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

28 February 1923, Stuttgart

Lecture VII

I would have liked to follow my usual procedure in lecturing to the kind members of the Anthroposophical Society and to have addressed this gathering on purely anthroposophical matters. The whole course the meetings have taken, however, and the things that have been happening in the past few days have made me decide to confine my comment to questions of immediate interest to this assemblage. I hope there will be other opportunities to speak on more specifically anthroposophical subjects, if not to all of you at once, then at least on several occasions to smaller groups.

The goal of this pair of lectures is to show how anthroposophy can really become wisdom to live by, how it can influence our day-to-day intentions and attitudes. I shall, therefore, devote myself to laying an anthroposophical foundation on which to approach the problems we shall be dealing with here. Yesterday I spoke from that angle about community building in the Anthroposophical Society; today I want to continue and to add something on the subject of the contribution that an anthroposophical view of the world makes to living life in a more adequate way than one could do without it.

In order to show you the opposite side of the matters discussed yesterday, I am taking as my starting point something well-known to everybody familiar with the history of societies built on foundations similar to those on which our own sciety is based. A little later on I will also characterize some of the differences that distinguish the Anthroposophical Society from every other. But for the moment I want to point out that there have been a great many societies that have based their existence on one or another method of attaining insight into the spiritual world, though the level reached was influenced considerably by various historical settings and the particular characteristics and capacities of the groups of people who participated. One finds every shading and level in the wide variety of societies, which covers the whole range from a really serious and significant level down to that of charlatanism.

But one thing is well-known to anyone acquainted with the history of such socities. That is, that a certain moral atmosphere is always created—and indeed, necessarily so—when certain conditions exist. One could describe this atmosphere as being that of a real, genuine striving for brotherliness among the members of such a society. This goal is usually listed among the precepts or in the statutes of these societies, and—as I said—necessarily so, brotherliness being one goal and insight into the spiritual world the other.

Now the thing that people familiar with the history of such societies know is that these societies built on brotherliness and spiritual insight are the worst beset with conflicts. They present the widest opportunities for fighting, for partings-of-the-way, for splitting up into separate factions within the larger group, for group resignations, for sharp attacks on those who stay and those who leave, and so on. In short, human strife is at its most rampant in groups dedicated to brotherhood.

This is a strange phenomenon. But anthroposophical insight enables us to understand it. What I am presenting in these two lectures is also part of the system of anthroposophy, if you will forgive me the pedantic term. So, though this lecture will not be a general discussion, it will still be an anthroposophical one, shaped with special reference to our meetings.

If we return to the matters brought up yesterday, we find three levels of experience among the phenomena of human consciousness. We find people either asleep or dreaming, who, in a state of lowered consciousness, experience a certain world of pictures that they take to be real while they are sleeping. We know that these people are isolated from others inhabiting the physical world in common with them; they are not sharing common experiences. No means exist of conveying what they are experiencing. We know further that a person can go from this state of consciousness to that of everyday awareness, can be awakened to it by external nature, and this includes the natural exterior of other people, as I described yesterday. A certain degree of community feeling is awakened simply as a result of natural drives and the ordinary needs of life, and languages come into being in response to it.

But now let us see what happens when these two states of consciousness get mixed up together. So long as a person continues in completely normal circumstances and is able, by reason of a normal psychic and bodily condition, to keep his isolated dream experience separated from his shared experience with others, he will be living acceptably in his dream world and in the world of reality. But let us assume that, due to some psychological quirk, and it would have to be considered such, a person finds himself in a situation where, though he is in a day-waking state of consciousness involved in a common life with others, he is not having the same feelings and ideas as his companions. Let us assume that the pathological condition he is in causes him to project into his waking consciousness a world of feelings and ideas similar to those of dream life. Instead of developing logically ordered thoughts, he produces a pictorial world like the picture world of dreams. We call such a person mentally ill. But for the moment the thing of chief interest to us is that this person does not understand the others, and unless they are looking at him from a medical pathological angle they cannot understand him either. At the moment when the state of mind prevailing at this lower level of consciousness is carried over to a higher level, a person becomes a crass egotist in his relations with his fellow men. You need only think this over to see that a person of this kind goes entirely by his imaginings. He comes to blows with the others because they cannot follow his reasoning. He can commit the wildest excesses because he does not share a common soul world with other human beings.

Now let us move on from these two states of consciousness to the two others. Let us contrast the everyday state of consciousness, to which we are guided by the natural course of external events, with that higher one that can, as I showed yesterday, awaken through the fact that a person wakes not just in the encounter with the natural aspect of his surrounding but also in the encounter with the inner being of the other person. Though one may not ordinarily be fully and immediately aware of it, one does waken to such a higher level of consciousness. Of course, there are many other ways of entering the higher worlds, as you know from my book, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. But for the period of time one is privileged to spend with others in that way, one can find oneself in a position to understand and witness things one would otherwise not understand or witness. One is presented with the possibility of living in the element that those who know the spiritual world describe in terms applicable to that world—the possibility of speaking of the physical, etheric and astral bodies and the ego, of repeated earth lives and their karmic aspects.

Now at this point there is a possibility of the whole state of mind of ordinary consciousness being carried over into the spiritual world one thus enters and applied to it. This is the same thing that happens on another level when the state of soul of a person absorbed in dream pictures is projected into ordinary life: one turns into an egotist in the most natural way. This occurs if one fails to realize that everything in the higher worlds of the spirit has to be looked at in an entirely different way than one looks at the sense world. One must learn to think and feel differently. Just as dreamers have to switch over into a totally different state of consciousness if they want to share a life with others in an ordinary state of waking, so must there be similar awareness of the fact that the content of anthroposophy cannot be approached with the attitude of soul one has toward the things of ordinary experience.

That is the root of the problem of reaching any understanding and agreement between the everyday consciousness, which is also that of ordinary science, and the consciousness anthroposophy makes possible. When people come together and talk back and forth, one with the ordinary consciousness exemplified in the usual scientific approach and the other with a consciousness equal to forming judgments that accord with spiritual reality, then it is exactly as though a person recounting his dreams were trying to reach an understanding with someone telling him about external facts. When a number of people meet in an ordinary state of consciousness and fail to lift themselves and their full life of feeling to the super-sensible level, when they meet to listen in a merely ordinary state of mind to what the spiritual world is saying, there is a great—an immeasurably great—chance of their coming to blows, because all such people become egotists as a natural consequence.

There is, to be sure, a powerful remedy for this, but it is available only if the human soul develops it. I am referring to tolerance of a truly heartfelt kind. But we have to educate ourselves to it. In a state of everyday consciousness a little tolerance suffices most people's needs, and social circumstances put many a situation right again. But where the ordinary everyday state of mind prevails, it often happens that people talking together are not even concerned to hear what the other is saying. We all know this from our own personal experience. It has become a habit nowadays to give only scant attention to somebody else's words. When a person is part way through a sentence, someone else starts talking, because he is not the least interested in what is being said. He is interested only in his own opinion. One may be able, after a fashion, to get by with this in the physical world, but it simply cannot be done in the spiritual realm. There, the soul must be imbued with the most perfect tolerance; one must educate oneself to listen with profound inner calm even to things one cannot in the least agree with, listen not in a spirit of supercilious endurance, but with the most positive inner tolerance as one would to well-founded utterances on the other person's part. In the higher worlds there is little sense in making objections to anything. A person with experience in that realm knows that the most opposite views about the same fact can be expressed there by, let us say, oneself and someone else. When he has made himself capable of listening to the other's opposite view with exactly the same tolerance he feels toward his own—and please notice this !—then and then only does he have the social attitude required for experiencing what was formerly merely theoretical knowledge of the higher worlds.

This moral basis is vital to a right relationship to the higher realms. The strife that I have described as so characteristic of the societies we are discussing has its root in the fact that when people hear sensational things, such as that man has an etheric and astral body and an ego as well as a physical body, and so on, they listen for sensation's sake but do not undertake to transform their souls as these must be transformed if they are to experience spiritual reality differently than they would a chair or a table in the physical world, and one experiences even these objects differently in the physical world than one does in dreams. When people apply their ordinary soul habits to what they think they are understanding of teachings about the higher worlds, then this inevitably develops strife and egotism.

Thus it is just by grasping the true nature of the higher worlds that one is led to understand how easily societies with a spiritual content can become involved in conflicts and quarreling, and how necessary it is to educate oneself to participation in such groups by learning to tolerate the other person to an immeasurably greater degree than one is used to doing in situations of the physical world. To become an anthroposophist it is not enough to know anthroposophy from the theoretical side: one's whole approach has to be transformed in certain ways. Some people are unwilling to do this. That resulted in my never being understood when I said that there were two ways of occupying oneself with my book, Theosophy, for example. One way is to read or even study it, but with the usual approach and making the judgments that approach engenders. One might just as well be reading a cookbook as Theosophy for all the qualitative difference there is. The value of the experience is identical in both cases, except that reading Theosophy that way means dreaming rather than living on a higher level. When one thus dreams of higher worlds, the impulses one receives from them do not make for the highest degree of unity or the greatest tolerance. Strife and quarreling take the place of the unity that can be the reward of study of the higher worlds, and they keep on spreading. Here you find the cause of the wrangling in societies based on one or another method of gaining insight into the spiritual world.

I said that the various paths described in part in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds lead into the spiritual world. Now when a person has to concern himself intensively with seeking knowledge of those higher worlds, this requires his developing a certain attitude of soul, as you will understand from what I have been explaining in this pair of lectures, though in quite another connection. A true spiritual investigator has to have a certain attitude of soul. One cannot find one's way to truth in the spiritual realm if one is constantly having to give one's attention to what is going on in the physical world in ways quite proper to that sphere, if one has to occupy oneself with matters requring the kind of thinking suited to the physical realm.

Now you will agree that a person who gives his fellowmen a reliable account of things in the spiritual world, a person justified in calling himself a spiritual investigator in the sense in which the other sciences use that term, needs a lot of time for his research. You will therefore find it natural that I, too, need time to do the research that enables me little by little to present anthroposophy or spiritual science in an ever widening perspective in my lectures.

Now if one goes one's way alone, one can of course make time for this within the framework of one's destiny. For a person who is a genuine spiritual investigator and wants to give his fellowmen a trustworthy account of what he discovers in the spiritual world will, as is natural, form the habit of ignoring his opponents. He knows that he has to have opponents, but he is not bothered by their objections to his statements; he could think up the objections himself. So it is natural for him to take the attitude that he is simply going to go his own positive way without paying much attention to anyone's objections, unless there is some special reason to do so.

But this attitude is no longer tenable when one has joined forces with the Anthroposophical Society. For in addition to the responsibility one feels toward the truth, one has a further responsibility in relation to what the Society, of which it is often said that it makes itself an instrument of that truth, is doing. So one has to help carry the Society's responsibilities. This can be combined to a certain extent with the proper attitude toward opponents. Until 1918 that situation obtained with the Society and myself. I paid as little attention as possible to objections, and did so, paradoxical though this may seem, as a consequence of maintaining the tolerance I have been describing. Why, indeed, should I be so intolerant as to be constantly refuting my opponents? In the natural course of human evolution everything eventually gets back on the right track anyhow. So I can say that up until 1918 this question was justified, to some extent at least.

But when the Society proceeds to take on the activities it has included since 1919, it also takes on the responsibility for them. Their destiny becomes involved with that of the Society, and the Society's destiny becomes involved with that of the spiritual investigator. The spiritual investigator must either assume the burden of defending himself against his opponents—in other words, of occupying himself largely with matters that keep him from his spiritual research, since they cannot be combined with it—or else, to get time for his research, turn over the handling of opponents to those who have accepted a certain responsibility for the peripheral institutions. Thus the situation in our Society has undergone fundamental changes since 1919, and this for deeply anthroposophical reasons. Since the Society, as represented by certain of its members, decided to launch these institutions, and since the foundation on which they are all based is anthroposophy, that foundation must now be defended by people who do not have to carry full responsibility for the inner correctness of the material that genuine research has to keep on adding, day by day, to the previous findings of spiritual investigation.

A large proportion of our opponents consists of people in well-defined callings. They may, for example, have studied in certain professional fields where it is customary to think about things in some particular way. Thinking the way he does, such a person simply has to oppose anthroposophy. He doesn't know why, but he has to be an opponent because he is unconsciously on the leash of the profession in which he has had his training and experience.

That is the situation in its inner aspect. From the external standpoint, the question whether what has been established as the Anthroposophical Society is to flourish or decline requires that these opponents be dealt with.

But the real leaders of the opposition know full well what they are about. For there are some among them who are perfectly familiar with the laws that govern spiritual research, even though their view of those laws and that of anthroposophy may differ. They know that their best means of keeping a person who needs peace to pursue his spiritual research from doing his work is constantly to bombard him with hostile writings and objections. They know very well that he cannot give his attention to both refuting them and carrying on his research. They try to put obstacles in his path with their opposition. The mere fact of their putting these attacks in writing is the hostile act. The people who know what they are doing are not so much concerned with the contents of such books as they are with using them as weapons to hurl at the spiritual investigator, and they are particularly intent on tricking and otherwise forcing him into the necessity of defending himself.

These facts must be looked at completely objectively, and everyone who really wants to be a full member of the Anthroposophical Society ought to know them. A good many people are, of course, already familiar with what I have just been saying. The trouble is that some informed members habitually refrain from mentioning any such matters outside their circle.

Experience has long shown that such a course cannot be maintained in the Society. The Society used to publish lecture cycles labeled, “For members only.” Here in Germany, and probably elsewhere too, one can go to public libraries and borrow these same cycles. All the cycles are available to non-members. One can tell from writings of our opponents that they too have them, though it may sometimes have been difficult to get hold of them. But people of this sort are far less apt to shy away from difficulties than is sometimes the case with anthroposophists.

The secrecy that many societies still find it possible to maintain is simply out of the question in the Anthroposophical Society, due to its special character as an institution based on the most modern concept imaginable. For its members are meant to remain free individuals. They are not bound by any promises; they can simply join the Society as honest searchers after knowledge. I have no desire to make secrecy an aim. If that interested me, I would never suggest setting up a loose confederation of groups alongside the old Anthroposophical Society. For I predict, though without implying condemnation, that a great many more escape channels will be opened to the world at large by such a confederation, allowing egress to material that older members believe should be kept in their own cupboards. But the innermost impulse of anthroposophy cannot be grasped by people unwilling to see it put to work in complete accord with the most modern human thinking and feeling. It is, therefore, the more essential to understand what the prerequisites of such a society are.

Now I want to bring up something that I will illustrate with an example taken from my own experience, though not in a spirit of foolish conceit. Last summer I gave a course of lectures at Oxford on the educational methods of the Waldorf School.1Spiritual Ground of Education Oxford, August 16-25, 1922. Rudolf Steiner Press, London. An article appeared in an English journal that, though I cannot quote it verbatim, made the following point. It began by saying that a person who attended the lectures at the Oxford educational meetings without prior awareness of who Dr. Steiner was and that he had some connection with anthroposophy would not have noticed that a representative of anthroposophy was speaking. Such a person would simply have thought him to be a man speaking about pedagogy from a different angle than the listener's own.

I was exceedingly delighted by this characterization because it showed that there are people who notice something that is always my goal, namely, to speak in a way that is not instantly recognized as anthroposophical. Of course, the content is anthroposophical, but it cannot be properly absorbed unless it is objective. The anthroposophical standpoint should lead, not to onesidedness, but, on the contrary, to presenting things in such a way that each least detail can be judged on its own merits and its truth be freely recognized.

Once, before the Oxford lecture cycle was delivered and the article about it written, I made an experiment that may not seem to you at all significant. In June of this year I attended the Vienna Congress and gave two cycles comprising twelve lectures.2The Tension Between East and West, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1963. I undertook to keep the word anthroposophy out of all of them, and it is not to be found there. You will also not find any such phrase as “the anthroposophical world view shows us this or that.” Of course, despite this—and indeed, especially because of it—what was presented was pure anthroposophy.

Now I am not making the philistine, pedantic recommendation that anthroposophists should always avoid using the word “anthroposophy.” That is far from my intention. But the spirit that must inspire us in establishing right relations with the rest of the world can be found by looking in that general direction. That spirit should work freely in leaders active in the Society; otherwise I will again be held responsible for unanthroposophical things that are done in its name. Then the world would have some justification for confusing the one agent with the other.

Here too the objective spirit of anthroposophy needs to be properly grasped and, above all, manifested in what is done. We will first have to undertake some degree of self-education to that end. But self-education is needed in anthroposophical circles; countless mistakes have been made in the past few years for want of it, with the launching of the peripheral institutions contributing to the problem. I state this simply as an objective fact, without meaning to accuse anyone personally.

If the Anthroposophical Society is to flourish, every single one of its members is going to have to become fully aware of these facts. But this cannot happen under present day social conditions unless an effort is made to set up a lively exchange, even if only in the form of some such medium as a news sheet conceived as a link between the Society's various centers of activity. But again, that would require every such circle, even if not every individual member, to develop a living interest in the concerns of the whole Society, and particularly in its ongoing evolution. There has been too little of this. If the Anthroposophical Society did not exist, there would presumably still be a certain number of books on anthroposophy. But one would not have to be concerned, as a society is, with the people who read them. These people would be scattered all over the world, singly or in groups, according to their karma, but one would not have to have any external contact with them. The spiritual investigator is not in any fundamentally different situation, even in a society such as ours was up to 1918. But the situation changed at the moment when the Anthroposophical Society assumed responsibility for things that existed on the physical plane.

I am putting all this in a much more plain spoken way than I have on other occasions. But say them I did, in one form or another, when the peripheral institutions were being launched. I couldn't, of course, whisper them in every member's ear, and I don't know whether it would have helped if I had done that. But the Society existed and had leaders. They should have seen to it that conditions in the Society were such that it could include the various institutions without jeopardizing spiritual research.

I will call this the negative aspect of community building in contrast to the positive aspect I presented yesterday. I would like to add that everyone interested in creating community of the positive kind that I described from the standpoint of the prerequisites of its existence must be aware of the matters discussed today in relation to the Anthroposophical Society's life and progress. They must all be taken into consideration as affecting the various areas of anthroposophical life.

In this connection let me cite the following instructive example. I come back again to the tragic subject of the ruined Goetheanum. In September and October 1920 we held a three week course there, the first of the so-called High School courses. Yesterday, I described how the Goetheanum was built in a definite artistic style that was the product of an anthroposophical approach. How did this style originate? It came into being as a result of the fact that persons to whom we cannot be grateful enough undertook, in 1913, to build a home base for what existed at that time in the way of anthroposophical works in a narrower sense, and what, again in that narrower sense, was still to issue from anthroposophy. They wanted to create a home for the staging of mystery plays, for the still germinal but nevertheless promising art of eurythmy, and, above all, for presentations of anthroposophy itself as these projected cosmic pictures derived from spiritual-scientific research. That was my intention when these persons asked me to take initiatives in this connection. I saw it as my task to erect a building designed in a style artistically consonant with the work that was to go on in it. The Goetheanum was the outcome.

At that time there were no scholars or scientists in our midst. Anthroposophy had indeed taken some steps in a scientific direction. But the development that was to include activity in the various professional fields among the Society's functions had not yet begun. What developed later came into being as a direct outgrowth of anthroposophy, exactly as did the Waldorf School pedagogy, the prime example of such a process.

Now an artistic style had to be found to suit each such development. It was found, as I believe, in the Goetheanum. The war caused some delay in building. Then, in 1920, I gave the course of lectures just referred to. It was given at the behest of the professionals who had meanwhile joined the Society and were such a welcome addition to it. They arranged a program and submitted it to me.

In my belief, complete freedom reigns in the Anthroposophical Society. Many outsiders think that Steiner is the one who decides what is to go on in it. The things that go on most of the time, however, are such as Steiner would never have thought up. But the Society does not exist for my sake; it exists for the members.

Well, I sat there, all attentiveness, at this lecture series of September and October 1920—this is just an aperçu, not a criticism—and let my eyes range over the interior of the Goetheanum. In the Goetheanum Weekly I described how, in eurythmy for example, the lines of the Goetheanum continued over into the eurythmists' motions. But according to the original intention, this should have been the case with everything done there. So I let my inner eye test whether the interior decoration, the architecture, the sculptured forms, the painting, harmonized with what the speakers were saying from the podium. I discovered something that people did not at that time have to be faced with, namely, that everything I may call in the best sense a projection of the anthroposophical outlook, everything that had its origin in pure anthroposophy, harmonized marvellously with the Goetheanum. But in the case of a whole series of lectures, one felt that they should have been delivered only when the Goetheanum reached the point of adding a number of further buildings, each so designed that its style would harmonize with the special studies and activities being carried on inside it. In its destiny of almost ten years, the Goetheanum really shared the destiny of the Anthroposophical Society, and one could readily become aware, by feeling out the way the architectural style harmonized or failed to harmonize with what went on in the building, that an inorganic element had indeed insinuated itself into the pure ongoing stream of the anthroposophical spiritual movement.

Now this is not said to blame anybody or to suggest that things should have been done differently; everything had to happen as it did, naturally. But that brought another necessity with it: The necessity of bringing about a complete rebirth of chemistry, physics, mathematics, and so on, through anthroposophy, to give consciousness the quick forward thrust I described it as needing. For the ordinary way of looking at things simply does not provide a basis for anthroposophical presentations. But that forward thrust was not always in evidence. Its lack could be felt in the testing that the artistic style of the Goetheanum gave it; in the Anthroposophical Society it manifests itself in the phenomenon of the clouds that have gathered and hung over us these past days. Now that a most welcome destiny has brought science into the anthroposophical stream, we face the immediate and future task of bringing it to rebirth through anthroposophy. No purpose is served by losing ourselves in all kinds of meaningless polemics; the urgent task is rather to see to it that the various disciplines are reborn out of anthroposophy.

We had to make do somehow during the period when substitutes were the order of the day. I was often called upon, in response to a need somewhere, to deliver cycles of lectures to this or that group on subjects which, had anthroposophical life been progressing at a normal tempo, might better have waited for future developing. Then these cycles became available. They should have been put to use in the first place as a means of helping the various sciences to rebirth through anthroposophy. That lay in the real interests of anthroposophy, and its interests would have coincided fruitfully indeed with those of the Anthroposophical Society.

People have to know all these facts. You see, my dear friends, in the course of the various seminars held here and there under the auspices of the High School, I repeatedly assigned problems that needed solving. At the last address I gave in the Small Auditorium of the Goetheanum during the scientific course, which was held at the end of 1922 and was to have continued there into 1923, I gave the mathematical physicists an assignment. I discussed how necessary it was to solve the problem of finding a mathematical formula to express the difference between tactual and visual space. There were many other occasions when similar matters were brought up. We were confronted with many urgent problems of the time, but they all needed to be worked out in such a thoroughly anthroposophical way as to have value for every single group of anthroposophists, regardless of whether tactual and visual space and the like meant anything to them. For there are ways in which something that perhaps only one person can actually do can be made fruitful for a great many others when it is clothed in some quite different form.

Thus, the difficulties that have proliferated are a consequence of what I must call the exceedingly premature steps taken since 1919, and, in particular, of the circumstance that people founded all sorts of institutions and then didn't continue sharing responsibility for them—a fact that must be stressed again and again. These difficulties have given rise to the problematical situation now confronting us.

But none of them can be laid at the door of anthroposophy itself. What my kind listeners should be aware of is that it is possible to be quite specific as to how each such difficulty originated. And it must be emphasized that it is most unjust to dismiss anthroposophy on account of the troubles that have arisen.

I would, therefore, like to append to the discussion of just such deeper matters as these a correction of something that was said from this platform yesterday; it disturbed me because of my awareness of the things we have been talking about here. It was stated that people were not aware that the Anthroposophical Movement could be destroyed by our opponents. It cannot be. Our opponents could come to present the gravest danger to the Anthroposophical Society or to me personally, and so on. But the Anthroposophical Movement cannot be harmed; the worst that could happen is that its opponents might slow its progress. I have often pointed out in this and similar connections that we must distinguish between the Anthroposophical Movement and the Anthroposophical Society. My reason for saying this was not that the Society no longer needed to be taken into account, but that the Society is the vessel and the Movement its content. This holds true for the single member as well as for the Society. Here too, full clarity and awareness should reign. Anthroposophy is not to be confused with the Anthroposophical Society. Nor should the fact go unrecognized that developments of the past three or four years have meant, for members, a close interweaving of the unfolding destiny of anthroposophy with the Society's destiny. The two have come to seem almost identical, but they must nevertheless be sharply differentiated.

There could, theoretically, have been a Waldorf School even if the Society had not existed. But that could not have happened in reality, for there would have been no one to found and steer and look after the school. Real logic, the logic of reality, is quite a different thing than abstract logical reasoning. It is important that members of the Society understand this. A member ought to have some rudimentary realization, even if only on the feeling level, that insight into higher worlds has to be built on an awareness that super-sensible experience differs greatly from experience of the ordinary physical world. Something in the physical world can seem just as right as a dream content does to the dreaming person. But the carrying over of things of one's dream life into situations of everyday waking consciousness nevertheless remains an abnormal and harmful phenomenon. It is similarly harmful to carry over into the consciousness needed for understanding the spiritual world convictions and attitudes quite properly adopted in ordinary waking consciousness.

I can give you an instructive example. As a result of the way modern man has become so terribly caught up in intellectuality and a wholly external empiricism, even those people who are not especially at home in the sciences have taken up the slogan: Prove what you are saying! What they are stressing is a certain special way of using thought as a mediator. They know nothing of the immediate relationship the soul of man can have to truth, wherein truth is immediately apprehended in just the way the eye perceives the color red, that is, seeing it, not proving it. But in the realm of reason and intellect, each further conceptual step is developed out of the preceding one. Where the physical plane is concerned, one is well advised to become a bright fellow who can prove everything, and to develop such a good technique in this that it works like greased lightning. That is a good thing where the physical plane is concerned, and a good thing for the sciences that deal with it. It is good for the spiritual investigator to have developed a certain facility in proving matters of the physical world. Those who acquaint themselves closely with the intentions underlying the work of our Research Institute will see that wherever this technique is applicable, we, too, apply it. But if you will permit me the grotesque expression, one becomes stupid in relation to the spiritual world if one approaches it in a proof-oriented state of mind, just as one becomes stupid when one projects a dreamer's orientation into ordinary waking consciousness. For the proving method is as out of place in the spiritual world as is an intrusion of the dream state into the reality of waking consciousness. But in modern times things have reached the point where proving everything is taken as a matter of course. The paralyzing effect this trend has had in some areas is really terrifying.

Religion, which grew out of direct vision, and in neither its modern nor its older forms was founded on anything susceptible of intellectual-rational proof, has now become proof-addicted rationalistic theory, and it is proving, in the persons of its extremer exponents, that everything about it is false. For just as it is inevitable that a person become abnormal when he introduces dream concerns into his waking consciousness, so does a person necessarily become abnormal in his relationship to higher worlds if he approaches them in a way suited to the physical plane. Theology has become either an applied science that just deals practically with whatever confronts it or a proof-minded discipline, better adapted to destroying religion than to establishing it.

These, my dear friends, are the things that must become matters of clear and conscious experience in the Anthroposophical Society. If that is not the case, one takes one's place in life and in human society simply as a person of many-sided interests who functions sensibly at all the various levels, whereas from the moment one concerns oneself with the material contained in innumerable cycles, one cannot exist as a human being without spiritual development.

The spiritual investigator does not need to rely on proof in meeting his opponents. Every objection that they might make to something I have said can be taken from my own writings, for wherever it is indicated I call attention to how things stand with physical proof as applied to super-sensible fact. Somewhere in my books one can always find an approximation of the opponents' comments in my own statements, so that, for the most part, all an opponent need do to refute me is to copy passages out of my writings. But the point is that all these details should become part of the awareness of the members. Then they will find firm footing in the Society. To occupy oneself with the anthroposophical outlook will mean finding firm footing, not only in the physical world but in all the worlds there are.

Then anthroposophical impulses will also be a fountainhead of the capacity to love one's fellowmen and of everything else that leads to social harmony and a truly social way of life. There will no longer be conflict and quarreling, divisions and secedings among anthroposophists; true human unity will reign and overcome all external isolation. Though one accept observations made in higher worlds as truth, one will not wander about like a dreamer in the physical world; one will relate to it as a person with both feet set firmly on the ground. For one will have trained oneself to keep the two things separate, just as dream experience and physical reality must be kept separate in ordinary life.

The key need is for everyone who intends to join with others in really full, genuine participation in the Anthroposophical Movement within the Society to develop a certain attitude of soul, a certain state of consciousness. If we really permeate ourselves with that attitude and that consciousness, we will establish true anthroposophical community. Then the Anthroposophical Society, too, will flourish and bear fruit and live up to its promise.

Siebenter Vortrag

Allerdings hätte ich auch bei dieser Versammlung gerne, wie ich es in sonstigen Vorträgen vor den lieben Mitgliedern der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft tue, über ganz speziell Anthroposophisches gesprochen. Allein der ganze Verlauf der Versammlung, alles dasjenige, was sich in diesen Tagen zugetragen hat, veranlassen mich doch, gerade solche Fragen hier zu behandeln, welche innerhalb des unmittelbaren Interesses dieser Versammlung liegen. Hoffentlich wird ja auch wieder Gelegenheit sein, wenn auch vielleicht nicht auf einmal zu Ihnen allen, so doch bei wiederholten Anlässen zu einzelnen Gruppen von Ihnen über Anthroposophisches im engeren Sinne zu sprechen. Aber es soll gerade in diesen beiden Vorträgen gezeigt werden, wie Anthroposophie wirklich eine Art Lebensweisheit werden kann, wie sie einfließen kann in die täglichen Absichten und in die täglich wirkende Gesinnung. Und so möchte ich gerade für dasjenige, was hier verhandelt werden soll, vom anthroposophischen Gesichtspunkte aus gewisse Unterlagen geben. Ich habe gestern in diesem Stile gesprochen über die in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft mögliche Gemeinschaftsbildung, und ich möchte hieran anschließend einiges von der Art besprechen, daß sich zeigt, wie in der Tat die anthroposophische Auffassung der Welt dazu führt, das Leben in einer richtigeren Weise zu nehmen, als man es nehmen kann ohne diese.

Da möchte ich, gewissermaßen um das Gegenbild von dem zu zeigen, wovon ich gestern gesprochen habe, von etwas ausgehen, was diejenigen gut kennen, welche mit der Geschichte solcher Gesellschaften bekannt sind, die auf einer ähnlichen Grundlage ruhen wie diese anthroposophische. Ich werde dann später auch das Unterscheidende dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft von andern ein wenig kennzeichnen; aber ich möchte zunächst darauf hinweisen, daß es ja in der Welt schon viele Gesellschaften gegeben hat, die ihr Leben begründen auf einer irgendwie zustande gebrachten Einsicht in die geistige Welt, selbstverständlich abgestuft nach dem, was möglich war in den aufeinanderfolgenden Geschichtsepochen der menschlichen Entwickelung, selbstverständlich auch abgestuft nach den Möglichkeiten, die nach dem Charakter, nach den Fähigkeiten der Menschen, die an solchen Gesellschaften teilnahmen, vorlagen. Man findet innerhalb der großen Masse solcher Gesellschaften alle Abstufungen von ernstesten, wirklich wichtigsten, bis zu denen mit scharlatanhaftem Inhalt. Aber eines wissen diejenigen, die mit der Geschichte solcher Gesellschaften bekannt sind, wirklich recht gut. Das ist, daß ja immer eine Art moralischer Atmosphäre in solchen Gesellschaften dadurch geschaffen wird, und zwar mit einer gewissen Notwendigkeit, wenn gewisse Bedingungen vorhanden sind, von der man sagen kann: Angestrebt wird unter den Menschen solcher Gesellschaften echte, wahre menschliche Brüderlichkeit. - So daß in der Regel in den Satzungen solcher Gesellschaften auch dieses sich findet, und zwar, wie gesagt, mit Notwendigkeit, daß auf der einen Seite Brüderlichkeit angestrebt wird, auf der andern Seite eine Einsicht in die geistigen Welten. Dasjenige nun, was Kenner der Geschichte solcher Gesellschaften wissen, ist, daß in diesen auf Brüderlichkeit und geistiger Einsicht begründeten Gesellschaften am allermeisten gestritten wird, daß am allermeisten Gelegenheit gefunden wird zu Zwiespalt, zum Auseinandergehen, zum Bilden von selbständigen Gruppen innerhalb größerer Gemeinschaften, zum Austritt von Gruppen, zum scharfen Bekämpfen derjenigen, die zurückgeblieben sind, von denen, die ausgetreten sind und so weiter, kurz, daß dasjenige, was man nennen kann menschliches Streiten, in diesen Bruderschaftsgesellschaften eigentlich am üppigsten wuchert. Das ist eine eigentümliche Erscheinung. Aber Anthroposophie gibt uns auch die Möglichkeit, aus ihren eigenen Erkenntnissen heraus diese Erscheinung zu verstehen. Und es gehört dasjenige, was ich in diesen beiden Vorträgen sage, auch, wenn ich mich pedantisch ausdrücken darf, zu dem System der Anthroposophie. Also es soll dennoch nicht ein allgemeiner Diskussionsvortrag gehalten werden, sondern doch - aber eben im Zusammenhang mit der Versammlung - ein anthroposophischer.

Wenn wir noch einmal zurückgehen nämlich auf dasjenige, was ich schon gestern erwähnt habe, so finden wir die drei Stufen des menschlichen Erlebens mit Bezug auf die menschliche Bewußtseinserscheinung. Wir finden den Menschen, der im tiefen Schlaf oder namentlich im Traumschlafe ist, der also für ein gewisses, meinetwillen untergeordnetes Bewußtsein eine gewisse Welt von Bildern erlebt, die er während des Träumens für seine Wirklichkeit hält. Wir wissen, dieser Mensch ist isoliert unter den andern Menschen, die mit ihm in der physischen Welt zusammenleben; sie haben mit ihm nicht gemeinsame Erlebnisse. Für dasjenige, was er erlebt, ist ein Austauschmittel nicht vorhanden. Wir wissen dann, daß der Mensch aus diesem Bewußtseinszustande eintreten kann in das gewöhnliche Alltagsbewußtsein, zu dem er erweckt wird, wie ich gestern ausführte, durch das äußerliche Natürliche, auch das äußerliche Natürliche an dem andern Menschen. Da erwacht einfach durch die natürlichen Triebe und durch die Lebensnotwendigkeit schon ein gewisses Gemeinschaftsgefühl, dem dann ja durch die Sprachen entgegengekommen ist.

Aber sehen wir uns nun einmal die Vermischung dieser beiden Bewußtseinszustände an. Solange der Mensch in vollständig normalen Lebensverhältnissen ist, solange er scheidet, zeitlich scheidet durch seine normale Seelen- und Körperverfassung dasjenige, was er als isolierter Mensch im Traume erlebt, von demjenigen, was er mit andern Menschen zusammen erlebt, so lange wird er in seiner Traumwelt und in der gewöhnlichen Wirklichkeitswelt in einer für ihn und die andern Menschen angemessenen Weise leben. Nehmen wir aber an, durch irgend etwas, meinetwillen Pathologisches - so muß es ja in diesem Falle genannt werden -, ist ein Mensch in der Lage, daß er im wachen Tagesbewußtsein, also wenn er mit andern Menschen zusammen ist, nicht diejenigen Vorstellungen und Empfindungen erzeugt, die die andern Menschen haben. Nehmen wir an, daß er durch das Pathologische seiner Organisation in das wache Tagesbewußtsein eine Vorstellungs- oder Empfindungswelt hereinbringt, welche ähnlich der des Traumes ist. Statt logischer Gliederung seiner Gedanken bringe er herein eine Bilderwelt, die ähnlich der Traumbilderwelt ist. Wir nennen einen solchen Menschen geistig nicht gesund. Jetzt aber soll uns vorzugsweise das interessieren, daß ein solcher Mensch die andern nicht versteht, sie ihn, wenn sie ihn nicht gerade medizinisch, pathologisch nehmen, auch nicht verstehen. In dem Augenblicke, wo die Seelenverfassung dieses andern, meinetwillen untergeordneten Bewußtseinszustandes herübergenommen wird in einen, meinetwillen höher gearteten Bewußtseinszustand, in dem Augenblicke wird der Mensch unter Menschen ein krasser Egoist. Sie brauchen sich das nur zu überlegen, und Sie werden das finden, ein solcher Mensch geht nur noch dem nach, was er sich selber einbildet, er gerät mit den andern auseinander, weil sie seine Gründe nicht einsehen können; er kann bis zu den schärfsten Exzessen kommen, weil er nicht in einer gemeinschaftlichen Seelenwelt mit den andern lebt.

Nun gehen wir von diesen zwei Bewußtseinsstufen zu den zwei andern: zu dem Alltagsbewußtsein, zu dem wir durch den natürlichen Gang der äußeren Ereignisse geführt werden, und stellen wir ihm gegenüber den andern, meinetwillen höher gearteten Bewußtseinszustand, der, wie ich gestern ausführte, in einer gewissen Weise erwachen kann dadurch, daß man erwacht nicht bloß an dem Natürlichen der Umwelt, sondern an dem Inneren des andern Menschen. Man erwacht also, wenn das auch gewöhnlich nicht ganz klar gleich vorliegt im Bewußtsein, auf zu einem solchen Bewußtseinsniveau. Es gibt natürlich viele andere Wege, um in die höheren Welten hineinzukommen, das wissen Sie ja alles aus meinem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?»; aber man kann für diejenigen Augenblicke, die man so glücklich ist, mit den andern Menschen auf entsprechende Art zuzubringen, hineinversetzt werden in die Möglichkeit, Dinge zu begreifen, vor sich zu haben, die man sonst nicht begreift oder vor sich hat. Da ergibt sich nun eine Möglichkeit, zunächst zu leben mit demjenigen, was der Kenner der geistigen Welt eben bezeichnet mit Ausdrücken, die sich auf diese geistige Welt beziehen. Es ergibt sich die Möglichkeit, zu reden vom physischen Leib, vom Ätherleib, vom Astralleib und Ich. Da ergibt sich die Möglichkeit, zu reden von wiederholten Erdenleben, von karmischen Zusammenhängen der wiederholten Erdenleben. Ja, nun ist die Möglichkeit vorhanden, die ganze Seelenverfassung des Alltagsbewußtseins hineinzutragen in diese höhere Welt, der man da teilhaftig wird. Das ist auf einer andern Stufe dasselbe, wie wenn man die Konfiguration der traumhaften Bildlichkeit in das Alltagsleben hineinträgt. Man wird da auf einer gewissen Stufe zum Egoisten auf ganz natürliche Weise. Man wird es, wenn man sich nicht bewußt wird: Du mußt in einer ganz andern Weise ansehen dasjenige, was einer höheren, einer geistigen, einer übersinnlichen Welt angehört, als was in der sinnlichen ist. Du mußt umdenken, umempfinden lernen. Geradeso wie der Träumer in einen ganz andern Bewußtseinszustand hineinschnappen muß, wenn ich so sagen darf, wenn er im alltäglichen Bewußtsein leben will mit den andern Menschen, so ist es notwendig, daß man sich bewußt wird: Man kann nicht mit derselben Seelenverfassung die Dinge ansehen, die einem in der Anthroposophie gegeben werden, mit der man die Dinge anschaut, die einem im Alltagsbewußtsein gegeben werden.

Darin liegt ja die Schwierigkeit der Verständigung zwischen diesem Alltagsbewußtsein, das ja auch unser gewöhnliches Wissenschaftsbewußtsein ist, und demjenigen, was gegeben werden muß durch die Anthroposophie. Wenn da Leute kommen und hin und her sprechen, der eine mit dem Alltagsbewußtsein, also auch mit dem gewöhnlichen Wissenschaftsbewußtsein, der andere mit dem Bewußtsein, das wirklich gewachsen ist den Beurteilungen, die in einer übersinnlichen Welt statthaben müssen, dann ist das gerade so, wie wenn einer, der Träume erzählt, sich verständigen will mit einem andern, der ihm Dinge der äußeren Wirklichkeit erzählt. Und wenn mehrere Menschen sich mit demjenigen, was sie aus dem Alltagsbewußtsein haben, dann zusammenfinden und nicht mit der vollen Empfindung sich erheben zu der übersinnlichen Welt, wenn sich solche Menschen zusammenfinden, um einfach in der alltäglichen Seelenverfassung die Sprache der übersinnlichen Welt zu hören, dann ist eine unendlich große, eine unermeßlich große Möglichkeit gegeben, daß sie ins Streiten kommen, weil sie untereinander auf die naturgemäßeste Weise zu Egoisten werden. Dagegen gibt es allerdings ein kräftiges Mittel, das aber auch erst in der Menschenseele entwickelt werden muß. Das ist das Mittel der innerlichsten durchseelten Toleranz. Aber das muß eben anerzogen werden. Im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein des alltäglichen Erlebens reicht für die Bedürfnisse, die die meisten Menschen haben, ein recht geringfügiger Grad von Toleranz aus, und vieles korrigiert ja einfach die natürliche Umgebung. Aber für dieses gewöhnliche Bewußtsein des Alltagslebens, da ist es ja so - wer Lebenserfahrung hat, weiß das -, daß eben, wenn zwei Menschen miteinander reden, es ihnen sehr häufig gar nicht darauf ankommt, den andern zu hören. Heute ist ja die Sitte so eingerissen, daß man überhaupt kaum mehr gehört wird, sondern immer, wenn man das eine Viertel des Satzes gesprochen hat, der andere anfängt zu reden, weil ihn das eigentlich nicht interessiert, was man sagt, sondern es interessiert ihn nur seine eigene Meinung. Das geht, wenn auch in leidiger Weise, in der physischen Welt. Das geht nicht mehr in der geistigen Welt. In der geistigen Welt muß unbedingteste Toleranz die Seele durchdringen. Da muß man sich dazu erziehen können, selbst dasjenige, womit man nicht im geringsten übereinstimmt, in aller Ruhe hinzunehmen, nicht nur mit einer hochnäsigen Duldung, sondern so, daß man in einer gewissen Weise es zuinnerst sachlich toleriert als eine berechtigte Äußerung des andern Menschen. Es hat in höheren Welten eigentlich nur einen ganz geringen Sinn, gegen irgend etwas Einwendungen zu machen; derjenige, der erfahren ist in den Erlebnissen höherer Welten, der weiß, daß über ein Faktum die entgegengesetztesten Anschauungen geäußert werden können zum Beispiel von ihm und einem andern. Wenn er in der Lage ist, die entgegengesetzte Anschauung des andern mit derselben Toleranz aufzunehmen - bitte, hören Sie das! — wie seine eigene, dann erst erwirbt er sich die notwendige soziale Seelenverfassung für das Erleben desjenigen, was in der Theorie aus höheren Welten heraus verkündet wird. Diese moralische Basis ist eben notwendig für ein richtiges Verhältnis des Menschen zu den höheren Welten. Und das Streiten in solchen Gesellschaften, wie ich sie charakterisiert habe, das beruht eben einfach darauf, daß die Menschen, wenn die Sensation da ist, zu hören: Der Mensch hat nicht nur einen physischen Leib, sondern auch einen Ätherleib, Astralleib, Ich und so weiter — sie dieses auf Sensation hin annehmen, aber die Seele nicht umarten zu der Art, die notwendig ist, um das anders zu erleben, als man in der physischen Welt einen Tisch oder einen Stuhl erlebt, die man ja auch in der physischen Welt anders erlebt als im Traume. Wenn die Menschen also ihren gewöhnlichen Seelenduktus hineintragen in ihr vermeintliches Verstehen der Lehre aus der höheren Welt, dann kommen sie aus diesem Hineintragen ganz selbstverständlich zu Egoismus und Streit.

So wird es verständlich, gerade aus dem Begreifen der Eigentümlichkeit der höheren Welten heraus, daß sehr leicht gerade in Gesellschaften mit geistigem Inhalt Streit und Zank entstehen kann und daß notwendig ist, sich für solche Gesellschaften in einer solchen Weise zu erziehen, daß man in einem unermeßlich weiteren Grade den andern erträgt, als man das für die physische Welt gewohnt ist. Anthroposoph werden heißt eben nicht bloß, Anthroposophie als Theorie kennenlernen, sondern Anthroposoph sein erfordert in einem gewissen Sinne eine Seelenumartung. Diese aber wollen gewisse Menschen nicht. Daher wurde es auch nie verstanden, wenn ich gesagt habe: Es gibt zweierlei Arten, sich zum Beispiel mit meinem Buche «Theosophie» zu beschäftigen. Die eine ist, es zu lesen oder meinetwillen es auch zu studieren, indem man mit der gewöhnlichen Seelenverfassung an es herangeht und es im Sinne dieser gewöhnlichen Seelenverfassung beurteilt. Dann ist der Seelenvorgang der Qualität nach ganz der gleiche, ob man eine «Theosophie» liest oder ein Kochbuch. Für den Wert des Erlebens ist dann kein Unterschied zwischen dem Lesen dieser «Theosophie» und dem Lesen eines Kochbuches, nur daß man, wenn man das tut, eben einfach im Lesen der «Theosophie» auf einer höheren Stufe träumt, nicht lebt. Und wenn man so von höheren Welten träumt, dann kommt aus den Impulsen der höheren Welten heraus nicht die größte Einigkeit unter den Menschen, das größtmögliche Tolerieren als eine Errungenschaft, sondern statt der Einigkeit, die gerade das Geschenk des Studiums der höheren Welten sein kann, immer weiter wirkender Streit und Zank. Damit haben Sie dieBedingungen des Streitens und Zankens gegeben in Gesellschaften, die auf einer Art Einsicht in die geistigen Welten beruhen.

Ich sagte, in die geistigen Welten hinein führen eben die verschiedenen Wege, die ich in dem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» zum Teil beschrieben habe. Nun, wenn jemand in einer intensiveren Weise damit beschäftigt sein muß, Erkenntnisse aus den höheren Welten zu suchen, dann wird das, wie Sie nun begreifen können nach dem, was ich gestern und heute für etwas ganz anderes ausgeführt habe, eine gewisse Seelenverfassung bedingen. Und so wird namentlich eine gewisse Seelenverfassung notwendig sein für den eigentlichen Geistesforscher. Man findet nämlich nicht die Wahrheit auf übersinnlichem Gebiete, wenn man fortwährend genötigt ist, der Seele dasjenige aufzudrängen, was in der physischen Welt in ganz berechtigter Weise sich abspielt, wenn man sich während des Geistesforschens fortwährend zu beschäftigen hat mit demjenigen, was von einem fordert, daß man im Sinne der physischen Welt denkt. Nun werden Sie zugeben, daß derjenige, der in verantwortlicher Weise seinen Mitmenschen etwas mitteilt aus den geistigen Welten, der also einfach nach dem Wortgebrauch, der für die übliche Wissenschaft vorhanden ist, sich einen Geistesforscher nennen kann, zu seinem Forschen viel Zeit braucht. Und damit werden Sie es gerechtfertigt finden, daß ich selber Zeit brauche zum Erforschen desjenigen, was ja jetzt nach und nach in immer erweiterter und erweiterterer Gestalt als eine Geisteswissenschaft, als eine Anthroposophie von mir vorgetragen wird.

Diese Zeit, die kann man sich nach seinem Schicksale natürlich dann schaffen, wenn man ganz allein dasteht. Denn derjenige, der ein wirklicher Geistesforscher ist und in verantwortlicher Weise seinen Mitmenschen mitteilen will dasjenige, was er in der geistigen Welt findet, der wird sich die Eigentümlichkeit aneignen - das ist eine ganz natürliche Sache -, sich um seine Gegner nicht zu bekümmern. Er weiß, daß er Gegner haben muß, aber ihm kommt es nicht darauf an, daß man gegen die Dinge, die er sagt, etwas einwendet; die Einwendungen kann er sich selber machen. Und so ist es eine natürliche Seelenverfassung, daß der Geistesforscher in positiver Weise seinen Weg geht und sich nicht um die Einwendungen viel kümmert, wenn nicht da oder dort eine besondere Veranlassung dazu vorliegt.

Diese Seelenverfassung kann man aber nicht aufrechterhalten, wenn einem eine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft zur Seite steht. Denn dann kommt zu der bloßen Verantwortlichkeit gegenüber der Wahrheit die Verantwortlichkeit gegenüber dem, was die Gesellschaft tut, welche sich, wie das so oft gesagt wird, zum Werkzeuge dieser Wahrheit machen will. Da muß man teilnehmen an den Verantwortlichkeiten dieser Gesellschaft. Nun, bis zu einem gewissen Grade geht das noch immer zusammen mit dem richtigen Verhalten gegenüber den Gegnern. So ist es auch bis zum Jahre 1918 mit mir und dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gegangen. Ich habe mich möglichst wenig gekümmert um dasjenige, was eingewendet worden ist, und zwar - so paradox es klingt — aus der Konsequenz jener Ihnen eben geschilderten Toleranz heraus. Warum soll ich denn so intolerant sein, immer wieder meine Gegner zu widerlegen? Es wird schon alles in das richtige Geleise kommen durch den naturgemäßen Fortschritt in der Menschheitsentwickelung. Und deshalb kann ich sagen: Zwar nicht ganz, aber in einem hohen Maße war diese Frage in Ordnung bis 1918. - Wenn aber die Gesellschaft dazu übergeht, Dinge in sich aufzunehmen, wie unsere Anthroposophische Gesellschaft seit 1919 sie aufgenommen hat, dann gerät man in Verantwortlichkeiten hinein gegenüber diesen einzelnen aufgenommenen Dingen, dann wird das Schicksal dieser aufgenommenen Dinge mit dem Schicksal der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft verknüpft und wiederum das Schicksal der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft mit dem Schicksale des Geistesforschers. Und dann entsteht die Alternative: Entweder der Geistesforscher muß es nun in die Hand nehmen, sich gegen seine Gegner zu wehren, das heißt, sich mit lauter Dingen zu beschäftigen, die ihn von der geistigen Forschung abbringen müssen, weil man beides gleichzeitig nicht machen kann; oder aber er ist darauf angewiesen, weil er sich für seine Geistesforschung Zeit schaffen muß, die Behandlung der Gegner denjenigen zu überlassen, welche in einer gewissen Weise die Verantwortlichkeit übernommen haben für das äußerlich Begründete. Deshalb ist auch aus inneren anthroposophischen Gründen die Situation innerhalb unserer Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft seit 1919 eine wesentlich andere geworden. Deshalb muß, weil diese Gesellschaft sich entschlossen hat in einzelnen ihrer Persönlichkeiten solche äußere Begründungen zu machen und weil die Grundlage, auf der das alles ruht, ja doch die Anthroposophie ist, diese Grundlage gerade von denjenigen verteidigt werden, die nicht die volle Verantwortung tragen für die innere Berechtigung desjenigen, was von Tag zu Tag zu der Geistesforschung hinzugefügt werden muß durch wirkliches Forschen.

Ein großer Teil der Gegner ist ja eigentlich so geartet, daß er in irgendwelchen ganz bestimmten Lebenszusammenhängen darinnen lebt. Er hat zum Beispiel da oder dort dieses oder jenes studiert. Da ist es üblich, über diese oder jene Dinge so oder so zu denken. Dadurch, daß er so oder so denken muß, muß er ein Gegner der Anthroposophie werden. Er weiß ja gar nicht, warum er es werden soll, sondern er muß es werden, weil er unbewußt am Gängelbande desjenigen hängt, was ihn erzog, was er erlebt hat. So steht es innerlich. Äußerlich steht es so, daß natürlich um des Gedeihens oder Verderbens desjenigen, was mit der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft begründet worden ist, auch solche Gegner in der entsprechenden Weise aus dem Felde geschlagen werden müssen.

Aber die eigentlich leitenden Persönlichkeiten in der Gegnerschaft, die wissen nämlich sehr wohl, was sie wollen. Denn unter denen finden sich solche, die gut bekannt sind mit den Gesetzen der geistigen Forschung, wenn auch von einem andern Gesichtspunkte aus als dem anthroposophischen, und die wissen, daß es das beste Mittel ist, denjenigen, der die Ruhe zum Geistesforschen braucht, fortwährend zu bombardieren mit gegnerischen Schriften und Einwendungen, damit er abgezogen werde von seiner Geistesforschung. Denn diese wissen sehr gut: die Widerlegung der Gegner läßt sich nicht mit der Geistesforschung vereinigen. Sie wollen einem Knüppel vor die Beine werfen, indem sie diese Dinge einem entgegensetzen. So ist einfach die Tatsache des Schreibens dieser Dinge die gegnerische Tat. Den Leuten, die eigentlich wissen, auf was es ankommt, kommt es gar nicht so sehr darauf an, was in ihren Büchern steht, sondern daß diese Bücher dem Geistesforscher an den Kopf geworfen werden. Und besonders viel liegt ihnen daran, durch irgendwelche Tricks und ähnliche Mittel ihn zu zwingen, daß er sich selber verteidigen muß.

Diese Dinge müssen in voller Objektivität angesehen werden. Sie zu wissen, ist auch die Aufgabe derjenigen, die innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft mit Recht sitzen wollen. Nun, das, was ich eben gesagt habe, das ist etwas, was viele Leute wissen. Nur ist es in den Kreisen von vielen, die das wissen, eben durchaus Gebrauch, daß man darüber nicht spricht nach außen hin. So etwas ist in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, wie die Erfahrung zeigt, schon lange gar nicht mehr durchzuführen. Es wurden in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft Zyklen gedruckt, auf denen steht «Nur für Mitglieder». Man kann heute in Deutschland und auch anderswo in öffentliche Bibliotheken gehen und sich diese Zyklen ausleihen. Auch diejenigen, die nicht in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sind, können alle Zyklen haben, und die Art der gegnerischen Schriften beweist, daß sie sie haben, wenn es auch manchmal schwierig war, sie zu erhalten. Aber diese Leute scheuen Schwierigkeiten viel weniger als manchmal Anthroposophen. Jene Art des Sekretierens, die heute noch viele Gesellschaften üben können, die ist eben bei der besonderen Art der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, wo jeder ein freier Mensch bleiben soll, wo er kein Versprechen gibt, sondern einfach eintritt, um ein ehrlicher Erkenner zu werden, die ist bei der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, die im allermodernsten Sinne konstituiert sein muß, gerade nicht möglich. Und ich strebe nicht danach, daß es möglich wird. Strebte ich danach, würde ich Ihnen jetzt nicht empfehlen, neben der alten Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft eine lose Vereinigung zu begründen. Denn Sie werden sehen, wieviel mehr Abzugskanäle - ich tadle diese nicht — für dasjenige, wovon ältere Mitglieder glauben, sie müssen es in ihrem Schrank verwahren, in die breite Offentlichkeit hinaus durch diese lose Vereinigung geschaffen werden. Aber derjenige versteht eben den innersten Impuls der Anthroposophie nicht, der sie nicht im Sinne des modernsten Denkens und Empfindens der Menschen einrichten will. Daher ist es um so mehr notwendig, daß man die Bedingungen für eine solche Gesellschaft erfaßte.

Ich führe jetzt etwas nicht aus einer eitlen Albernheit an, sondern als ein Beispiel, das ich entnehme aus meinem eigenen Erleben. Ich habe im verflossenen Sommer in Oxford einen Vortragszyklus über die Pädagogik, die in der Waldorfschule gepflegt wird, gehalten. In einem englischen Journale ist ein Artikel erschienen, ich zitiere nicht wörtlich, aber sinngemäß, der ungefähr folgenden Anfang hat: Wer einfach als ein Außenstehender hineingeschneit worden ist in die Vorträge dieses Oxforder pädagogischen Zyklus, der hätte, wenn er nicht gewußt hätte, wer der Dr. Steiner ist und daß der mit Anthroposophie etwas zu tun hat, gar nicht merken können, daß da der Vertreter der Anthroposophie spricht, sondern er hätte ihn halten können für jemanden, der über Pädagogik spricht, nur von einem andern Gesichtspunkte aus als dem, den man vielleicht selber hat. - Ich habe mich über diese Charakteristik außerordentlich gefreut, weil sie zeigt, daß Menschen da sind, die bemerken, was ich gerne erreichen möchte, daß man der einzelnen Ausführung, die ich gebe, nicht sogleich anhört: Das ist vom anthroposophischen Standpunkt. - Von dem ist sie ja doch. Aber man wird diesen nur dann richtig einnehmen, wenn er zur Objektivität führt, wenn er nicht zu Einseitigkeiten, sondern dazu kommen läßt, daß man jede Einzelheit aus sich selber heraus erkennt und beurteilt.

Und bevor ich diesen Oxforder Zyklus gehalten habe, also auch bevor dieser Artikel erschien, habe ich einmal ein Ihnen vielleicht sehr unbedeutend .scheinendes Experiment gemacht. Ich war ja auch auf dem Wiener Kongreß im Juni; ich habe da zwölf Vorträge gehalten in den zwei Zyklen. Ich habe mir die Aufgabe gesetzt, in allen zwölf Vorträgen dürfe das Wort «Anthroposophie» nicht vorkommen, und es kommt auch nicht vor. Es kommt auch nicht so irgend etwas vor, wobei man etwa sagt: Die anthroposophische Weltanschauung sagt dieses oder jenes. - Natürlich war doch, und gerade deshalb, alles anthroposophisch. Ich will nicht in pedantisch-philiströser Weise sagen, man soll es zu einem Programmpunkte machen, daß Anthroposophen das Wort Anthroposophie nie aussprechen. Selbstverständlich will ich das nicht. Aber der Geist, aus dem heraus gewirkt werden muß, wenn man in einer richtigen Weise mit der Welt sich einstellen will, der Geist, der wird auf diese Art aufgesucht. Dieser Geist sollte auch frei wirken in den wirkenden und führenden Persönlichkeiten der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Sonst werde ich selbst wiederum verantwortlich gemacht für dasjenige, was innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft als etwas Unanthroposophisches getan wird. Und dann wird die Welt mit Recht das eine mit dem andern identifizieren. Also es handelt sich auch in solchen Dingen darum, daß der objektive Geist des Anthroposophischen in der richtigen Weise erfaßt werde, und vor allen Dingen auch, daß dieser Geist des Anthroposophischen ausgewirkt werde. Dazu muß man sich allerdings auch in einem gewissen Grade erst erziehen. Aber diese Selbsterziehung ist innerhalb der Kreise der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft notwendig; und in dieser Beziehung sind eben, und zwar mitbeeinflußt durch die Gründungen, unzählige Fehler in den letzten Jahren gemacht worden. Ich stelle das objektiv hin, ohne jemanden persönlich damit treffen zu wollen.

Wenn die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft gedeihen soll, so muß einfach ein Vollbewußtsein von diesen Dingen bei jedem einzelnen Mitgliede einziehen. Das kann aber nach der Natur des heutigen sozialen Zustandes nicht anders sein, als dadurch, daß ein lebendiger Verkehr versucht wird, wenn auch nur, sagen wir durch Mitteilungsblätter oder dergleichen, zwischen den einzelnen Kreisen der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Dazu gehört aber ein lebendiges Interesse des einzelnen Gliedes - ich sage nicht Mitgliedes - der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft für die Angelegenheiten der ganzen Gesellschaft und vor allen Dingen für die Angelegenheiten des Werdeganges der Anthroposophie selber. Auch darinnen mangelt vieles. Wäre eine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft nicht da, so wären wahrscheinlich doch so und so viele anthroposophische Bücher da. Man würde sich aber gesellschaftsmäßig gar nicht zu kümmern haben um diejenigen, die sie lesen. Die wären in der Welt zerstreut, bildeten vielleicht auch Gemeinschaften je nach ihrem Karma; aber man brauchte nicht selber mit ihnen äußerlich verbunden sein. Das ändert sich nicht viel für den Geistesforscher, selbst wenn die Gesellschaft eine Artung hat, wie die unsrige bis zum Jahre 1918 sie hatte. Das ändert sich sofort, wenn für den physischen Plan geltende Verantwortlichkeiten mit der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft verknüpft werden. Diese Dinge sage ich heute dezidierter als sonst, aber gesagt habe ich sie in dieser oder jener Form damals, als man am Ausgangspunkte der Begründungen stand. Ich konnte sie doch nicht jedem einzelnen anthroposophischen Mitgliede ins Ohr raunen, weiß nicht einmal, ob das sehr viel genützt hätte. Aber die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft war doch da und hatte führende Persönlichkeiten. Die müssen dafür sorgen, daß diese Gesellschaft in einer solchen Verfassung ist, daß sie die Dinge wirklich ohne Gefährdung der anthroposophischen Forschung in sich aufnehmen kann.

Das ist, möchte ich sagen, der negative Anblick für die Gemeinschaftsbildung, während ich gestern den positiven vor Sie hingestellt habe. Ich möchte sagen, jeder, der eine solche Gemeinschaftsbildung anstrebt, wie ich sie ihren Bedingungen nach hingestellt habe in positiver Weise, der muß sich bewußt sein alles dessen, was in der heute geschilderten Weise mit dem Fortschreiten in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft und mit dem Leben der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft zusammenhängt. Und namentlich auf den einzelnen Gebieten des anthroposophischen Lebens muß das berücksichtigt werden.

In dieser Beziehung liegt ja zum Beispiel das Folgende vor, das, wie ich glaube, außerordentlich lehrreich ist. Ich komme da wiederum auf das tragische Kapitel des uns abgestorbenen Goetheanums zu sprechen. Wir konnten im September und Oktober des Jahres 1920 den ersten — wie man es genannt hat - Hochschulkurs in diesem Goetheanum durch drei Wochen hindurch halten. Ich habe schon gestern geschildert, wie dieses Goetheanum einen ganz bestimmten, aus der anthroposophischen Empfindungsweise herausgeborenen künstlerischen Stil hat. Dieser Stil, wie ist er entstanden? Er ist so entstanden, daß eine Anzahl von Persönlichkeiten, denen man dafür nicht genug danken kann, im Jahre 1913 es unternommen haben, dem, was im engeren Sinne für die Anthroposophie damals vorhanden war und was eventuell in diesem engeren Sinne aus dieser Anthroposophie noch hervorgehen konnte, eine Heimstätte zu bauen, das heißt, eine Heimstätte zu bauen dem Spiele von Mysterien, eine Heimstätte der dazumal noch keimhaften, aber durchaus schon für solche Dinge Aussichten versprechenden Eurythmie, eine Heimstätte vor allen Dingen den eigentlichen anthroposophischen Betrachtungen, die auf der Grundlage des geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschens Weltenbilder entwerfen. Das lag dazumal in der Intention vor mir, der ich der Beauftragte dieser Persönlichkeiten war oder mich wenigstens als solcher betrachtete. Für mich lag die Aufgabe vor, dieser Arbeit einen Bau zu errichten mit dem entsprechenden, dieser Arbeit künstlerisch entsprechenden Stil. Das wurde das Goetheanum. Dazumal gab es noch gar nicht die Gelehrten, die Wissenschafter in unserer Mitte. Die Anthroposophie war bis zu einem gewissen Punkte ins Wissenschaftliche vorgerückt. Aber dasjenige, was später eingetreten ist, daß die einzelnen Fachgebiete innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft behandelt wurden, das gab es dazumal nicht. Dasjenige, was auftrat, trat so auf, daß es in gerader Linie aus der Anthroposophie herauskam, wie schließlich die ganze Waldorfschul-Pädagogik; die ist ja das eigentliche Beispiel, wie etwas ganz aus Anthroposophie heraus gekommen ist. Für solche Dinge mußte der künstlerische Stil gefunden werden. Der wurde gefunden meiner Überzeugung nach in dem Goetheanum. Der Krieg hat den Bau des Goetheanums etwas verzögert. 1920 wurde dann jene Vortragsreihe gehalten, von der ich eben gesprochen habe. Sie wurde gehalten auf den Impuls hin, der schon ausging von den mittlerweile in so dankenswerter Weise in die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft eingezogenen Gelehrten. Er wurde auch arrangiert und mit Programm versehen von diesen Gelehrten. Mir wurde das Programm dargeboten. In der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft herrscht gerade meiner Überzeugung nach absoluteste Freiheit. Viele Leute in der Außenwelt denken sich, in dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft geht nur dasjenige vor sich, was sich der Steiner einbildet. Meistens gehen aber Dinge vor sich, die der sich ganz und gar nicht einbilden würde. Aber die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft ist ja nicht für mich da, sondern die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft ist für die Anthroposophen da. Und nun saß ich da, wirklich mit großer Aufmerksamkeit, in diesen Vortragsreihen vom September und Oktober 1920 - ich gebe nur ein Apergu, nicht irgendeine Kritik - und ich ließ nun meine Augen schweifen über das Innere des Baues. In der Wochenschrift «Das Goetheanum» habe ich beschrieben, wie zum Beispiel für die eurythmische Kunst die Linien des Goetheanums sich fortsetzen in dieBewegungen des Menschen; aber das mußte ja am Goetheanum nach den ursprünglichen Intentionen für alles der Fall sein. Ich ließ also meinen geistigen Blick schweifen über die Art und Weise, wie diese Innenarchitektur, Plastik und Malerei dem entsprach, was die Redner vom Podium herunter sagten. Und da fand ich - es war ja nicht nötig, den Leuten das damals an die Nase zu binden: Alles dasjenige, was, im besten Sinne des Wortes sei es gesagt, ein anthroposophisches Tableau war, wo aus der Anthroposophie im engsten Sinne heraus gesprochen wurde, es paßte wunderbar zum Baustil. Für eine ganze Reihe von Vorträgen hatte man aber das Gefühl: Ja, die dürften eigentlich erst gehalten werden, wenn das Goetheanum einmal dazu gekommen sein wird, eine ganze Reihe von Nebenbauten zu errichten, die in ihrem Baustile wiederum so eingerichtet werden, daß sie stimmen zu diesen Spezialstudien und Spezialbetrachtungen. Das Goetheanum in seinem fast zehnjährigen Schicksale hat wirklich miterlebt das Schicksal der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, und es ist leicht zu bemerken gewesen an dem Durchfühlen der Harmonie oder Disharmonie des Baustiles mit dem, was da drinnen getrieben wurde, wie in der Tat erwas Unorganisches hineingekommen ist in die gerade Fortströmung der anthroposophischen Geistesbewegung.

Nun, das ist wirklich nicht gesagt, um zu tadeln oder um zu sagen, irgend etwas hätte nicht so sein sollen. Natürlich lag eine Notwendigkeit vor, daß das alles so wurde. Aber auf der andern Seite ergab das die andere Notwendigkeit, daß nun Chemie, Physik, Mathematik und so weiter neu wiederum herausgeboren wurden, wiedergeboren wurden aus der Anthroposophie, um den geschilderten Ruck des Bewußtseins zu machen. Denn mit der gewöhnlichen Betrachtungsweise reicht man eben nicht aus, wenn anthroposophisch gesprochen werden soll. Dieser Ruck war nicht immer da. Am Goetheanum sah man es künstlerisch stilgemäß, an der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft merkt man es an derjenigen Erscheinung, die sich zusammengezogen hat zu der Wolke, die uns in diesen Tagen bedeckt hat. Und die Aufgabe war da und muß als eine Zukunftsaufgabe dastehen, daß nun, nachdem schon einmal die Wissenschaft hereingeströmt ist - gedankt sei diesem Schicksale selbstverständlich -, sie wiedergeboren werden muß aus der Anthroposophie. Und da hat es keinen Sinn, sich in allerlei wesenlose Polemiken zu verlieren, sondern da ist die Aufgabe vor allen Dingen drängend, die einzelnen Disziplinen aus der Anthroposophie wiederzugebären. Eine Art Surrogat wurde geschaffen in der Zeit, in der man nach Ersatz überhaupt streben mußte. Ich wurde vielfach aufgefordert -— wiederum ging das aus einer Notwendigkeit hervor -, Vortragszyklen zu halten für diesen oder jenen Kreis über Dinge, die sich vielleicht in dem richtigen Tempo des anthroposophischen Fortlebens erst später entwickelt hätten. So waren diese Zyklen da. Für diese Zyklen hätte man nun vor allen Dingen die Notwendigkeit gehabt, sie zu benützen, um die einzelnen Wissenschaften aus der Anthroposophie wiederzugebären. Das war das anthroposophische Interesse. Und dieses Interesse wäre dasjenige gewesen, was durchaus der Entwickelung der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft im eminentesten Sinne fruchtbar geworden wäre. Alle diese Dinge müssen gewußt werden. Sehen Sie, meine lieben Freunde, im Verlaufe der verschiedenen Seminarien, die in den Hochschulkursen da oder dort gehalten worden sind, habe ich immer wieder und wiederum Aufgaben gestellt, eine Aufgabe noch für mathematische Physiker in der letzten Ansprache, die ich halten konnte im kleinen Saale des Goetheanums bei dem naturwissenschaftlichen Kursus, der ja um die Neige des Jahres 1922 gehalten worden ist und nach Neujahr 1923 hätte im Goetheanum weiter fortdauern sollen. Da sprach ich noch, wie notwendig es wäre, die Aufgabe zu lösen, wie sich der Tastraum in mathematische Formeln fassen läßt gegenüber dem Gesichtsraum; und ähnliche Dinge sind immer wieder und wieder dagewesen. Im Speziellen war das schon da, wozu die Zeit gedrängt hat, aber all das mußte so anthroposophisch verarbeitet werden, daß es wirklich den breitesten Kreisen der Anthroposophie, die sich gar nicht weiter kümmern können um den Tastraum und Sehraum und so weiter, dennoch etwas geben kann. Denn es gibt solche Wege, auf denen das, was einer vielleicht nur machen kann, einer großen Anzahl in einer ganz andern Form, in die es gegossen wird, dann fruchtbar wird. So sind eben durch die, wie ich so sagen möchte, außerordentlich übereilten Einrichtungen, die seit dem Jahre 1919 getroffen worden sind, namentlich - es muß immer wieder betont werden - durch den Umstand, daß da Persönlichkeiten alles mögliche begründet haben und nachher nicht weiter mitgewirkt haben an dem, was sie selbst begründet haben, Schwierigkeiten über Schwierigkeiten erwachsen, und eben aus diesen Schwierigkeiten hat sich alles dasjenige ergeben, vor dem wir jetzt stehen. Aber in nichts davon liegt etwas, was ein Einwand gegen Anthroposophie selber ist.

Und das ist dasjenige, dessen sich die lieben Anwesenden bewußt sein sollen, daß ja überall im einzelnen gesagt werden kann, wodurch die Schwierigkeiten entstanden sind, und daß scharf betont werden kann, daß es keine Berechtigung hat, daß wegen dieser Schwierigkeiten die Anthroposophie selber irgendwie abgekanzelt werde. Deshalb möchte ich gerade im Anschlusse an diese tiefere Erörterung ein Wort richtigstellen, das gestern hier von diesem Podium aus gesprochen worden ist und an dem ich gerade aus dem Bewußtsein derjenigen Dinge, über die ich jetzt gesprochen habe, Anstoß nehmen mußte. Es wurde gesagt, man sei sich nicht bewußt - so ähnlich -, daß durch die Gegner die anthroposophische Bewegung zerstört werden könne. Das kann sie nicht. Durch die Gegner kann die größte Gefahr erwachsen der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, meinetwillen mir selbst persönlich und so weiter. Aber die anthroposophische Bewegung, der wird kein Leid geschehen können, die kann höchstens aufgehalten werden durch die Gegner. Und in dieser Beziehung und in manchen ähnlichen Beziehungen ist in den letzten Jahren hervorgehoben worden auch von mir selbst oftmals: Man muß unterscheiden die anthroposophische Bewegung von der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Das ist nicht deshalb hervorgehoben worden, weil jetzt die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft nicht mehr Berücksichtigung finden soll, sondern aus dem Grunde, weil tatsächlich die anthroposophische Bewegung und die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft sich verhalten wie Inhalt und Gefäß, auch für den einzelnen Menschen wie Inhalt und Gefäß. Und auch auf diesem Gebiete muß man sich, ich möchte sagen, klarer Ideen voll bewußt sein. Man muß weder zusammenwerfen Anthroposophie und Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, noch darf man verkennen, daß durch die Entwickelung der letzten drei bis vier Jahre die eigentlich äußere Entfaltung der Anthroposophie in ihrem Schicksale mit dem Schicksale der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft innig verwachsen ist. Die Dinge liegen scheinbar so nahe aneinander; sie sind dennoch scharf voneinander zu unterscheiden.

Theoretisch gesehen könnte eine Waldorfschule da sein, wenn niemals eine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft entstanden wäre; in Wirklichkeit nicht, weil die Menschen nicht dagewesen wären, die zu ihrer Gründung und Leitung und Versorgung und so weiter beigetragen haben. Die reale Logik, die Logik der Wirklichkeit ist also durchaus eine andere, als die abstrakte Verstandeslogik. Das ist wichtig, daß man das durchschaut als Mitglied der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Als solches Mitglied muß man eben sich wenigstens einen, wenn auch noch so bloß gefühlsmäßigen Eindruck verschaffen davon, wie zum Erfassen der höheren Welten eben durchaus gehört ein Bewußtsein davon, daß das Übersinnliche auf eine andere Weise erfahren wird wie die gewöhnliche physische Welt. Deshalb kann etwas in der physischen Welt einem so richtig erscheinen, wie einem der Inhalt eines Traumes richtig erscheint, wenn man selber der Träumer ist; aber deshalb bleibt doch das Hineintragen des Traumzusammenhanges in den Zusammenhang des Alltagsbewußtseins eine unnormale, eine schädliche Erscheinung. Und so ist auch all das Hineintragen von Dingen, von denen man im gewöhnlichen Alltagsbewußtsein mit Recht überzeugt ist, in das Bewußtsein, das man entwickeln soll beim Begreifen geistiger Welten, eine Schädlichkeit.

Das kann ich Ihnen an einem ganz bestimmten Beispiele erörtern. Weil die Menschen in der neueren Zeit so ungeheuer ins Intellektualistische und Außerlich-Empirische verfallen sind, gilt heute schon als Schlagwort auch für diejenigen, die gar nicht in einer Wissenschaft besonders bewandert sind, daß sie sagen: Ja, wenn man irgend etwas sagt, so muß man es beweisen. - Und sie meinen damit eine ganz bestimmte Form der Anwendung des vermittelnden Denkens. Sie wissen eben nichts von der unmittelbaren Stellung, die die Menschenseele zu den Wahrheiten haben kann, die ein unmittelbares Begreifen der Wahrheit ist, so wie das Auge nicht beweist die Röte, sondern sie anschaut. Aber im Intellektual-Verstandesmäßigen ist es so, daß man ein Begriffsglied aus dem andern hervorgehen lassen muß. Für den physischen Plan ist es so gut als möglich, daß man gescheit wird, indem man ungeheuer viel beweisen kann, daß man eine gute Technik im Beweisen hat, daß einem das Beweisen nur so geht wie geschmiert. Das ist sehr gut für den physischen Plan, auch für die Wissenschaften, die für den physischen Plan arbeiten. Und auch für denjenigen, der Geistesforscher ist, ist es gut, wenn er in der physischen Welt viel von der Technik dieses Beweisens hat. Diejenigen, die sich näher bekanntmachen mit den Intentionen unseres Forschungsinstitutes, die werden sehen, daß für alle Dinge, wo das Beweisen in dieser Art anwendbar ist, es bei uns auch angewendet wird. Aber - lassen Sie mich das groteske Wort gebrauchen‘- für das Begreifen der höheren Welten wird man, wenn man dies Beweisen hineinträgt so wie den Traumzusammenhang in die alltägliche Bewußtseinswirklichkeit, dumm. Denn diese Methode des Beweisens in den höheren Welten ist genau dasselbe wie das Hineintragen der Traumzusammenhänge in die alltägliche Bewußtseinswirklichkeit. Nun hat man sich in der neueren Zeit hineingefunden, dieses Beweisen selbstverständlich zu finden. Auf manchen Gebieten ist es sogar furchtbar geworden, wie dieses Beweisen lähmend gewirkt hat.

Die Religion, die durchaus auf nichts beruht, in ihren älteren Formen auf nichts beruht, was mit dem intellektualistisch-verstandesmäßigen Beweisen zu tun hat, sondern mit Anschauen, ist zu einer rationalistischen Theorie geworden, die beweist. Sie beweist nach und nach in ihren extremsten Vertretern, daß die ganze Religion nicht wahr ist. Das ist im Grunde genommen selbstverständlich, weil, geradeso wie man ein abnormaler Mensch wird, wenn man den Traumzusammenhang in sein Alltagsbewußtsein hineinträgt, man abnormal wird für das Bewußtsein der höheren Welten, wenn man die in der physischen Welt mit Recht geltenden Zusammenhänge [in die höheren Welten] hineinträgt. Theologie ist entweder Realwissenschaft geworden, die einfach die Dinge hinnimmt, oder Theologie, die als beweisende Wissenschaft geeignet ist, nicht die Religion zu begründen, sondern sie zu zerstören.

Das, meine lieben Freunde, sind die Dinge, die innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft mit scharfem Bewußtsein erlebt werden müssen. Denn wenn das nicht der Fall ist, dann stellt man sich von vornherein [nicht] als ein allseitiger, für alle Weltenniveaus vernünftiger Mensch in die Menschenwelt, in das Leben hinein ...

Der Geistesforscher hat es nicht nötig, gegen seine Gegner mit Beweisen aufzutreten, denn alles, was eingewender werden kann gegen dasjenige, was ich sage, brauchen die Gegner bloß aus meinen eigenen Schriften zu holen, denn ich mache überall, wo es nötig ist, aufmerksam, wie das physische Beweisen für etwas Übersinnliches sich ausnimmt. Irgendwo findet man schon das Entsprechende, was der Gegner sagen kann, von mir selbst gesagt, so daß man eigentlich, um mich zu widerlegen, mich bloß abzuschreiben brauchte für das meiste. Aber das ist es, daß man über alle diese Einzelheiten im Gebiete der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft ein Bewußtsein erwerben muß. Dann wird man in der Gesellschaft feststehen; man wird sowohl in der physischen Welt als auch in allen möglichen Welten feststehen, wenn man sich mit anthroposophischer Weltanschauung befaßt hat.

Dann wird man aber auch menschliche Liebefähigkeit, soziale Harmonisierung und alles, was zum sozialen Leben gehört, aus den anthroposophischen Impulsen ziehen. Dann wird nicht Streit und Hader, nicht Abspaltung und Sezession, sondern trotz aller Isolierung die wahrhafte menschliche Einigkeit unter allen Anthroposophen eintreten können. Und dann wird man, trotzdem man ein Bekenner der Anschauungen aus den höheren Welten ist, nicht wie ein Träumer in der physischen Welt herumgehen, sondern man wird sich wie ein Mensch, der mit beiden Beinen in der Wirklichkeit steht, verhalten können, weil man sich gewöhnt hat, nicht die beiden Dinge zu vermischen, wie auch Traumwirklichkeit und Wirklichkeit des physischen Planes im gewöhnlichen Leben nicht vermischt werden dürfen.

Auf die Aneignung einer gewissen Seelenverfassung, einer gewissen Bewußtseinsverfassung kommt es dennoch an bei allen denjenigen, die sich im vollsten, echten Sinne des Wortes als richtige Glieder der anthroposophischen Bewegung in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft zusammenfinden wollen. Durchdringen wir uns mit dieser Seelenverfassung, durchdringen wir uns mit dieser Bewußtseinsverfassung, dann werden wir eine richtige anthroposophische Gemeinschaft begründen; und dann wird, weil die Möglichkeit durchaus in ihr liegt, auch die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft blühen und gedeihen können.

Seventh Lecture

However, at this meeting, as I do in other lectures to the dear members of the Anthroposophical Society, I would have liked to speak about something specifically related to anthroposophy. However, the entire course of the meeting, everything that has happened during these days, prompts me to address precisely those questions that are of immediate interest to this meeting. Hopefully there will be another opportunity, if not to all of you at once, then at least on repeated occasions to individual groups of you, to speak about anthroposophy in the narrower sense. But these two lectures are intended to show how anthroposophy can truly become a kind of wisdom for living, how it can flow into our daily intentions and our daily attitudes. And so I would like to provide some background information from an anthroposophical point of view for what is to be discussed here. Yesterday I spoke in this vein about the possibility of community building in the Anthroposophical Society, and I would like to follow up on this by discussing how the anthroposophical view of the world actually leads to a more correct way of taking life than is possible without it.

In order to show, as it were, the opposite of what I spoke about yesterday, I would like to start with something that is well known to those who are familiar with the history of societies that are based on a similar foundation to that of the Anthroposophical Society. Later on, I will also point out some of the differences between the Anthroposophical Society and other societies; but first I would like to point out that there have already been many societies in the world that base their existence on some kind of insight into the spiritual world, naturally graded according to what was possible in the successive epochs of human development, and naturally also graded according to the possibilities that existed according to the character and abilities of the people who participated in such societies. Within the great mass of such societies, one finds all degrees of seriousness, from the most serious and truly important to those with charlatan-like content. But those who are familiar with the history of such societies know one thing very well. That is, that a kind of moral atmosphere is always created in such societies, and indeed with a certain necessity, when certain conditions are present, of which one can say: The aim among the people of such societies is genuine, true human brotherhood. - So that, as a rule, this is also found in the statutes of such societies, namely, as I said, with the necessity that, on the one hand, brotherhood is sought and, on the other hand, insight into the spiritual worlds. What those familiar with the history of such societies know is that in these societies based on brotherhood and spiritual insight, there is the most strife, that there is the most opportunity for discord, for division, to the formation of independent groups within larger communities, to the departure of groups, to fierce fighting between those who have remained and those who have left, and so on. In short, what can be called human strife actually flourishes most abundantly in these brotherhood societies. This is a peculiar phenomenon. But anthroposophy also gives us the opportunity to understand this phenomenon from its own insights. And what I say in these two lectures also belongs, if I may express myself pedantically, to the system of anthroposophy. So this is not intended to be a general discussion lecture, but rather — in connection with the gathering — an anthroposophical one.

If we go back to what I mentioned yesterday, we find the three stages of human experience in relation to the phenomenon of human consciousness. We find the human being who is in deep sleep, or specifically in dream sleep, who thus experiences a certain world of images for a certain, in my opinion subordinate consciousness, which he considers to be his reality while dreaming. We know that this human being is isolated among the other human beings who live with him in the physical world; they do not share experiences with him. There is no means of exchange for what he experiences. We then know that the person can enter from this state of consciousness into the ordinary everyday consciousness, to which he is awakened, as I explained yesterday, by the external natural world, including the external natural world of other people. A certain sense of community simply awakens through natural instincts and the necessities of life, which is then met by language.

But let us now look at the mixing of these two states of consciousness. As long as a person is in completely normal living conditions, as long as he separates, temporally separates through his normal mental and physical constitution, what he experiences as an isolated person in dreams from what he experiences together with other people, as long as he will live in his dream world and in the ordinary world of reality in a way that is appropriate for him and other people. But let us assume that, due to something pathological – for the sake of argument, let us call it that in this case – a person is in a position where, in their waking daytime consciousness, i.e. when they are with other people, they do not generate the same ideas and feelings that other people have. Let us assume that, due to the pathological nature of their organization, they bring a world of ideas and feelings into their waking consciousness that is similar to that of dreams. Instead of a logical structure of thoughts, they bring in a world of images that is similar to the world of dream images. We would not call such a person mentally healthy. But what should interest us here is that such a person does not understand others, and others do not understand him either, unless they view him from a medical or pathological perspective. The moment the soul state of this other, subordinate state of consciousness is transferred into a higher state of consciousness, the person becomes a blatant egoist among other people. You only need to think about it, and you will find that such a person only pursues what he imagines himself to be, he comes into conflict with others because they cannot understand his reasons; he can go to the most extreme excesses because he does not live in a communal soul world with others.

Now let us move from these two levels of consciousness to the other two: to everyday consciousness, to which we are led by the natural course of external events, and let us contrast it with the other, in my opinion higher state of consciousness, which, as I explained yesterday, can be awakened in a certain way by awakening not only to the natural environment, but also to the inner world of other people. So, even if it is not usually immediately apparent in our consciousness, we awaken to such a level of consciousness. There are, of course, many other ways to enter the higher worlds, as you all know from my book How to Know Higher Worlds; but in those moments when one is fortunate enough to relate to other people in the right way, one can be transported into the possibility of understanding things, of seeing things that one would not otherwise understand or see. This gives rise to the possibility of initially living with what the connoisseur of the spiritual world describes with expressions that refer to this spiritual world. It gives rise to the possibility of talking about the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body, and the I. It gives rise to the possibility of talking about repeated earthly lives, about karmic connections between repeated earthly lives. Yes, now there is the opportunity to carry the whole soul state of everyday consciousness into this higher world in which one participates. On another level, this is the same as carrying the configuration of dreamlike imagery into everyday life. On a certain level, one becomes an egoist in a very natural way. One becomes so if one does not realize: You must view that which belongs to a higher, spiritual, supersensible world in a completely different way than that which belongs to the sensory world. You must learn to rethink and refeel. Just as the dreamer must slip into a completely different state of consciousness, if I may say so, if he wants to live in everyday consciousness with other people, so it is necessary to become aware that You cannot view the things given to you in anthroposophy with the same state of mind with which you view the things given to you in everyday consciousness.

This is where the difficulty lies in understanding between this everyday consciousness, which is also our ordinary scientific consciousness, and what must be given through anthroposophy. When people come and talk back and forth, one with everyday consciousness, that is, with ordinary scientific consciousness, and the other with the consciousness that has truly grown out of the judgments that must prevail in a supersensible world, then it is just as if someone who recounts dreams wants to communicate with someone else who tells him things about external reality. And when several people come together with what they have from everyday consciousness and do not rise with full feeling to the supersensible world, when such people come together simply to hear the language of the supersensible world in their everyday state of mind, then there is an infinitely great, an immeasurably great possibility that they will come into conflict, because they will naturally become egoists among themselves. There is, however, a powerful remedy for this, but it must first be developed in the human soul. This remedy is the most inner, soul-filled tolerance. But this must be taught. In the ordinary consciousness of everyday experience, a very small degree of tolerance is sufficient for the needs of most people, and much is simply corrected by the natural environment. But in this ordinary consciousness of everyday life, it is the case—as anyone with life experience knows—that when two people talk to each other, very often they are not really interested in hearing the other person. Today, it has become customary that one is hardly heard at all, but rather, as soon as one has spoken a quarter of a sentence, the other person begins to talk, because they are not really interested in what one is saying, but only in their own opinion. This is acceptable, albeit in a tiresome way, in the physical world. It is no longer acceptable in the spiritual world. In the spiritual world, the soul must be imbued with the utmost tolerance. One must be able to train oneself to accept even that with which one does not agree in the slightest, not only with haughty tolerance, but in such a way that one tolerates it objectively, in a certain sense, as a justified expression of the other person. In higher worlds, it actually makes very little sense to object to anything; those who are experienced in the experiences of higher worlds know that the most contradictory views can be expressed about a fact, for example, by them and by someone else. If he is able to accept the other person's opposing view with the same tolerance — please listen to this! — as his own, only then does he acquire the necessary social state of mind to experience what is proclaimed in theory from higher worlds. This moral basis is necessary for a correct relationship between human beings and the higher worlds. And the arguing in such societies, as I have characterized them, is simply based on the fact that when the sensation is there, people accept it on the basis of sensation, but do not transform the soul into the kind that is necessary. Human beings have not only a physical body, but also an etheric body, an astral body, an ego, and so on — they accept this sensation, but do not transform their soul to the kind that is necessary to experience it differently than one experiences a table or a chair in the physical world, which one also experiences differently in the physical world than in a dream. So when people carry their usual soul disposition into their supposed understanding of the teachings from the higher world, they naturally arrive at egoism and strife.

Thus, it becomes understandable, precisely from the understanding of the peculiarity of the higher worlds, that strife and quarrels can very easily arise in societies with spiritual content and that it is necessary to educate oneself for such societies in such a way that one tolerates others to a far greater degree than one is accustomed to in the physical world. Becoming an anthroposophist does not merely mean learning about anthroposophy as a theory; in a certain sense, being an anthroposophist requires a transformation of the soul. But certain people do not want this. That is why it was never understood when I said that there are two ways of approaching my book Theosophy, for example. One is to read it or, for my sake, to study it, approaching it with the usual state of mind and judging it in terms of that usual state of mind. Then the quality of the soul process is exactly the same whether one reads Theosophy or a cookbook. In terms of the value of the experience, there is then no difference between reading this “Theosophy” and reading a cookbook, except that when you do so, you simply dream at a higher level while reading “Theosophy” and do not live. And when one dreams of higher worlds in this way, the impulses of the higher worlds do not bring about the greatest unity among people, the greatest possible tolerance as an achievement, but instead of unity, which can be the gift of studying the higher worlds, there is ever-increasing strife and quarreling. This creates the conditions for strife and discord in societies based on a kind of insight into the spiritual worlds.

I said that the various paths I have described in part in the book “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds” lead into the spiritual worlds. Now, if someone has to engage more intensively in seeking knowledge from the higher worlds, then, as you can now understand from what I explained yesterday and today for a completely different purpose, this will require a certain state of mind. And so a certain state of mind will be necessary for the actual spiritual researcher. For one cannot find truth in the supersensible realm if one is constantly compelled to impose on the soul what is quite rightly happening in the physical world, if one has to constantly concern oneself during spiritual research with what demands that one think in terms of the physical world. Now you will admit that someone who responsibly communicates something from the spiritual worlds to their fellow human beings, and who can therefore simply call themselves a spiritual researcher according to the terminology used in conventional science, needs a lot of time for their research. And so you will find it justified that I myself need time to research what I am now gradually presenting in an ever broader and broader form as a spiritual science, as anthroposophy.

This time can of course be made available according to one's destiny when one stands entirely alone. For those who are true spiritual researchers and who want to communicate to their fellow human beings in a responsible manner what they find in the spiritual world will acquire the peculiarity — and this is a quite natural thing — of not worrying about their opponents. They know that they must have opponents, but it does not matter to them that people object to the things they say; they can make the objections themselves. And so it is a natural state of mind for the spiritual researcher to go their way in a positive manner and not worry too much about the objections, unless there is a special reason to do so here and there.

However, this state of mind cannot be maintained when an anthroposophical society stands by your side. For then, in addition to the mere responsibility to the truth, there is the responsibility to what the society does, which, as is so often said, wants to make itself an instrument of this truth. One must share in the responsibilities of this society. Well, to a certain extent, this can still be combined with the right attitude toward opponents. That is how things went for me and this Anthroposophical Society until 1918. I paid as little attention as possible to what was objected to, and that — as paradoxical as it may sound — was a consequence of the tolerance I have just described to you. Why should I be so intolerant as to constantly refute my opponents? Everything will fall into place through the natural progress of human development. And that is why I can say: although not entirely, this question was largely in order until 1918. But when society begins to take things in, as our Anthroposophical Society has done since 1919, then one becomes responsible for these individual things that have been taken in, then the fate of these things that have been taken in becomes linked to the fate of the Anthroposophical Society, and in turn the fate of the Anthroposophical Society becomes linked to the fate of the spiritual researcher. And then the alternative arises: either the spiritual researcher must now take it upon himself to defend himself against his opponents, that is, to deal with things that must distract him from spiritual research, because one cannot do both at the same time; or, because he needs to make time for his spiritual research, he must leave the treatment of his opponents to those who have, in a certain sense, taken on responsibility for the externally justified. For this reason, and also for internal anthroposophical reasons, the situation within our Anthroposophical Society has changed significantly since 1919. Therefore, because this Society has decided to provide such external justifications in the form of individual personalities, and because the basis on which all this rests is, after all, anthroposophy, this basis must be defended precisely by those who do not bear full responsibility for the inner justification of what must be added to spiritual research day by day through actual research.

A large proportion of the opponents are actually of such a nature that they live in very specific contexts. For example, they have studied this or that here or there. There it is customary to think this way or that way about this or that. Because they have to think this way or that way, they must become opponents of anthroposophy. They don't know why they should become opponents, but they must become opponents because they are unconsciously tied to what educated them, what they have experienced. That is how it is internally. Externally, it is the case that, for the sake of the prosperity or ruin of what has been established with the Anthroposophical Society, such opponents must of course be defeated in the appropriate manner.

But the actual leaders of the opposition know very well what they want. For among them are those who are well acquainted with the laws of spiritual research, albeit from a different point of view than the anthroposophical one, and who know that the best means is to constantly bombard those who need peace and quiet for spiritual research with opposing writings and objections, so that they are distracted from their spiritual research. For they know very well that refuting opponents cannot be reconciled with spiritual research. They want to throw a spanner in the works by opposing these things. So simply writing these things is the act of opposition. For people who actually know what is important, it is not so much what is written in their books that matters, but that these books are thrown at the spiritual researcher. And they are particularly keen to use tricks and similar means to force him to defend himself.

These things must be viewed with complete objectivity. Knowing them is also the task of those who rightly want to sit within the Anthroposophical Society. Now, what I have just said is something that many people know. However, in the circles of many who know this, it is customary not to talk about it outside. Experience shows that something like this has long since ceased to be possible in the Anthroposophical Society. Cycles have been printed in the Anthroposophical Society with the words “For members only.” Today, in Germany and elsewhere, you can go to public libraries and borrow these cycles. Even those who are not members of the Anthroposophical Society can have all the cycles, and the nature of the opposing writings proves that they have them, even if it was sometimes difficult to obtain them. But these people shy away from difficulties much less than Anthroposophists sometimes do. The kind of secretarial work that many societies still practice today is simply not possible in the special nature of the Anthroposophical Society, where everyone is supposed to remain a free person, where they make no promises but simply join in order to become honest seekers of knowledge. The Anthroposophical Society must be constituted in the most modern sense. And I do not strive to make it possible. If I did, I would not now be recommending that you establish a loose association alongside the old Anthroposophical Society. For you will see how many more channels of escape — I do not reproach them — are created for what older members believe they must keep in their cupboards, into the broad public sphere through this loose association. But those who do not want to establish it in the spirit of the most modern thinking and feeling of human beings do not understand the innermost impulse of anthroposophy. This makes it all the more necessary to understand the conditions for such a society.

I am not mentioning this out of vain silliness, but as an example taken from my own experience. Last summer, I gave a series of lectures in Oxford on the pedagogy practiced in Waldorf schools. An article appeared in an English journal, which I am not quoting verbatim, but in essence, that begins something like this: Anyone who simply stumbled into the lectures of this Oxford educational series as an outsider would not have been able to tell that the speaker was a representative of anthroposophy if they did not know who Dr. Steiner was and that he had something to do with anthroposophy. Instead, they would have thought he was someone talking about education only from a different point of view than one might have oneself. I was extremely pleased with this characterization because it shows that there are people who notice what I would like to achieve, that one does not immediately listen to the individual explanations I give: That is from the anthroposophical point of view. - That is indeed the case. But one will only take this in properly if it leads to objectivity, if it does not lead to one-sidedness, but allows one to recognize and judge every detail from within oneself.

And before I gave this Oxford cycle, that is, before this article appeared, I conducted an experiment that may seem very insignificant to you. I was also at the Vienna Congress in June, where I gave twelve lectures in two cycles. I set myself the task of not using the word “anthroposophy” in any of the twelve lectures, and it does not appear. Nor does anything appear that might lead one to say: the anthroposophical worldview says this or that. Of course, and precisely for that reason, everything was anthroposophical. I do not want to say in a pedantic, philistine way that anthroposophists should never utter the word anthroposophy. Of course I do not want that. But the spirit from which one must work if one wants to attune oneself to the world in the right way, that spirit is sought in this way. This spirit should also be free to work in the active and leading personalities of the Anthroposophical Society. Otherwise, I myself will again be held responsible for what is done within the Anthroposophical Society that is not anthroposophical. And then the world will rightly identify the one with the other. So in such matters, too, it is important that the objective spirit of anthroposophy be grasped in the right way and, above all, that this spirit of anthroposophy be brought to bear. To this end, however, one must first educate oneself to a certain degree. But this self-education is necessary within the circles of the Anthroposophical Society; and in this respect, influenced by the foundations, countless mistakes have been made in recent years. I am stating this objectively, without wanting to offend anyone personally.

If the Anthroposophical Society is to flourish, each individual member must simply become fully aware of these things. However, given the nature of today's social conditions, this can only be achieved by attempting to establish lively communication, even if only through newsletters or similar means, between the individual circles of the Anthroposophical Society. This requires a lively interest on the part of the individual member — I do not say member — of the Anthroposophical Society in the affairs of the whole Society and, above all, in the affairs of the development of anthroposophy itself. There is much lacking in this respect, too. If there were no Anthroposophical Society, there would probably still be just as many anthroposophical books. But society would not have to concern itself with those who read them. They would be scattered throughout the world, perhaps forming communities according to their karma, but there would be no need to be outwardly connected with them. This does not change much for the spiritual researcher, even if the Society has a structure such as ours had until 1918. This changes immediately when responsibilities applicable to the physical plane are linked to the Anthroposophical Society. I am saying these things more decisively today than usual, but I said them in one form or another back then, when we were at the starting point of the justifications. I couldn't whisper them into the ear of every single anthroposophical member, and I don't even know if that would have been of much use. But the Anthroposophical Society was there and had leading personalities. They must ensure that this society is in such a condition that it can really take things in without endangering anthroposophical research.

That, I would say, is the negative view of community building, whereas yesterday I presented you with the positive view. I would like to say that anyone who strives for such community building, as I have presented it in a positive way according to its conditions, must be aware of everything that is connected with the progress of the Anthroposophical Society and with the life of the Anthroposophical Society in the way I have described today. And this must be taken into account, especially in the individual areas of anthroposophical life.

In this regard, there is, for example, the following, which I believe is extremely instructive. I come back to the tragic chapter of the Goetheanum, which is now defunct. In September and October of 1920, we were able to hold the first — as it was called — university course in this Goetheanum for three weeks. Yesterday I already described how this Goetheanum has a very specific artistic style born out of the anthroposophical way of feeling. How did this style come about? It came about because a number of individuals, to whom we cannot be grateful enough, undertook in 1913 to build a home for what was then available in the narrower sense for anthroposophy and what might eventually emerge from this anthroposophy in the narrower sense, that is, to build a home for the playing of mysteries, a home for eurythmy, which was still in its infancy at that time but already showed great promise, and above all a home for the actual anthroposophical considerations that develop worldviews on the basis of spiritual scientific research. That was my intention at the time, as I was the representative of these personalities, or at least considered myself to be as such. My task was to construct a building for this work in a style that was artistically appropriate. That became the Goetheanum. At that time, there were no scholars or scientists among us. Anthroposophy had advanced to a certain point in the scientific field. But what happened later, namely that the individual subject areas were dealt with within the Anthroposophical Society, did not exist at that time. What did occur arose directly from anthroposophy, as did ultimately the whole Waldorf school pedagogy; that is the real example of something that came entirely out of anthroposophy. An artistic style had to be found for such things. I am convinced that this was found in the Goetheanum. The war delayed the construction of the Goetheanum somewhat. In 1920, the series of lectures I just mentioned was held. It was held on the impulse that had already emanated from the scholars who had meanwhile joined the Anthroposophical Society in such a gratifying way. It was also arranged and programmed by these scholars. The program was presented to me. In my opinion, the Anthroposophical Society is characterized by absolute freedom. Many people in the outside world think that only what Steiner imagines happens in this Anthroposophical Society. Most of the time, however, things happen that he would never have imagined. But the Anthroposophical Society is not there for me; the Anthroposophical Society is there for the anthroposophists. And now I sat there, really paying close attention, in these lecture series in September and October 1920 — I am only giving an aperçu, not any kind of criticism — and I let my eyes wander over the interior of the building. In the weekly magazine “Das Goetheanum,” I described how, for example, in eurythmic art, the lines of the Goetheanum continue in the movements of human beings; but that had to be the case for everything at the Goetheanum according to the original intentions. So I let my spiritual gaze wander over the way in which this interior architecture, sculpture, and painting corresponded to what the speakers said from the podium. And I found – it was not necessary to point this out to people at the time – that everything which, in the best sense of the word, was an anthroposophical tableau, where anthroposophy in the narrowest sense was spoken, fitted in wonderfully with the architectural style. For a whole series of lectures, however, one had the feeling: Yes, these should really only be given once the Goetheanum has managed to erect a whole series of annexes, which in turn will be designed in such a way that they are in harmony with these special studies and special considerations. In its almost ten-year history, the Goetheanum has truly witnessed the fate of the Anthroposophical Society, and it has been easy to notice, by feeling the harmony or disharmony of the architectural style with what was going on inside, how something inorganic has indeed entered into the smooth flow of the anthroposophical spiritual movement.

Now, this is really not said in order to reproach or to say that anything should not have been so. Of course, there was a necessity for all this to happen. But on the other hand, this gave rise to the other necessity that chemistry, physics, mathematics, and so on were now reborn, reborn from anthroposophy, in order to make the described shift in consciousness. For the usual way of looking at things is not sufficient when speaking anthroposophically. This shift was not always there. At the Goetheanum, it was seen artistically in terms of style; in the Anthroposophical Society, it can be seen in the phenomenon that has gathered into the cloud that has covered us in recent days. And the task was there and must remain a task for the future, that now, after science has already flowed in — thanks to fate, of course — it must be reborn from anthroposophy. And there is no point in getting lost in all kinds of insubstantial polemics; rather, the urgent task above all else is to rebirth the individual disciplines from anthroposophy. A kind of surrogate was created at a time when a substitute was absolutely necessary. I was asked many times — again out of necessity — to give lecture cycles for this or that circle on things that might have developed later at the right pace for anthroposophical survival. So these cycles were there. The main necessity for these cycles would have been to use them to revive the individual sciences from anthroposophy. That was the anthroposophical interest. And this interest would have been what would have been most fruitful for the development of the Anthroposophical Society in the most eminent sense. All these things must be known. You see, my dear friends, in the course of the various seminars that have been held here and there in the university courses, I have repeatedly set tasks one task for mathematical physicists in the last lecture I was able to give in the small hall of the Goetheanum during the natural science course, which was held at the end of 1922 and was supposed to continue at the Goetheanum after New Year's Day 1923. There I spoke again of how necessary it would be to solve the task of how the tactile space can be expressed in mathematical formulas in contrast to the visual space; and similar things have been there again and again. In particular, what time had pressed for was already there, but all of this had to be processed anthroposophically in such a way that it could still offer something to the broadest circles of anthroposophy, who cannot concern themselves further with the tactile space and visual space and so on. For there are ways in which what one person can perhaps only do becomes fruitful for a large number of people in a completely different form into which it is cast. Thus, through the, as I might say, extraordinarily hasty arrangements that have been made since 1919, namely — it must be emphasized again and again — through the fact that personalities have established all kinds of things and then have not continued to participate in what they themselves have established, difficulties upon difficulties have arisen, and it is precisely from these difficulties that everything we are now facing has resulted. But none of this is an objection to anthroposophy itself.

And this is what those present here should be aware of: that it can be said in detail everywhere what caused the difficulties, and that it can be strongly emphasized that there is no justification for anthroposophy itself to be somehow dismissed because of these difficulties. Therefore, following on from this deeper discussion, I would like to correct a statement that was made here yesterday from this podium and which I found offensive, precisely because of the things I have just spoken about. It was said that people were not aware — or something to that effect — that the anthroposophical movement could be destroyed by its opponents. It cannot. The greatest danger to the Anthroposophical Society, to myself personally, and so on, can come from its opponents. But the anthroposophical movement cannot be harmed; at most, it can be held back by its opponents. In this regard, and in many similar respects, I myself have often emphasized in recent years that a distinction must be made between the anthroposophical movement and the Anthroposophical Society. This has been emphasized not because the Anthroposophical Society should no longer be taken into consideration, but because the anthroposophical movement and the Anthroposophical Society actually behave like content and vessel, also for the individual human being like content and vessel. And in this area, too, one must be fully aware of clear ideas, I would say. One must neither confuse anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society, nor should one fail to recognize that, through the developments of the last three to four years, the actual external unfolding of anthroposophy in its destiny has become intimately intertwined with the destiny of the Anthroposophical Society for the members of the Anthroposophical Society. The things seem so closely related, yet they must be sharply distinguished from one another.

Theoretically speaking, a Waldorf school could exist even if the Anthroposophical Society had never been founded; in reality, however, this would not be the case, because the people who contributed to its foundation, management, and support, etc., would not have been there. The real logic, the logic of reality, is therefore quite different from the abstract logic of the intellect. It is important to understand this as a member of the Anthroposophical Society. As such a member, one must at least gain an impression, even if it is only an emotional one, of how the higher worlds can be grasped, namely through an awareness that the supersensible is experienced in a different way than the ordinary physical world. Therefore, something in the physical world can seem as real to us as the content of a dream seems real when we ourselves are the dreamer; but that is why carrying the context of the dream into the context of everyday consciousness remains an abnormal, harmful phenomenon. And so, too, is it harmful to carry things into the consciousness that one should develop in order to comprehend spiritual worlds, things of which one is rightly convinced in ordinary everyday consciousness.

I can explain this to you with a very specific example. Because people in recent times have fallen so deeply into intellectualism and external empiricism, it is now considered a catchphrase even for those who are not particularly well versed in science to say: Yes, if you say anything, you have to prove it. And by that they mean a very specific form of applied thinking. They know nothing of the immediate relationship that the human soul can have to truths, which is an immediate grasp of truth, just as the eye does not prove redness, but sees it. But in intellectual thinking, one concept must emerge from another. For the physical plane, it is as good as possible to become clever by being able to prove an enormous amount, to have a good technique for proving, so that proving goes like clockwork. This is very good for the physical plane, and also for the sciences that work for the physical plane. And it is also good for those who are spiritual researchers to have a good grasp of the technique of proving in the physical world. Those who become more familiar with the intentions of our research institute will see that we apply this kind of proving to all things where it is applicable. But — let me use the grotesque word — when it comes to understanding the higher worlds, if you apply this kind of proof to everyday consciousness, like the connection between dreams, you become stupid. For this method of proof in the higher worlds is exactly the same as bringing the connections between dreams into everyday consciousness. Now, in recent times, people have come to find this proving self-evident. In some areas, it has even become terrible how this proving has had a paralyzing effect.

Religion, which is based on nothing, in its older forms based on nothing that has to do with intellectual, rational proof, but rather with contemplation, has become a rationalistic theory that proves. It gradually proves, in its most extreme representatives, that the whole of religion is not true. This is basically self-evident, because just as one becomes abnormal when one carries the context of dreams into one's everyday consciousness, one becomes abnormal to the consciousness of the higher worlds when one carries the contexts that rightly apply in the physical world [into the higher worlds]. Theology has either become a real science that simply accepts things, or a theology that, as a proving science, is suited not to establish religion but to destroy it.

These, my dear friends, are the things that must be experienced with keen awareness within the Anthroposophical Society. For if this is not the case, then from the outset one does not enter the human world, into life, as a well-rounded person who is reasonable for all levels of the world ...

The spiritual researcher does not need to present evidence against his opponents, for everything that can be objected to what I say, opponents need only take from my own writings, for wherever necessary, I point out how physical evidence for something supersensible appears. Somewhere you will find the equivalent of what the opponent can say, said by myself, so that in order to refute me, you would actually only need to copy me for the most part. But the point is that one must acquire an awareness of all these details in the field of the Anthroposophical Society. Then one will be firmly established in the Society; one will be firmly established both in the physical world and in all possible worlds if one has studied the anthroposophical worldview.

Then, however, one will also draw human capacity for love, social harmonization, and everything that belongs to social life from the anthroposophical impulses. Then, despite all isolation, true human unity among all anthroposophists will be able to arise, not strife and discord, not separation and secession. And then, even though one is a believer in the views of the higher worlds, one will not walk around in the physical world like a dreamer, but will be able to behave like a person with both feet firmly planted in reality, because one has become accustomed to not mixing the two things, just as dream reality and the reality of the physical plane must not be mixed in ordinary life.

Nevertheless, it is important for all those who want to come together in the Anthroposophical Society as true members of the anthroposophical movement in the fullest, genuine sense of the word to acquire a certain state of mind, a certain state of consciousness. If we permeate ourselves with this state of mind, if we permeate ourselves with this state of consciousness, then we will establish a true anthroposophical community; and then, because the possibility is definitely there, the Anthroposophical Society will also be able to flourish and prosper.