the paths I had sketched out in the book How to Know Higher Worlds, but to such an extent that anyone who wants to can get an idea of how to follow such paths. A particular difficulty arose for this second phase of the Anthroposophical Society in that it coincided with that terrible time in Europe and modern civilization, which then saw the horrific world war. And it was particularly difficult in this time, when mistrust and hatred permeated the whole of modern civilization, to steer the little ship of anthroposophy through, especially because the Goetheanum stood on neutral ground, which was not always easy to reach in times of isolation. But it was possible to justify this as trust in the honesty of anthroposophical will, which was greater even during the war than the mistrust that arose against it in the post-war period. And one can say that the war did not actually cause any disruption to anthroposophical work; it was possible to continue this work. And it has often been emphasized how a large number of people from various European nations, who outwardly faced each other in hatred and enmity on the battlefields, peacefully worked together in Dornach in an anthroposophical spirit to build the building that has now been taken from us by this terrible misfortune.

And then came the third phase of the anthroposophical movement, that third phase in which a number of personalities took up all kinds of activities. I have already emphasized here, too, that the content of these activities was good. But the activities had to be taken up with iron will and pursued in their own way. One had to take up what one took up — at that time it was called the “Threefold Movement,” later the “Association for Free Spiritual Life,” the University Association, and so on — one had to take up all this in such a way that one knew that one was involved in it, that one was inseparably connected with it with one's whole being. In the third phase of anthroposophy, it was no longer possible to keep things as they were, with anthroposophy simply being proclaimed and those who were drawn to it by its honest inner meaning coming together. Instead, a number of personalities wanted to do this or that, wanted to do it on their own initiative, and did so, so that within the anthroposophical movement all kinds of communities arose other than the original anthroposophical one. For example, a scientific movement. This scientific movement arose on the basis of what had been established in the second phase of anthroposophy in relation to science. Scientists came forward. Their task was to give to modern science precisely what anthroposophy can give to modern science. But what I had begun in establishing relations with modern science should have been continued. I would like to recall lectures that were given in the second phase of the anthroposophical movement. For example, I always pointed out: Look at how modern physicists arrive at this or that way of thinking. I started from what modern physicists arrive at, and I did not initially deny it, but affirmed it. I said: Let us start where physicists leave off, then we will move from physics into anthroposophy. And I did the same for various other areas. This orientation should have been continued, then a different picture of scientific activity would have emerged in the third phase than the one that did emerge. Then, above all, what I last time called a fruitless polemic and a fruitless discussion would not have arisen. And today the positive task would be to say: Certainly, anthroposophy has something to say in science; science can gain a certain continuation under the influence of anthroposophy; this is how it should be done. Then a different attitude toward science would emerge than the one that emerged in one of the last issues of “Drei” or in a number of issues that I had to go through because of the lecture series on natural science that I had to give last Christmas in Dornach. I was alarmed by the way science and anthroposophy were dealt with, which was harmful to both anthroposophy and science. This unproductive polemic by anthroposophists only serves to discredit anthroposophy. In saying this, I am not merely offering criticism, but also suggesting what scientists within the Anthroposophical Society need to do today.

Something similar needs to happen in another respect. Consider another case. I already drew attention to this last time. In the third phase of the anthroposophical movement, we saw the founding of the University Association. This University Association emerged with an excellent program; but it should have stuck to it, and someone should have stood up for it with their whole being. I myself only had to stand up for anthroposophy. If anyone undertook something on the basis of anthroposophy that was independent, they had to stand up for it themselves. The program was not adhered to, even though I had expressly pointed out when the program was drawn up — I used the words: such programs should only be made if one has the iron will to carry them out; otherwise, one should refrain from making them. So refrain from making them if you don't want to stick to them. Those who did not stick to them were the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society. What has developed? Something has developed that is coming back to anthroposophy, that is, to the living source of anthroposophy: a number of younger people from the student world who long to return to genuine anthroposophy and who, for their part, cannot find what they are looking for in the Anthroposophical Society, who have expressly pointed out: We want to approach the anthroposophical impulse from the artistic side, for example. People have come to Dr. Steiner in order to enter into the anthroposophical momentum through recitation and declamation, if I may express it that way.

Alongside this, my dear friends, there was another development. In addition, in the third phase of the anthroposophical movement, the spiritual worlds were described as I have just briefly outlined at the beginning of my lecture today for a specific chapter, which was, so to speak, elevated to the sphere of purely spiritual contemplation, where one can show how human beings attain a different consciousness in order to enter the spiritual world. The orientation toward the mystery of Golgotha, the orientation toward science and practical life in the first and second phases, was followed by the third phase, which I would describe as the direct presentation of the spiritual worlds. Anyone who has followed what has been attempted in this direction in Dornach during the three phases, who has had a heart and a mind for the progress that lay in this compared to the first and second phases, who has followed in particular what has recently been proclaimed as anthroposophical content outside of Central European civilization, will notice that it is a matter of establishing a real third phase of the anthroposophical movement, which, however, lies in a direct ascension, in a direct continuation of the first two. And basically, it would not have been possible to create Waldorf school education, which had to be created out of both the eternal and the temporal nature of the human being, without this third phase of the anthroposophical movement.

Now compare all that I have just said to you — I do not wish to criticize anyone, but I must speak to you now with an open heart — with the two discussions that took place here yesterday and a week ago, and ask yourself how the three phases of anthroposophical work have passed the Anthroposophical Society by. Wouldn't these discussions have been possible eighteen years ago, or sixteen years ago for that matter, with exactly the same content as now, after two decades of anthroposophical work? Isn't it as if the Anthroposophical Society were in its infancy? As I said, I don't want to offend anyone in any way, but the Anthroposophical Society can only be something if it is the nurturing ground for what is achieved in anthroposophical work, if those who are active in it as scientists, for example, are mindful that they must not forget anthroposophy above science, but that they must crown the latest phase of science with anthroposophy, not expose anthroposophy, I would say, to science in fruitless polemics. Those who work as teachers have a similar task. And in particular, those who work as practitioners would have a similar task; for it is precisely practical life that will raise the most objections to anthroposophy, which can be very practical, but which people want to dispute most intensely as being practical. Today, the Anthroposophical Society is faced with the necessity of not merely observing real anthroposophical work and justifying all sorts of things alongside it, without basing these justifications on anthroposophical zeal and anthroposophical enthusiasm. Today, the Anthroposophical Society is faced with the necessity of becoming aware of anthroposophical work. This is a very positive description of its task, which only needs to be carried out in detail. Otherwise, if this positive step is not taken, it will lead to anthroposophy being damaged and increasingly damaged by the Anthroposophical Society in the eyes of the world. How much opposition has the threefold movement of the anthroposophical movement brought upon itself, for example, because the threefold movement did not understand how to stand on anthroposophical ground, but instead stood on the ground of all kinds of compromises, and little by little, in individual circles, people began to despise anthroposophy. It is similar in other areas. What we have to see is that anthroposophy, as I said in the first of the lectures I was allowed to give here before you, is the mother of this movement. We must be aware of this; it would also have led to finding the right orientation towards the movement for religious renewal that I inaugurated. Instead, only imbalances have come to light in this area as well. Today, in this serious hour, it is a matter of finding the words that lead to positive work, of going beyond fruitless talk as if we were now standing in the time of two decades ago and as if no anthroposophical work had been done.

My dear friends, you must not take offense at my speaking to you in this way; I had to do so because of what I already said in Dornach on January 6: the Anthroposophical Society is good; the Anthroposophical Society can take in what I have now characterized in the strongest terms. But the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society must become aware of the task that the Anthroposophical Society, if it wants to continue to call itself the Anthroposophical Society, must carry within itself the awareness that it is the bearer of anthroposophical work. The moment this awareness is expressed clearly enough with good will, the conflicts that have now broken out will cease. At that moment, the crisis will also be over. But it takes good will to actually express this, not just to engage in fruitless criticism; nor, of course, to indulge in illusions when a few compromises have been brought about between this or that movement, only to then sail on in the old rut again. Rather, it is a matter of taking anthroposophical work completely seriously. All the individual currents within the anthroposophical movement must work together to bring about this seriousness. There must not be a separate Waldorf school movement, a movement for free spiritual life, a movement for religious renewal; rather, all of this can only flourish if it feels itself to be part of the mother movement, the anthroposophical movement. I know that this is ultimately what is spoken from the hearts of all those who are sincere about the anthroposophical movement. That is why I was able to express it to you here today in somewhat stronger terms. Most of you will already have realized that it is now important to express things in clearly defined terms so that this very awareness, the necessity of which I wanted to explain, can arise.

The anthroposophical movement has gone through three phases. In the third phase, anthroposophy has, in a sense, been forgotten amid all kinds of individual movements. It must be rediscovered, rediscovered as a living spiritual movement, as the kind of living spiritual movement that is demanded by modern civilization and, above all, by the genuine feelings of modern human hearts. Take these words in this sense. Even if they sounded harsh, my dear friends, think that they were meant all the more warmly, that they are intended to call not for some caustic reflection, but for a movement arising from a good anthroposophical heart.