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

4 March 1923, Dornach

Lecture X

Today I would like to report to you on the second lecture I gave in Stuttgart. It will not be so much a verbatim account of what was said there as a fresh discussion of the matters dealt with in that lecture, and I shall also want to include some comment on the Stuttgart conference itself.

The purpose of the second lecture was to show the reasons why certain things that ought never to happen, particularly in a Society like ours, do nevertheless so easily occur and are such a familiar phenomenon to those acquainted with the history of societies based on a spiritual view of life. As you know, there have always been societies of this kind, and they were always adapted to their period. In earlier ages, the kind of consciousness required for entrance into the spiritual world was different from the kind we need today. As a rule people who joined forces to establish some form of cognition based on higher, super-sensible insight included among their goals the cultivation of a brotherly spirit in the membership. But you know, too, as do all those familiar with the history of these societies, that brotherliness all too easily came to grief, that it has been especially in societies built on spiritual foundations that the greatest disharmony and the worst offenses against brotherliness burgeoned.

Now if anthroposophy is properly conceived, the Anthroposophical Society is thoroughly insured against such unbrotherly developments. But it is by no means always properly conceived. Perhaps it will help toward its fuller comprehension if light is thrown on the reasons for the breakdown of brotherly behavior.

Let us, to start with, review the matters brought up yesterday. I pointed out that we distinguish between three levels of consciousness: that of ordinary waking life, that of dreams, and finally that of dreamless sleep. Man's dream pictures are experienced as a world he inhabits. While he is dreaming, it is perfectly possible for him to mistake his dreams for reality, for events just as real as those that take place in the physical world where he finds himself during his waking life.

But as I said yesterday, there is a tremendous difference between dream experiences and those of waking. A dreamer is isolated in his dream experiences. And I pointed out that someone else can be asleep beside him and have quite different dreams, hence be living in a different world. Neither can communicate anything about his world of dreams to his fellow dreamer. Even if ten people are sleeping in a single room, each has only his own world before him. This does not seem at all surprising to one who is able to enter the often marvelous dream world as a spiritual scientist, for the world in which a dreamer lives is also real. But the pictures it presents derive in every case from factors of purely individual concern. To be sure, dreams do clothe the experiences they convey in pictures borrowed from the physical plane. But as I have often pointed out, these pictures are merely outer coverings. The reality—and there is indeed reality in dreams—hides behind the pictures, which express it only superficially.

A person who explores dreams in a spiritual-scientific sense with the purpose of discovering their meaning studies not the pictures but the dramatic element running through them. One person may be seeing one dream scene, another an entirely different one. But for both there may be an experience of climbing or of standing on the edge of an abyss or of confronting some danger, and finally a release of tension. The essential thing is the dream's dramatic course, which it merely clothes in pictorial elements. This unfolding drama often has its source in past earth lives, or it may point to future incarnations. It is the unwinding thread of destiny in human life—running, perhaps, through many incarnations—that plays into dreams. Man's individual core is what is involved here. He is outside his body with his ego and astrality. That is to say, he is outside his body with the ego that he takes from one incarnation to another, and he is in his astral body, which means that he is living in the world that embraces experience of all the surrounding processes and beings in the midst of which we live before we descend to earth and find again when we return to live in a world beyond the senses after death.

But in sleep we are also isolated from our physical and etheric bodies. Dreams clothe themselves in pictures when the astral body is either just coming back into contact with the ether body or just separating from it, that is, on awakening and on falling asleep. But the dreams are there, even though one has no inkling of their presence when in an ordinary state of consciousness. Man dreams straight through the time he is sleeping. This means that he is occupied solely with his own concerns during that period. But when he wakes, he returns to a world that he shares in common with the people about him. It is then no longer possible for ten individuals to be in one room with each living in a world apart; the room's interior becomes the common world of all. When people are together on the physical plane, they experience a world in common.

I called attention yesterday to the fact that a shift in consciousness, a further awakening is necessary to enter those worlds from which we draw genuine knowledge of the super-sensible, knowledge of man's true being, such as anthroposophy is there to make available.

These, then, are the three stages of consciousness.

But now let us suppose that the kind of picture consciousness that is normally developed by a sleeping person is carried over into the ordinary day-waking state, into situations on the physical plane. There are such cases. Due to disturbances in the human organism, a person may conceive the physical world as it is normally conceived in dream life only. In other words, he lives in pictures that have significance for him alone. This is the case in what is called an abnormal mental state, and it is due to some illness in the physical or etheric organism. A person suffering from it can shut himself off from experiencing the outer world, as he does in sleep. His sick organism then causes pictures to rise up in him such as ordinarily present themselves only in dreams. Of course, there are many degrees of this affliction, ranging all the way from trifling disturbances of normal soul life to conditions of real mental illness.

Now what happens when a person carries over a dream conditioned state of mind into ordinary physical earth life? In that case, his relationship to his fellowman is just what it would be if he were sleeping next to him. He is isolated from him, his consciousness absorbed by something that he cannot share. This gives rise to a special egotism for which he cannot be held wholly responsible. He is aware only of what is going on in his own soul, knowing nothing of what goes on in any other's. We human beings are drawn into a common life by having common sense impressions about which we then form common thoughts. But when someone projects a dreaming state of mind into ordinary earth life, he isolates himself, becomes an egotist, and lives alongside his fellowman making assertions about things to which the other can have no access in his experience. You must all have had personal experience of the degree of egotism to which this carrying over of dream life into everyday life can mislead human beings.

There can be a similar straying from a wholesome path, however, in cases where people join others in, say, a group where anthroposophical truths are being studied, but where the situation I was characterizing yesterday fails to develop, namely, that one soul wakes up in the encounter with the other to a certain higher state, not of consciousness, perhaps, but of feeling awakened to a higher, more intense experiencing. Then the degree of self-seeking that it is right to have in the physical world is projected into one's conceiving of the spiritual world. Just as someone becomes an egotist when he projects his dream consciousness into the physical world, so does a person who introduces into his approach to higher realms a soul-mood or state of mind appropriate to the physical world become to some degree an egotist in his relationship to the spiritual world.

But this is true of many people. A desire for sensation gives them an interest in the fact that man has a physical, an etheric and an astral body, lives repeated earth lives, has a karma, etc. They inform themselves about such things in the same way they would in the case of any other fact or truth of physical reality. Indeed, we see this evidenced every day in the way anthroposophy is presently combatted. Scientists of the ordinary kind, for example, turn up insisting that anthroposophy prove itself by ordinary means. This is exactly as though one were to seek proof from dream pictures about things going on in the physical world. How ridiculous it would be for someone to say, “I will only believe that so and so many people are gathered in this room and than an anthroposophical lecture is being given here if I dream about it afterwards.” Just think how absurd that would be! But it is just as absurd for someone who hears anthroposophical truths to say that he will only believe them if ordinary science, which has application only on the physical plane, proves them. One need only enter into things seriously and objectively for them to become perfectly transparent.

Just as one becomes an egotist when one projects dream conceptions into physical situations, so does a person who projects into the conceptions he needs to have of higher realms views such as apply only to things of ordinary life, becomes the more isolated, withdrawn, insistent that he alone is right. But that is what people actually do. Indeed, most individuals are looking for some special aspect of anthroposophy. Something in their view of life draws them in sympathetic feeling to this or that element found in it, and they would be happy to have it true. So they accept it, and since it cannot be proved on the physical plane they look to anthroposophy to prove it.

Thus a state of consciousness applicable to the ordinary physical world is carried over into an approach to higher realms. So, despite all one's brotherly precepts, an unbrotherly element is brought into the picture, just as a person dreaming on the physical plane can behave in a most unbrotherly fashion toward his neighbor. Even though that neighbor may be acting sensibly, it is possible for a dreamer under the influence of his dream pictures to say to him, “You are a stupid fellow. I know better than you do.” Similarly, someone who forms his conceptions of the higher world with pretensions carried over from life on the physical plane can say to an associate who has a different view of things, “You are a stupid fellow,” or a bad man, or the like. The point is that one has to develop an entirely different attitude, an entirely different way of feeling in relation to the spiritual world, which eradicates an unbrotherly spirit and gives brotherliness a chance to develop. The nature of anthroposophy is such as to bring this about in fullest measure, but it needs to be conceived with avoidance of sectarianism and other similar elements, which really derive from the physical world.

If one knows the reasons why an unbrotherly spirit can so easily crop up in just those societies built on a spiritual foundation, one also knows how such a danger can be avoided by undertaking to transform one's soul orientation when one joins with others in cultivating knowledge of the higher worlds.

This is also the reason why those who say, “I'll believe what I've seen there after I've dreamed it,” and behave accordingly toward anthroposophy, are so alienated by the language in which anthrosophy is presented. How many people say that they cannot bear the language used in presenting anthroposophy, as for example in my books! The point is that where it is a case of presenting knowledge of the super-sensible, not only are the matters under discussion different; they have to be spoken of in a different way. This must be taken into account. If one is really deeply convinced that understanding anthroposophy involves a shift from one level of consciousness to another, anthroposophy will become as fruitful in life as it ought to be. For even though it has to be experienced in a soul condition different from the ordinary, nevertheless what one gains from it for one's whole soul development and character will in turn have a moral, religious, artistic and cognitive effect on the physical world in the same sense that the physical world affects the dream world. We need only be clear as to what level of reality we are dealing with.

When we are dreaming, we do not need to be communicating with or standing in any particular relationship to other human beings, for as dreamers we are really working on our ongoing egos. What we are doing behind the façade of our dream pictures concerns only ourselves. We are working on our karma there. No matter what scene a dream may be picturing, one's soul, one's ego are working behind it on one's karma.

Here on the physical plane we work at matters of concern to a physically embodied human race. We have to work with other people to make our contributions to mankind's overall development. In the spiritual world we work with intelligences that are beings like ourselves, except that instead of living in physical bodies they live in a spiritual element, in spiritual substance. It is a different world, that world from which super-sensible truth is gleaned, and each of us has to adapt himself to it.

That is the key point I have stressed in so many lectures given here: Anthroposophical cognition cannot be absorbed in the way we take in other learning. It must above all be approached with a different feeling—the feeling that it gives one a sudden jolt of awakening such as one experiences at hand of colors pouring into one's eyes, of tones pouring into one's ears, waking one out of the self-begotten pictures of the dream world.

Just as knowing where there is a weak place in an icy surface enables a person to avoid breaking through it, so can someone who knows the danger of developing egotism through a wrong approach to spiritual truth avoid creating unbrotherly conditions. In relating to spiritual truth, one has constantly to develop to the maximum a quality that may be called tolerance in the best sense of the word. Tolerance must characterize the relationships of human beings pursuing anthroposophical spiritual science together. Looking from this angle at the beauty of human tolerance, one is immediately aware how essential it is to educate oneself to it in this particular period. It is the most extraordinary thing that nobody nowadays really ever listens to anybody else. Is it ever possible to start a sentence without someone interrupting to state his own view of the matter, with a resultant clash of opinion? It is a fundamental characteristic of modern civilization that nobody listens, that nobody respects anyone's opinion but his own, and that those who do not share his opinions are looked upon as dunces.

But when a person expresses an opinion, my dear friends, it is a human being's opinion, no matter how foolish we may think it, and we must be able to accept it, to listen to it.

I am going to make a highly paradoxical statement. A person whose soul is attuned to the intellectual outlook of the day has no difficulty being clever. Every single person knows the clever thing, and I am not saying that it isn't clever; it usually is, in fact. But that works only up to a certain point, and up to that point a smart person considers everyone who isn't yet of his opinion stupid. We encounter this attitude all the time, and in ordinary life situations it can be justified. A person who has developed a sound judgment about various matters really finds it a dreadful trial to have to listen to someone else's foolish views about them, and he can hardly be blamed for feeling that way.

But that is true only up to a point. One can become cleverer than clever by developing something further. Supersensible insight can endow cleverness with a different quality. Then the strange thing is that one's interest in foolishness increases rather than decreases. If one has acquired a little wisdom, one even takes pleasure in hearing people say something foolish, if you will forgive my putting it so bluntly. One sometimes finds such stupidities cleverer than the things people of an average degree of cleverness say, because they often issue from a far greater humanness than underlies the average cleverness of the average of clever people. An ever deepening insight into the world increases one's interest in human foolishness, for these things look different at differing world levels. The stupidities of a person who may seem a fool to clever people in the ordinary physical world can, under certain circumstances, reveal things that are wisdom in a different world, even though the form they take may be twisted and caricatured. To borrow one of Nietzsche's sayings, the world is really “deeper than the day would credit.”

Our world of feeling must be founded on such recognitions if the Anthroposophical Society—or, in other words, the union of those who pursue anthroposophy—is to be put on a healthy basis. Then a person who knows that one has to relate differently to the spiritual world than one does to the physical will bring things of the spiritual world into the physical in the proper way. Such a person becomes a practical man in the physical world rather than a dreamer, and that is what is so vitally necessary. It is really essential that one not be rendered useless for the physical world by becoming an anthroposophist. This must be stressed over and over again.

That is what I wanted to set forth in my second Stuttgart lecture in order to throw light on the way individual members of the Society need to conceive the proper fostering of its life. For that life is not a matter of cognition, but of the heart, and this fact must be recognized.

Of course, the circumstances of a person's life may necessitate his traveling a lonely path apart. That can be done too. But our concern in Stuttgart was with the life-requirements of the Anthroposophical Society; these had to be brought up for discussion there. If the Society is to continue, those who want to be part of it will have to take an interest in what its life-requirements are.

But that will have to include taking an interest in problems occasioned by a constantly increasing enmity toward the Society. I had to go into this too in Stuttgart. I said that many enterprises have been launched in the Society since 1919, and that though this was good in itself, the right way of incorporating them into the Anthroposophical Movement—in other words, of making them the common concern of the membership—had not been found. New members should not be reproached for taking no interest in something launched before their time and simply seeking anthroposophy in a narrower sense, as the young people do. But it is these new enterprises that have really been responsible for the growing enmity toward our Movement. There was hostility before, to be sure, but we did not have to pay any attention to it.

Now in this context I had to say something on the subject of our opponents that needs to be known in the Anthroposophical Society. I have talked to you, my dear friends, about the three phases of the Society's development and called attention to the fact that in the last or third phase, from 1916 or 1917 to the present, the fruits of a great deal of anthroposophical research into the super-sensible world have been conveyed to you in lectures. That required a lot of work in the form of genuine spiritual research. Anyone who looks dispassionately at the facts can discern the great increase in the amount of material gleaned from the spiritual world in recent years and put before you in lectures.

Now we certainly have any number of opponents who simply do not know why they adopt a hostile stand; they just go along with others, finding it comfortable to be vague about their reasons. But there are a few leading figures among them who know full well what they are up to and who are interested in suppressing and stamping out truths about the spiritual world such as can alone raise the level of human dignity and restore peace on earth. The rest of the opponents go along with these, but the leaders do not want to have anthroposophical truth made available. Their opposition is absolutely conscious, and so is their effort to stimulate it in their followers.

What are they really intent on achieving? If I may refer to myself in this connection, they are trying to keep me so preoccupied with their attacks that I cannot find time for actual anthroposophical research. One has to have a certain quiet to pursue it, a kind of inner activity that is far removed from the sort of thing one would have to be doing if one were to undertake a defense against our opponents' often ridiculous attacks.

Now in a truly brilliant lecture that he gave in Stuttgart, Herr Werbeck called attention to the large number of hostile books written by theologians alone. I think he listed a dozen or more—so many, at any rate, that it would take all one's time just to read them. Imagine what refuting them would entail! One would never get to any research, and this is only one field among many. At least as many books have been written by people in various other fields. One is actually bombarded with hostile writings intended to keep one from the real work of anthroposophy. That is the quite deliberate intention. But it is possible, if one has what one needs to balance it, to foster anthroposophy and push these books aside. I do not even know many of their titles. Those I have I usually just throw in a pile, since one cannot carry on true spiritual research and simultaneously concern oneself with such attacks. Then our opponents say, “He is not answering us himself.” But others can deal with their assertions, and since the enterprises launched since 1919 were started on others' initiative, the Society should take over its responsibility in this area. It should take on the battle with opponents, for otherwise it will prove impossible really to keep up anthroposophical research.

That is exactly what our opponents want. Indeed, they would like best of all to find grounds for lawsuits. There is every indication that they are looking for such opportunities. For they know that this would require a shift in the direction of one's attention and a change of soul mood that would interfere with true anthroposophical activity.

Yes, my dear friends, most of our opponents know very well indeed what they are about, and they are well organized. But these facts should be known in the Anthroposophical Society too. If the right attention is paid to them, action will follow.

I have given you a report on what we accomplished in Stuttgart in the direction of enabling the Society to go on working for awhile. But there was a moment when I really should have said that I would have to withdraw from the Society because of what happened. There are other reasons now, of course, why that cannot be, since the Society has recently admitted new elements from which one may not withdraw. But if I had made my decision on the basis of what happened at a certain moment there in the assembly hall in Stuttgart, I would have been fully justified in saying that I would have to withdraw from the Society and try to make anthroposophy known to the world in some other way.

The moment I refer to was that in which the following incident occurred. The Committee of Nine had scheduled a number of reports on activities in various areas of the Society. These were to include reports on the Waldorf School, the Union for a Free Spiritual Life, Der Kommende Tag, the journals Anthroposophy and Die Drei, and so on, and there was also to be a discussion of our opponents and ways of handling them.

Now as I said, Werbeck, who has been occupying himself with the problem of opponents, gave a brilliant lecture on how to handle them from the literary angle. But concrete details of the matter were still to be discussed. What happened? Right in the middle of Werbeck's report there was a motion to cut it off and cancel the reports in favor of going on with the discussion. Without knowing anything of what had been happening in the Society, it was proposed that the discussion continue. There was a motion to omit reports right in the middle of the report on opponents! And the motion was carried.

A further grotesque event occurred. Very late on the previous evening, Dr. Stein had given a report on the youth movement. Herr Leinhas, who was chairman of the meeting, was hardly to be envied, for as I told you two days ago, he was literally bombarded with motions on agenda items. As soon as one such motion was made, another followed on its heels, until nobody could see how the debate was to be handled.

Now the people who had come to attend the delegates' convention were not as good at sitting endlessly as those who had done the preparatory work. In Stuttgart everyone is used to sitting. We have often had meetings there that began no later than 9:30 or 10 p.m. and went on until six o'clock in the morning. But as I said, the delegates hadn't had that training. So it was late before Dr. Stein began his report on the youth movement, on the young people's wishes, and due to some mistake or other no one was certain whether he would give it, with the result that a lot of people left the hall. He did give his report, however, and when people returned the following day and found that he had given it in their absence, a motion was made to have him give it again. Nothing came of this because he wasn't there. But when he did arrive to give a report on our opponents, events turned in the direction of people's not only not wanting to hear his report twice over but not even wanting to hear it once; a motion to that effect was passed. So he gave his report on a later occasion.

But this report should have culminated in a discussion of specific opposition. To my surprise, Stein had mentioned none of the specifics, but instead developed a kind of metaphysics of enmity toward anthroposophy, so that it was impossible to make out what the situation really was. His report was very ingenious, but restricted itself to the metaphysics of enmity instead of supplying specific material on the actual enemies. The occasion served to show that the whole Society—for the delegates were representing the whole German Anthroposophical Society—simply did not want to hear about opponents!

This is perfectly understandable, of course. But to be informed about these matters is so vital to any insight into what life-conditions the Society requires that a person who turns down an ideal opportunity to become acquainted with them cannot mean seriously by the Society. The way anthroposophy is represented before the world depends above all else on how the Society's members relate to the enmity that is growing stronger every day.

This, then, was the moment when the way the meeting was going should really have resulted in my saying that I couldn't go on participating if the members were solely interested in repeating slogans like, “Humanness must encounter humanness” and other such platitudes. They were paraphrased more than abundantly in Stuttgart—not discussed, just paraphrased. But of course one can't withdraw from something that exists not just in one's imagination but in reality; one can't withdraw from the Anthroposophical Society! So these matters too had to be overlooked in favor of searching for a solution such as I described to you on Saturday: On the one hand the old Society going on in all its reality, and on the other a loose confederation coming into being, eventuating in the forming of communities in the sense reported, with some bridging group to relate the two opposite elements.

For we must be absolutely clear that anthroposophy is something for eternity. Every individual can therefore study it all by himself, and he has every right to do so, without taking the least interest in the Anthroposophical Society. It would be quite possible—and until 1918 this was actually the way things were—to spread anthroposophy entirely by means of books or by giving lectures to those interested in hearing them. Until 1918 the Society was just what such a society should be, because it could have stopped existing any day without affecting anthroposophy itself. Non-members genuinely interested in anthroposophy had every bit as much access to everything as they would have had through the Society. The Society merely provided opportunities for members to work actively together and for human souls to be awakened by their fellow souls. But on the initiative of this and that individual, activities going on in the Society developed into projects that are now binding upon us. They exist, and cannot be arbitrarily dissolved. The old Society must go on seeing to their welfare. No matter how little one may care for the bureaucratic, cataloguing ways and general orientation of the old Committee, it must go on looking after things it has started. No one else can do this for it. It is very mistaken to believe that someone who is only interested in anthroposophy in general—a situation such as also prevailed in 1902—can be asked to take on any responsibility for the various projects. One has to have grown identified with them, to know them from the inside out.

So the old Society must go on existing; it is an absolutely real entity. But others who simply want anthroposophy as such also have every right to have access to it. For their satisfaction we created the loose confederation I spoke of yesterday, and it too will have its board of trustees, made up of those whose names I mentioned. So now we have two sets of trustees, who will in turn select smaller committees to handle matters of common concern, so that the Society will remain one entity. That the loose confederation does take an interest in what develops out of the Society was borne out by the motion to re-establish it, which was immediately made by the very youngest members of the youth movement, the students. So it has now been re-established and will have a fully legitimate function. Indeed, this was one of the most pressing, vital issues for the Anthroposophical Movement and the Society.

An especially interesting motion was made by the pupils of the upper classes of the Waldorf School. I read it aloud myself, since it had been sent to me. These upper-class students of the Waldorf School made a motion more or less to the following effect. They said, “We have been developing along lines laid down in the basic precepts of the Waldorf School. Next year we are supposed to take our university examinations. Perhaps difficulties of some sort will prevent it. But in any case, how will things work out for us in an ordinary university after having been educated according to the right principles of the Waldorf School?” These students went on to give a nice description of universities, and in conclusion moved that a university be established where erstwhile pupils of the Waldorf School could continue their studies.

This was really quite insightful and right. The motion was immediately adopted by the representatives of the academic youth movement, and in order to get some capital together to start such an institution they even collected a fund amounting, I believe, to some twenty-five million marks, which, though it may not be a great deal of money under present inflationary conditions, is nevertheless a quite respectable sum. These days, of course, one cannot set up a university on twenty-five million marks. But if one could find an American to donate a billion marks or more for such a purpose, a beginning could be made. Otherwise, of course, it couldn't be done, and even a billion marks might not be enough; I can't immediately calculate what would be needed.

But if such a possibility did exist, we would really be embarrassed, frightfully embarrassed, even if there were a prospect of obtaining official recognition in the matter of diplomas and examinations. The problem would be the staffing of such an institution. Should it be done with Waldorf faculty, or with members of our research institutions? That could certainly be done, but then we would have no Waldorf School and no research institutions. The way the Anthroposophical Society has been developing in recent years has tended to keep out people who might otherwise have joined it. It has become incredibly difficult, when a teacher is needed for a new class being added to the Waldorf School, to find one among the membership. In spite of all the outstanding congresses and other accomplishments we have to our credit, the Society's orientation has made people feel that though anthroposophy pleased them well enough, they did not want to become members.

We are going to have to work at the task of restoring the Society to its true function. For there are many people in the world pre-destined to make anthroposophy the most vital content of their hearts and souls. But the Society must do its part in making this possible. As we face this challenge, it is immediately obvious that we must change our course and start bringing anthroposophy to the world's attention so that mankind has a chance to become acquainted with it.

Our opponents are projecting a caricature of anthroposophy, and they are working hard at the job. Their writings contain unacknowledged material from anthroposophical cycles. Nowadays there are lending libraries where the cycles can be borrowed, and so on. The old way of thinking about these things no longer fits the situation. There are second-hand bookshops that lend cycles for a fee, so that anybody who wants to read them can now do so. We show ourselves ignorant of modern social life if we think that things like cycles can be kept secret; that is no longer possible today. Our time has become democratic even in matters of the spirit. We should realize that anthroposophy has to be made known.

That is the impulse motivating the loosely federated section. The people who have come together in it are interested first and foremost in making anthroposophy widely known. I am fully aware that this will open new outlets through which much that members think should be kept within the Society will flow out into the world. But we have to adjust ourselves to the time's needs, and anthroposophists must develop a sense of what it is demanding. That is why anthroposophy must be looked upon now especially as something that can become the content of people's lives, as I indicated yesterday.

So, my dear friends, we made the reported attempt to set up looser ties between the two streams in the Society. I hope that if this effort is rightly understood and rightly handled, we can continue on the new basis for awhile. I have no illusions that it will be for long, but in that case we will have to try some other arrangement. But I said when I went to Stuttgart for this general meeting of the German Anthroposophical Society that since anthroposophy had its start in Germany and the world knows and accepts that fact, it was necessary to create some kind of order in the German Society first, but that this should only be the first step in creating order in other groups too. I picture the societies in all the other language areas also feeling themselves obligated to do their part in either a similar or different way toward consolidating the Society, so that an effort is made on every hand so to shape the life of the Society that anthroposophy can become what it should be to the world at large.

then give you something more in the way of a report.

Zehnter Vortrag

Ich möchte nun auch über den zweiten der Vorträge, die ich in Stuttgart gehalten habe, einen Bericht geben, nicht so sehr einen wörtlichen Bericht, als vielmehr die Dinge, die in diesem Vortrage gesprochen worden sind, eben auch hier besprechen, um noch einzelne Bemerkungen daran zu knüpfen über die Stuttgarter Versammlung. Bei diesem zweiten Vortrage hat es sich darum gehandelt, die Gründe aufzuzeigen dafür, daß in einer solchen Gesellschaft wie der anthroposophischen, trotzdem es in ihr gerade nicht sein sollte, leicht auch das vorkommt, was in andern ähnlichen Gesellschaften eine wohlbekannte Tatsache für alle diejenigen ist, die mit der Geschichte solcher Gesellschaften bekannt sind, ich meine Gesellschaften, die auf einer gewissen geistigen Weltanschauung beruhen. Sie wissen ja, solche Gesellschaften hat es immer gegeben. Je nach den verschiedenen Zeitaltern der Menschheit waren sie gestaltet. In älteren Zeiten hat man eine andere Art des Bewußtseins gehabt, um in die geistigen Welten einzudringen, heute hat man wiederum eine andere. Und es handelt sich darum, daß in der Regel diejenigen, die sich zusammengeschlossen haben, um auf Grundlage einer höheren, übersinnlichen Einsicht eine Wissenschaft zu begründen, gewöhnlich, ja eigentlich immer unter ihre Grundsätze auch den aufgenommen haben, Brüderlichkeit unter den Mitgliedern zu entfalten. Sie wissen aber auch, und das wissen namentlich diejenigen gut, die mit der Geschichte solcher Gesellschaften bekannt sind, daß diese Brüderlichkeit leicht Brüche erfahren hat, ja, daß gerade in solchen auf geistigen Grundlagen errichteten Gesellschaften die stärksten Disharmonien, ja oft die schlimmsten Unbrüderlichkeiten sich entwickelt haben. Nun ist die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, wenn Anthroposophie richtig erfaßt wird, durchaus geschützt vor solcher Unbrüderlichkeit. Aber sie wird eben nicht immer richtig erfaßt. Sie kann aber vielleicht richtiger erfaßt werden, als das oftmals geschieht, wenn man, sich gerade über die Gründe dieser Unbrüderlichkeit ein wenig klar wird.

Betrachten wir dazu noch einmal die Dinge, die ich gestern Ihnen vor das Seelenauge geführt habe. Ich habe gesagt: Wir unterscheiden zunächst drei Bewußtseinsstufen, die eine ist die des wachen Tageslebens, dann haben wir das Traumbewußtsein und endlich den von Träumen nicht durchsetzten Schlaf. Der Mensch erlebt seine Traumbilder als eine Welt. Er ist auch in dem Augenblick des Träumens durchaus in der Lage, die Träume für Wirklichkeiten zu halten; für solche Wirklichkeiten hält er sie, wie eigentlich die Erscheinungen, die Tatsachen der physischen Welt, in der er sich wachend befindet. - Aber es ist doch eben, wie ich schon gestern gesagt habe, ein gewaltiger Unterschied zwischen den Traumerlebnissen und den Erlebnissen des Alltags vorhanden. Mit den Traumerlebnissen ist der Träumende isoliert. Ein anderer, sagte ich, kann neben ihm schlafen, hat andere Träume, kann also eine ganz andere Welt haben. Beide verständigen sich nicht während des Träumens über ihre jeweiligen Welten. Und wenn zehn Menschen in einem Raume schlafen, so kann jeder seine eigene Welt vor seinem Bewußtsein haben. Das ist schließlich für denjenigen, der gerade geisteswissenschaftlich in die oft ja wunderbare Welt der Träume eintauchen kann, gar nicht besonders verwunderlich, denn die Welt, in welcher der Mensch träumend lebt, ist auch eine wirkliche Welt. Nur hängt sie durch ihre Bilder mit denjenigen Dingen zusammen, die den Menschen als einzelne menschliche Persönlichkeit ganz allein angehen. Gewiß kleidet der Traum dasjenige, was in ihm erlebt wird, in die Bilder der physischen Welt; allein ich habe ja oftmals darauf aufmerksam gemacht: diese Bilder sind die Einkleidungen des Traumes. Die Wirklichkeit - und es steckt auch in dem Traum durchaus Wirklichkeit - ist eben doch eigentlich hinter diesen Bildern, für diese Wirklichkeit sind diese Bilder nur der oberflächliche Ausdruck.

Wer in geisteswissenschaftlichem Sinne sich an die Träume heranmacht, um ihre Bedeutung kennenzulernen, der sieht nicht auf die Bilder, sondern auf die hinter den Bildern ruhende Dramatik des Traumes. Dem einen können diese Träume vor Augen stehen, dem andern jene Träume, aber es findet sich zum Beispiel bei beiden Träumenden, sagen wir ein Aufstieg, ein Stehen vor einem Abgrund oder vor irgendeiner Gefahr, eine Lösung. Diese Dramatik, das ist das Wesentliche, das sich dann nur in die Bilder kleidet. Und was da als Traumdramatik auftritt, das wurzelt oftmals in lang vergangenen Erdenleben, oder es weist auch hin auf spätere Erdenleben. Dasjenige, was der sich fortziehende Schicksalsfaden im menschlichen Leben ist, vielleicht durch viele Erdenleben, das ist es, was in die Träume hineinspielt. Der Mensch hat es im Traume durchaus mit dem zu tun, was sein individueller Kern ist. Er ist ja auch außer dem Leibe mit seinem Ich und mit seinem astralischen Leibe; also er ist außer dem Leibe mit seinem Ich, das er von Erdenleben zu Erdenleben trägt, und er ist in seinem astralischen Leib, das heißt in derjenigen Welt, die miterleben kann die ganze Umgebung von Vorgängen und Wesen, in denen wir sind, bevor wir zur Erde herniedersteigen, und wiederum, wenn wir durch den Tod hindurchgegangen sind, um in einer übersinnlichen Welt zu leben.

Aber wir sind auch von unserem physischen Leib und von unserem Ätherleib im Schlafe isoliert. Die Träume kleiden sich erst in Bilder, wenn der astralische Leib an den Ätherleib anstößt oder ihn eben verläßt, also beim Aufwachen oder Einschlafen. Aber als Träume sind sie vorhanden, wenn der Mensch auch im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein keine Ahnung davon hat. Der Mensch träumt vom Abend bis zum Morgen während seines ganzen Schlafens. Da ist er immer beschäftigt mit dem, was eigentlich nur ihn angeht. Wenn der Mensch nun aufwacht, dann ist er in derjenigen Welt, in der er gemeinschaftlich mit seinen Mitmenschen ist. Da können nicht zehn Menschen in einem Zimmer sein und jeder im wesentlichen seine eigene Welt haben, sondern sie alle haben die Innenverhältnisse des Zimmers zu ihrer gemeinsamen Welt. Auf dem physischen Plane erleben zunächst die Menschen, die zusammen sind, ihre gemeinsame Welt. Und dann habe ich gestern darauf aufmerksam gemacht: es sei schon notwendig, daß eine Art Ruck des Bewußtseins, daß wieder ein Aufwachen stattfinde für diejenigen Welten, aus denen uns dann die wirklichen Erkenntnisse über die Übersinnlichkeiten kommen, jene Erkenntnisse, welche vom wahren Wesen des Menschen handeln und die ja gerade in der Anthroposophie zugänglich werden sollen. Wir haben also drei Stufen des Bewußtseins.

Nehmen wir aber jetzt den folgenden Fall an: Die Art des Bewußtseins in Bildern, die der schlafende Mensch mit vollem Rechte entwickelt, setzt sich fort in das gewöhnliche alltägliche Bewußtsein, in die physische Welt herein. Diese Fälle kommen vor. Durch krankhafte Vorgänge im menschlichen Organismus stellt der Mensch in der physischen Welt so vor, wie er sonst nur im Traume vorstellt: er lebt in Bildern, die nur ihm angehören. Es ist dies bei abnormen Geisteszuständen, wie man sie nennt, der Fall. Eigentlich sind es Zustände, die durch irgend etwas Krankhaftes im physischen oder im ätherischen Organismus hervorgerufen werden. Da kann sich der Mensch gewissermaßen von dem Erleben der äußeren Welt ausschließen wie sonst nur im Schlafe. Dafür aber steigen, durch seinen krankhaften Organismus veranlaßt, ähnliche Bilder in ihm empor, wie sie sonst nur im Traum vorkommen. Gewiß, von der, ich möchte sagen, läßlichsten Störung des normalen Seelenlebens des Menschen bis zu den Geisteskrankheiten haben wir ja alle Abstufungen. Aber was tritt dann ein, wenn der Mensch die Traumbewußtseinsverfassung hereinträgt in das gewöhnliche physische Erdenleben? Dann steht er neben seinem Nebenmenschen so, wie eben der Träumende neben seinem Nebenmenschen schläft. Dann isoliert er sich, dann hat er etwas in seinem Bewußtsein, das sein Nebenmensch nicht hat. Und dann tritt bei einem solchen Menschen, ohne daß er schließlich im hohen Maße dafür verantwortlich ist, ein besonderer Egoismus hervor. Er kennt nur das, was in seiner Seele lebt, er kennt nicht das, was in der Seele des andern lebt. Wir Menschen werden dadurch veranlaßt, miteinander zu leben, daß wir gemeinsame Sinnesempfindungen haben, über die wir uns dann wieder gemeinsame Gedanken machen. Wenn aber jemand das, was Seelenverfassung im Traume ist, herausbringt in das gewöhnliche Erdenleben, so isoliert er sich zum Egoismus, so geht er neben seinem Nebenmenschen hin und behauptet Dinge als wahr, die der andere eben nicht erlebt. Und Sie werden ja selbst schon im Leben erfahren haben, zu welchen Graden von Egoismus das verführt, wenn der Mensch das Traumleben in das gewöhnliche Alltagsleben hereinträgt.

Dieselbe Verirrung aber kann vorkommen, wenn der Mensch sich nun vereinigt mit andern Menschen, sagen wir in irgendeiner Gruppe, um anthroposophische Wahrheiten zu pflegen, und das nicht eintritt, was ich gestern charakterisiert habe: daß in solchen Gruppen die eine Seele an der andern erwacht zu einem gewissen höheren, wenn auch nicht Bewußtsein, so doch zu einem gewissen höheren Empfinden, zu einem intensiven höheren Erleben. Dann wird der Grad von Selbstsucht, den man in der physischen Welt mit Recht hat, hineingetragen in die Auffassung der geistigen Welt. Und geradeso wie jemand, der sein Traumbewußtsein hereinbringt in die physische Welt, ein Egoist wird in der physischen Welt, so wird man zwar in einem andern Grade, aber doch eben ein Egoist für die geistige Welt, in der Auffassung der geistigen Welt, wenn man die ganze Seelenstimmung, Seelenverfassung, die richtig ist für die physische Welt, hineinträgt in die Auffassung der höheren Welten.

Aber so geht es ja vielen Menschen. Sie interessieren sich aus einer gewissen Lebenssensation heraus dafür, daß der Mensch aus physischem Leib, Ätherleib, astralischem Leib und Ich besteht, daß er wiederholte Erdenleben hat, daß er ein Karma hat. Sie informieren sich darüber so, wie man sich über irgendeine Wahrheit oder eine Tatsache der physischen Welt informiert. Wir sehen ja, wie das alle Tage gerade heute geschieht in dem Kampfe, den man gegen Anthroposophie führt. Da kommen zum Beispiel die gewöhnlichen Wissenschafter und sagen: Anthroposophie soll geprüft werden durch die gewöhnliche Wissenschaft. Das wäre gerade so, als wenn man dasjenige, was in der physischen Welt vor sich geht, prüfen wollte an den Bildern des Traumes. Wie absurd wäre es, wenn jemand sagen würde: Daß hier so und so viele Menschen versammelt sind in diesem Zimmer, daß hier ein anthroposophischer Vortrag gehalten wird, das glaube ich erst dann, wenn es mir nachher geträumt hat. - Denken Sie, wie absurd das wäre! Aber ebenso absurd ist es, wenn jemand anthroposophische Wahrheiten hört und sagt, er glaube sie erst dann, wenn es ihm die gewöhnliche Wissenschaft, die nur auf dem physischen Plane Berechtigung hat, bewiesen hat. Man braucht nur ernsthaftig sachlich auf die Dinge einzugehen, so sind sie ja durchaus durchsichtig. Geradeso wie derjenige ein Egoist wird, der seine traumhaften Vorstellungen hereinträgt in die physische Welt, so isoliert sich in einem höheren Grade, sondert sich von den andern Menschen ab, will nur ganz sein Recht haben, wer nun die gewöhnliche Auffassung, die man über alle die Dinge von Mensch zu Mensch hat, hineinbewahrt in die Auffassung, die er haben sollte von der höheren Welt. Aber das machen eben schon die Menschen. Die meisten wollen ja sogar schon bei der Anthroposophie etwas Besonderes. Sie finden in ihrer Lebensauffassung dies oder jenes dort ihrem Gefühl, ihrem Empfinden entsprechend; das hätten sie gerne. Deshalb nehmen sie es als wahr an, und weil ihnen das in der physischen Welt nicht bewiesen wird, möchten sie es gerade von der Anthroposophie bewiesen haben.

Also es wird hineingetragen in die Auffassung der höheren Welten die Bewußtseinsverfassung der gewöhnlichen physischen Welt. Und dadurch entsteht, daß, wenn man auch noch so sehr Brüderlichkeit als Grundsatz hat, man da die Unbrüderlichkeit hineinträgt, geradeso wie sich derjenige, der in der physischen Welt träumt, recht unbrüderlich benehmen kann gegen seinen Nachbarn. Wenn dieser Nachbar vernünftig handelt, so kann er vielleicht aus seinen Traumbildern heraus zu ihm sagen: Du bist ein Dummkopf, ich weiß es besser. - So kann der, der aus den Prätentionen der physischen Welt an die Auffassung der höheren Welt herantritt, demjenigen, der sich mit ihm vereinigt hat, wenn er etwas anderes als Auffassung hat, sagen: Du bist ein Dummkopf oder ein schlechter Mensch - oder irgend etwas ähnliches. Es handelt sich eben durchaus darum, daß man eine andere Seelenverfassung, ein ganz anderes Denken und Empfinden gegenüber der geistigen Welt entwickeln muß. Dann hört auch die Unbrüderlichkeit auf, dann kann man schon Brüderlichkeit entfalten. Sie ist gerade durch das anthroposophische Wesen im höchsten Maße gegeben, aber man muß auch dieses anthroposophische Wesen ohne alle Sektiererei und dergleichen Dinge, die eigentlich nur aus der physischen Welt kommen, betrachten.

Wenn man die Gründe kennt, warum so leicht gerade in eine Gesellschaft, die auf geistigen Untergründen fußt, die Unbrüderlichkeit hineinkommen kann, so weiß man auch, wie man sie zu vermeiden hat, indem man sich eben wirklich darauf einläßt, seine Seele etwas umzustimmen, wenn man sich anschickt, mit andern Menschen zusammen die Erkenntnis von den höheren Welten zu pflegen. Und das ist auch der Grund, warum diejenigen, die sagen: Was ich da gesehen habe, das glaube ich erst dann, wenn es mir nachträglich geträumt hat - und welche der Anthroposophie gegenüber nach diesem Grundsatze handeln, warum diese schon die Sprache, in der die Anthroposophie gesprochen wird, anstößig finden. Wie viele Leute sagen, sie können die Sprache, in der die Anthroposophie dargeboten wird, namentlich in meinen Büchern, nicht vertragen! Ja, es handelt sich eben darum, daß nicht nur über anderes, sondern daß auch anders gesprochen werden muß, wenn man Erkenntnisse der übersinnlichen Welten darstellt. Das alles muß durchaus berücksichtigt werden. Wenn man tief durchdrungen ist davon, daß, um Anthroposophie zu verstehen, ein gewisser Ruck notwendig ist aus einer Lebenslage heraus in die andere, dann wird tatsächlich Anthroposophie so fruchtbar werden für das Leben, wie sie eben werden soll. Denn wenn auch Anthroposophie erlebt werden muß durch eine ganz andere Seelenverfassung, als es die gewöhnliche ist, dennoch wird dasjenige, was man aus der Anthroposophie heraus gewinnt für die ganze Formung der Seele, für die Eigenart der Seele, moralisch, religiös, künstlerisch, erkenntnismäßig wiederum in die physische Welt hereinwirken, so wie diese physische Welt in die Traumwelt hereinwirkt. Man muß nur die Stufe der Realitäten in richtiger Weise ins Auge fassen.

Im Traume brauchen wir nicht mit andern Menschen in einer besonderen Kommunikation, in einer besonderen Beziehung zu stehen, denn im Traume arbeiten wir im Grunde genommen an unserem fortströmenden Ich. Dasjenige, was wir hinter dem, was sich in Bildern im Traume darstellt, ausführen, das geht auch nur uns an. Im Traume arbeiten wir an unserem Karma. Irgend jemand mag dies oder jenes in den Bildern des Traumes vor sich haben, hinter diesen Bildern arbeitet seine Seele, sein Ich an dem Karma.

Hier in der physischen Welt arbeiten wir an dem, was in dem Menschengeschlechte lebt, das in physischen Leibern verkörpert ist. Wir müssen mit andern Menschen zusammenarbeiten, um an der gesamtmenschlichen Entwickelung das unsrige zu tun. In der geistigen Welt arbeiten wir mit denjenigen zusammen, die Wesen sind wie wir Menschen, nur daß sie nicht in einem physischen Leibe leben, sondern in geistigen Elementen, in geistigem Substantiellen leben. Es ist eben eine andere Welt, aus der die übersinnlichen Wahrheiten entnommen werden, und wir müssen uns jeder dieser Welten anpassen.

Das ist der Kern dessen, was ich in so vielen Vorträgen hier ausgesprochen habe, daß es sich nicht nur darum handelt, die Erkenntnisse der Anthroposophie aufzunehmen wie andere Erkenntnisse, sondern sie mit einer andern Empfindung aufzunehmen, vor allen Dingen mit der Empfindung, daß man durch sie einen solchen Ruck im Leben macht, wie sonst nur durch die Farben, die in das Auge hereinfließen, durch die Töne, die das Ohr hört, gegenüber den selbsterzeugten Bildern der Traumeswelt.

Geradeso wie jemand, der weiß, in einer Eisdecke ist da oder dort eine Stelle, durch die er einbrechen kann, wie der durch sein Wissen das Unglück vermeiden kann, so kann derjenige, der die Gefahr kennt, Egoismus auf einer höheren Stufe zu entwickeln gerade gegenüber den geistigen Wahrheiten, wenn man nicht mit der richtigen Seelenverfassung an sie herantritt, dasjenige vermeiden, was die Unbrüderlichkeit herbeiführt. Gegenüber geistigen Wahrheiten muß man fortwährend in einem höchsten Sinne dasjenige entwickeln, was im besten Sinne des Wortes als Toleranz bezeichnet werden kann. Toleranz gehört zum Verkehr mit solchen Menschen, die miteinander anthroposophische Geisteswissenschaft treiben wollen. Und wenn man von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus auf jene schöne Eigenschaft der menschlichen Toleranz sieht, so wird man zu gleicher Zeit gewahr werden, wie notwendig die Selbsterziehung zur Toleranz gerade in unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit ist. Ist es doch das Eigentümlichste in unserer Zeit, daß überhaupt kein Mensch mehr dem andern ordentlich zuhört! Kann man denn überhaupt noch einen Satz sprechen, ohne daß schon bei den ersten Worten der andere einem seine eigene Meinung sagt und Meinung gegen Meinung stehenbleibt? Das ist ja die heutige Zivilisation im Grunde genommen, daß keiner mehr zuhört, daß jedem nur seine eigene Meinung wert ist und daß er jeden andern für einen Toren hält, der nicht die Meinung hat, die er selber hat.

Aber, meine lieben Freunde, wenn ein Mensch eine Meinung äußert, und wenn wir sie noch so sehr für töricht halten, sie ist eine menschliche Meinung, und sie muß von uns entgegengenommen werden können, wir müssen sie anhören können. Ich möchte Ihnen etwas recht Paradoxes sagen: Wenn man aus der heutigen intellektualistischen Seelenverfassung heraus seine Seele gestimmt hat, dann weiß man immer, was gescheit ist. Jeder einzelne weiß immer, was gescheit ist. Ich sage nicht, daß es nicht gescheit ist, es ist meistens auch gescheit! Aber das geht doch nur bis zu einem gewissen Punkte. Bis zu diesem Punkte hin hält der Gescheite denjenigen, der noch nicht seine Meinung hat, eben für einen Dummkopf. Wir finden ja heute dieses Urteil außerordentlich häufig, und zwar für die gewöhnlichen Lebensverhältnisse mit Recht. Es ist ja manchmal für den Menschen, der sich ein gesundes Urteil über verschiedene Verhältnisse angeeignet hat, schrecklich, was manche Menschen für Torheiten sagen. Man kann dann den Leuten nicht verübeln, wenn sie die Sache auch töricht finden. Ja, schön, aber das geht nur bis zu einem gewissen Punkte. Man kann dann noch gescheiter werden als gescheit, man kann dann sich noch mehr aneignen. Namentlich kann man die Gescheitheit etwas färben lassen durch übersinnliche Einsichten. Da ist das Merkwürdige, daß dann das Interesse an der Torheit nicht abnimmt, sondern daß es wächst. Wenn man selbst etwas weise geworden ist, hat man es ganz gern - verzeihen Sie, daß ich den harten Ausdruck gebrauche -, wenn einem die Leute Dummheiten sagen. Man findet manchmal die Dummheiten sogar gescheiter als das, was die durchschnittsgescheiten Leute sagen, denn hinter den Torheiten steckt manchmal unendlich viel mehr Menschlichkeit als hinter den Durchschnittsgescheitheiten der durchschnittsgescheiten Menschen. Eigentlich fängt für eine wirklich immer tiefer dringende Einsicht in die Welt ein immer größer werdendes Interesse an für die menschliche Torheit. Denn diese Dinge sind ja für die verschiedenen Welten immer verschieden. Ein Mensch, der für einen gescheiten Menschen unserer gewöhnlichen physischen Welt ein Tor ist, der kann unter Umständen mit diesen Torheiten die Offenbarung sein für etwas, was Weisheiten in einer ganz andern Welt sind, die nur, ich möchte sagen, gebrochen und karikiert zum Vorschein kommen. Die Welt ist wirklich, wenn ich ein Wort Nietzsches gebrauchen darf, «tiefer als der Tag gedacht».

Solche Dinge müssen unserer Empfindungswelt zugrunde liegen, wenn die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, das heißt die Vereinigung derer, die Anthroposophie treiben, auf eine gesunde Grundlage gebracht werden soll. Dann wird der Mensch gerade dadurch, daß er weiß, man muß sich anders verhalten gegenüber der geistigen Welt als gegenüber der physischen Welt, das Richtige aus dieser geistigen Welt in die physische hereintragen. Er wird in der physischen Welt nicht ein Träumer werden, sondern gerade ein lebenspraktischer Mensch. Und das ist ja notwendig. Es ist wirklich notwendig, daß der Mensch nicht dadurch, daß er Anthroposoph ist, für die gewöhnliche physische Welt unbrauchbar werde. Das muß immer wieder und wieder betont werden. - Dies wollte ich in meinem zweiten der Stuttgarter Vorträge auseinandersetzen, damit eben von da aus manches Licht fallen könnte auf die Art und Weise, wie sich die einzelnen in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft angelegen sein lassen sollen die Pflege des richtigen anthroposophischen Lebens in dieser Gesellschaft. Denn was in dieser Gesellschaft leben muß, ist durchaus nicht bloß eine Erkenntnissache, es ist eine Herzenssache. Aber inwiefern es eine Herzenssache ist, das muß eben durchschaut werden.

Gewiß, man kann ja finden, daß einen die Lebensverhältnisse nötigen, seinen eigenen, einsamen Weg zu gehen. Den kann man auch gehen. Aber in Stuttgart haben wir halt verhandelt über die Lebensbedingungen der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, und so mußten diese eben einmal besprochen werden. Soll die Gesellschaft weiterbestehen, so muß bei denjenigen, die die Gesellschaft bilden wollen, unbedingt ein Interesse für die Lebensbedingungen dieser Gesellschaft vorhanden sein. Dann müssen aber auch diejenigen Dinge interessieren, die mit der täglich immer stärker werdenden Gegnerschaft gegen diese Gesellschaft zusammenhängen. Auch nach dieser Richtung mußte ich in Stuttgart einiges ausführen. Ich sagte, seit dem Jahre 1919 ist manches innerhalb dieser Gesellschaft begründet worden, das an sich gut ist, aber es ist nicht gelungen, die Dinge in der richtigen Weise in die gesamte anthroposophische Bewegung hineinzustellen, das heißt, sie zur gemeinsamen Sorge der Anthroposophen zu machen. Denen, die heute eintreten, darf kein Vorwurf gemacht werden, wenn sie gar kein Interesse haben an dem, was ohne sie seit dem Jahre 1919 begründet worden ist, und wenn sie bloß, wie das die Jugend zum Beispiel tut, eigentlich Anthroposophie an sich im engeren Sinne suchen. Aber die Gegnerschaft ist eigentlich im wesentlichen entwickelt worden an diesen neuen Begründungen. Gewiß, Gegnerschaft war auch schon früher da, aber man brauchte sich nicht um sie zu kümmern. Nun mußte ich in Anknüpfung an diese Erscheinungen über diese Gegner etwas sagen, was eigentlich gewußt werden sollte in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Meine lieben Freunde, ich habe Ihnen von den drei Phasen der anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gesprochen und habe darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie ja doch in der letzten, in der dritten Phase vom Jahre 1916, 1917 bis jetzt, in den Vorträgen eine ganze Menge anthroposophische Einsichten in die übersinnliche Welt an Sie herangekommen sind. Ja, das mußte alles herausgearbeitet werden, das erforderte ein wirkliches Forschen in der geistigen Welt. Wer unbefangen hinschaut, wird sehen, wieviel gegenüber Früherem gerade in den letzten Jahren aus der geistigen Welt herausgeholt und den Vorträgen einverleibt worden ist.

Nun sind unter den Gegnern ja gewiß unendlich viele, die eigentlich gar nicht wissen, warum sie Gegner sind, die es sind, weil sie eben Mitläufer mit andern sind, weil sie sich irgendwie für ihre Bequemlichkeit einen blauen Dunst vormachen lassen. Aber es sind immerhin einige führende Menschen unter diesen Gegnern, die ganz gut wissen, um was es sich handelt, die eben einfach ein Interesse daran haben, daß diese Wahrheiten über die geistige Welt, welche einzig und allein die Menschenwürde wirklich heben könnten, welche wiederum Friede über die Erde bringen werden, nicht ans Tageslicht treten, die diese Wahrheiten ausrotten möchten. Die andern laufen mit, aber einige wenige gibt es, die eben einfach nicht wollen, daß die anthroposophischen Einsichten in die Welt hineinkommen. Diese handeln ganz bewußt mit ihrer Gegnerschaft und mit der Gegnerschaft, die sie unter ihren Mitläufern anzetteln. Denn, was wollen diese? Sie wollen, wenn ich in diesem Falle von mir sprechen darf, daß ich so viel zu tun habe mit der Abwehr der Gegner, daß ich nicht zum eigentlichen anthroposophischen Forschen mehr kommen kann; denn zum anthroposophischen Forschen gehört eine gewisse Ruhe, eine gewisse innere Betätigung der Seele, die nichts zu tun hat mit dem, was man tun müßte, wenn man alle die zumeist törichten Gegnerschaften abwehren möchte.

Nun hat Herr Werbeck in seinem wirklich genialen Vortrage, den er in Stuttgart gehalten hat über die Gegnerschaften im allgemeinen, darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie viele Bücher allein auf theologischem Gebiete da sind. Ich glaube, ein Dutzend hat er angeführt oder noch mehr, es sind also so viele, daß wenn man sie alle nur lesen würde, man schon genug damit zu tun hätte. Und denken Sie sich: das alles zu widerlegen! Man würde gar nicht zu einem Forschen kommen. Und das ist nur auf einem Gebiete. Auf andern Gebieten sind zum mindesten ebensoviel oder noch mehr Bücher geschrieben worden. Man wird eben mit gegnerischen Schriften bombardiert, um abgehalten zu werden von der eigentlichen anthroposophischen Tätigkeit. Das ist System, das ist so gewollt. Aber man hat die Möglichkeit, wenn eben auf der andern Seite das Notwendige vorhanden ist, nun doch die Anthroposophie zu pflegen und diese gegnerischen Schriften beiseite zu schieben. Viele kenne ich nicht einmal dem Titel nach, aber diejenigen, die ich habe, stapele ich zumeist auf, denn es ist nicht möglich, zu gleicher Zeit wirklich wahre, echte Geistesforschung zu betreiben und sich mit dieser Gegnerschaft selber zu befassen. Nun, dann sagen die Gegner: Er antwortet nicht selbst. - Aber was da von den Gegnern vorgebracht wird, kann eben auch von andern beantwortet werden. Und da die Begründungen eben seit 1919 auf die Initiative von andern hin eigentlich entstanden sind, so ist es notwendig, daß auf diesem Gebiete eben die Gesellschaft ihre Verpflichtung übernimmt, daß tatsächlich der Kampf gegen die Gegner gewissermaßen von der Gesellschaft übernommen werde, sonst ist es nicht möglich, die anthroposophische Forschung wirklich aufrechtzuerhalten.

Das wollen ja gerade die Gegner. Am liebsten wäre es ihnen sogar, wenn sie Prozesse machen könnten - dazu zeigen sie überall die Absicht -, denn sie wissen, dadurch würde man genötigt, die ganze Seelenverfassung und Seelenstimmung auf ein Feld zu bringen, das die eigentliche anthroposophische Tätigkeit zerstört. Ja, meine lieben Freunde, die Gegner wissen eben zumeist sehr gut, was sie wollen, sie sind gut organisiert. Das ist es aber, was auch in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gewußt werden muß. Auf diese Dinge muß durchaus die nötige Aufmerksamkeit verwendet werden, dann führt sie schon auch zur Tat.

Ich habe Ihnen berichtet, inwiefern es in Stuttgart dazu gekommen ist, daß wiederum eine Zeitlang die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft wird arbeiten können. Aber es gab da einen Moment, in dem ich eigentlich hätte sagen müssen: Ich ziehe mich nunmehr, nachdem das vorgekommen ist, von der Gesellschaft zurück. - Es geht natürlich aus andern Gründen nicht, jetzt, nachdem eben die Gesellschaft das in sich aufgenommen hat, demgegenüber man sich nicht zurückziehen darf. Aber wenn es nur eben auf das angekommen wäre, was sich da in Stuttgart im Versammlungssaal entwickelt hat in dem einen Momente, dann wäre es voll berechtigt gewesen, demgegenüber zu sagen: Nun muß ich sehen, Anthroposophie auf eine andere Weise vor der Welt zu vertreten; ich muß mich von der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft zurückziehen. - Dieser Moment war in dem Augenblick gegeben, als das Folgende eintrat. Der Neunerausschuß hatte beschlossen, eine Anzahl von Referaten zu halten über die Tätigkeit innerhalb dieses oder jenes Gebietes in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Es sollte ein Referat gehalten werden über die Waldorfschule, über den «Bund für freies Geistesleben», über den «Kommenden Tag», über die Zeitschrift «Anthroposophie», über die Zeitschrift «Die Drei» und so weiter, auch Referate über die Gegnerschaften und namentlich die Behandlung der Gegnerschaften.

Nun hat ja Werbeck, der sich mit der Gegnerschaft befaßt hat, wie gesagt, über die Art und Weise, wie man literarisch die Gegnerschaft behandeln kann, einen genialen Vortrag gehalten. Jetzt mußte man aber erst noch auf die konkreten Dinge der Gegnerschaften eingehen. Und was geschah da? Gerade mitten in diesem Referieren über die Gegnerschaften wurde der Antrag gestellt, man wolle die Referate nicht mehr anhören, man wolle weiter diskutieren. Ohne eigentlich irgend etwas zu wissen, was geschehen ist in der Gesellschaft, wollte man weiter diskutieren. Man stellte also den Antrag, die Referate sollen abgesetzt werden, mitten drinnen im Referat über die Gegner! Der Antrag wurde angenommen.

Es stellte sich noch das Groteske heraus: Am Abend vorher hatte Dr. Stein über die Jugendbewegung das Referat zu halten gehabt. Dies war schon sehr spät am Abend. Herr Leinhas, welcher der Vorsitzende war, war wirklich in keiner beneidenswerten Lage, denn ich habe Ihnen schon vorgestern gesagt, er wurde förmlich bombardiert mit Geschäftsordnungsanträgen, die sich wiederum einkapselten. Wenn ein Geschäftsordnungsantrag gestellt war, so lief sofort ein anderer ein, und kein Mensch konnte überhaupt mehr übersehen, wie nun die Debatte geleitet werden sollte. Nun, diejenigen, die zu dieser Delegiertenversammlung gekommen waren, die waren nicht so dauerhaft im Sitzen, wie jene, die sie vorbereitet hatten. In Stuttgart ist man ja schon daran gewöhnt, wir haben schon Sitzungen gehabt, die bis sechs Uhr morgens gedauert haben, nachdem sie nicht viel später als um halb zehn oder zehn Uhr abends angefangen hatten. Aber wie gesagt, die Delegierten waren noch nicht trainiert auf diese Art. Und so war es schon spät geworden, bevor Dr. Stein sein Referat über die Jugendbewegung, über die Wünsche der Jugend halten sollte, und da war irgendein Irrtum entstanden, so daß man nicht recht wußte: hält er das Referat oder nicht - und da gingen eine Menge fort. Nun hielt er es aber. Und am nächsten Tag, als die wieder kamen, hörten die Leute, er habe das Referat gehalten, und sie waren nicht dabei gewesen. Es wurde nun der Antrag gestellt, er solle das Referat noch einmal halten. Es scheiterte daran, daß er nicht da war. Aber just als Dr.Stein kam, um sein Referat über die Gegner zu halten, da wurde die Sache so, daß sie nun sein Referat nicht nur nicht zweimal, sondern nicht einmal einmal hören wollten; es wurde ein entsprechender Antrag angenommen. Er hat dieses Referat dann später gehalten. Aber an dieses Referat hätte sich noch eine Besprechung der konkreten Gegnerschaft schließen müssen. Stein hatte zu meiner Überraschung ja nicht über die konkrete Gegnerschaft gesprochen, sondern er hat eine Art Metaphysik der anthroposophischen Gegnerschaft entwickelt, wodurch ja eigentlich die Sache nicht so recht anschaulich geworden war. Es war ein sehr geistreiches Referat, aber nicht über die Konkretheit der Gegner, sondern über die Metaphysik der Gegner. Und im Grunde genommen hat sich also dabei gezeigt, daß die ganze Gesellschaft - denn die Delegiertenversammlung repräsentierte die ganze Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in Deutschland — nichts wissen wollte von der Gegnerschaft!

Man kann das natürlich begreifen. Aber heute ist das so notwendig für die Erkenntnis der Lebensbedingungen der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, daß es eben jemand nicht ernst meint mit der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, wenn er es ablehnt, die Gegnerschaft kennenzulernen, wenn dazu die beste Gelegenheit gegeben wird. Und es hängt wirklich von der Art und Weise des Verhaltens der anthroposophischen Mitglieder gegenüber der mit jedem Tage intensiver werdenden Gegnerschaft alles ab für das Vertreten der Anthroposophie vor der Welt. Also war in diesem Momente für mich eigentlich die Notwendigkeit gegeben, aus der Versammlung heraus zu sagen: Da kann ich nun nicht mehr mitmachen, wenn einen gar nichts mehr interessiert als nur dasjenige, was man immer wieder und wiederum sagen kann mit den allgemeinen Worten «Menschlichkeit muß auf Menschlichkeit stoßen» und wie diese allgemeinen Worte eben sind. Sie sind ja auch in Stuttgart im ausgiebigsten Maße, man kann nicht sagen, diskutiert, sondern eben paraphrasiert worden oder irgend etwas ähnliches. Aber es geht natürlich nicht, daß man sich heute trennt von etwas, was eben nicht bloß in der Einbildung, sondern in der Realität besteht: daß man sich von dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft trennt! Und so ist es eben notwendig geworden, auch über solche Dinge hinwegzusehen und eben zu versuchen, den Modus zu finden, den ich Ihnen am Samstag geschildert habe: daß auf der einen Seite die alte Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in voller Realität fortlebt und auf der andern Seite eine lose Vereinigung besteht, die ja auch zu Gemeinschaftsbildungen in dem Sinne führen kann, wie ich sie gestern in ihren Bedingungen geschildert habe, und daß dann eben eine Art Bindeglied geschaffen werde für die Überbrückung des Gegensatzes, der da besteht.

Denn man muß sich gewiß durchaus klar darüber sein, daß Anthroposophie etwas Ewiges ist. Daher kann sie jeder Mensch in voller Einsamkeit studieren, dazu hat er auch das Recht; er braucht sich ja gar nicht für die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft zu interessieren. Es könnte ja vorkommen, und bis zum Jahre 1918 war durchaus die Möglichkeit gegeben, daß Anthroposophie nur verbreitet wird durch Literatur oder durch Vorträge, die sich an den richten, der sie eben hören will. Die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft bis zum Jahre 1918 war insofern ganz richtig ihrem Wesen entsprechend, weil sie jeden Tag aufhören konnte, ohne daß die Anthroposophie aufhörte. Diejenigen, die sich außerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft wahrhaft interessierten für Anthroposophie, konnten alles geradeso haben, wie sie es durch die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft haben konnten. Durch die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft war nur eine werktätige Zusammenarbeit und ein Erwachen einer Menschenseele an der andern gegeben. Aber aus demjenigen, was so gepflogen war, hat sich eben durch die Initiative dieser oder jener Persönlichkeiten innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft etwas herausentwickelt, was nun bindet, was da ist, was nicht jeden Tag aufgegeben werden kann. Und das muß von der alten Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft fortgepflegt werden. Deshalb kann einem die Art und Weise, wie das alte Komitee katalogisiert und bürokratisiert und sich überhaupt verhält, noch so unsympathisch sein: was es zu besorgen hat, das muß es eben besorgen. Dafür können keine andern eintreten. Es ist ein ganz blinder Glaube, wenn man meint, daß derjenige, der nur im allgemeinen Interesse hat für anthroposophisches Leben, so wie man es 1902 auch gehabt hat, daß der nun die Mitbesorgung aller dieser Dinge übernehmen kann. Damit muß man ja verwachsen sein. Das muß man kennengelernt haben in seinem Wesen.

Also diese alte Anthroposophische Gesellschaft muß fortbestehen, sie ist ja doch eben durchaus etwas Reales. Daneben aber haben diejenigen, die einfach Anthroposophie als solche wollen, ihr volles Recht, an die Anthroposophie heranzukommen. Für die ist nun jene lose Vereinigung geschaffen, von der ich Ihnen gestern gesprochen habe, die ihrerseits ihr Vertrauenskomitee hat, deren Namen ich Ihnen genannt habe. So daß wir diese zwei Vertrauenskomitees haben, und beide Vertrauenskomitees werden nach und nach engere Komitees bilden, die dann miteinander verhandeln, so daß die Gesellschaft doch eine Einheit bildet. Daß auch bei der loseren Vereinigung ein Interesse da sein kann für alles dasjenige, was aus der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft hervorgeht, das zeigte sich ja darin, daß gleich, und zwar gerade von den Jüngsten aus der Jugendbewegung heraus, aus der akademischen Jugendbewegung heraus der Antrag auf eine Neugründung gestellt worden ist, die also wieder da sein wird und als solche ihre volle Berechtigung hat. Es war, ich möchte sagen, sogar eine der allerberechtigtsten, intimst berechtigten Fragen der anthroposophischen Bewegung, Gesellschaft.

Ein Antrag war ja ganz besonders interessant, der da gestellt worden ist, der ging aus von den Schülern der obersten Klassen der Waldorfschule. Ich habe ihn selber verlesen, weil er mir geschickt worden war. Also die Schüler der obersten Klassen der Waldorfschule stellten ihrerseits einen Antrag, der etwa den folgenden Inhalt hat. Sie sagten: Wir haben uns jetzt nach den Grundsätzen, die in der Waldorfschule sind, entwickelt. Das nächste Jahr ist nun dasjenige, wo wir zum Abiturium kommen sollen. Vielleicht werden wir schon deshalb das Abiturium nicht machen können, weil uns Schwierigkeiten erwachsen werden. Aber jedenfalls, wenn wir nun nach den richtigen Grundsätzen in der Waldorfschule erzogen werden und sollen jetzt an eine gewöhnliche Hochschule kommen, wie wird es uns denn da ergehen? - Und da haben die Waldorfschüler schon in einer ganz netten Weise diese Hochschule charakterisiert und daher den Antrag gestellt, daß man eine freie Hochschule begründen soll, an der man nun studieren kann, wenn man Waldorfschüler gewesen ist.

Es ist ganz gescheit, es ist ganz berechtigt. Der Antrag wurde auch gleich von den Vertretern der akademischen Jugendbewegung aufgenommen, und es ist sogar schon eine - bei der jetzigen Valuta bedeutet es freilich nicht viel -, aber immerhin eine ganz erkleckliche Summe von, ich glaube, 25 Millionen Mark zustande gekommen als Grundkapital für die Begründung einer solchen freien Hochschule. Mit 25 Millionen Mark kann man heute natürlich keine Hochschule begründen, aber wenn sich ein Amerikaner finden würde, um eine solche Hochschule zu begründen, mit vielleicht einer Milliarde oder noch mehr, dann könnte man ja anfangen. Anders ginge es ja natürlich nicht, und das würde vielleicht auch noch zu wenig sein, ich kann es jetzt nicht gleich überschlagen. Aber wenn die Möglichkeit dazu gegeben würde, dann wäre erst recht eine Verlegenheit da, eine furchtbare Verlegenheit, selbst wenn Aussicht vorhanden wäre, daß die Doktordiplome und die Prüfungen anerkannt würden, nämlich diese: Soll ich nun diese Hochschule besetzen mit der Waldorflehrerschaft? Mit den einzelnen Mitgliedern unserer Forschungsinstitute? Das ginge ja allenfalls. Aber dann hätten wir keine Waldorfschule und keine Forschungsinstitute! Denn durch die besondere Art, wie die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft sich in den letzten Jahren entfaltet hat, sind ja diejenigen Menschen, die, ich möchte sagen, gut in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sein könnten, eher abgehalten worden. Heute ist es schon wirklich ein unglaublich schweres Problem, wenn ein neuer Waldorflehrer bei Begründung einer Waldorfschulklasse angestellt werden soll, einen solchen innerhalb der Reihe der Anthroposophen zu finden. Denn es ist schon etwas daran, daß, trotzdem wir glänzende Kongresse und alles mögliche gehabt haben, vielfach das Verhalten in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft so war, daß die Leute gesagt haben: Anthroposophie gefällt uns ganz gut, aber in die Gesellschaft wollen wir nicht eintreten.

Und daran muß zunächst gearbeitet werden, die Gesellschaft wiederum zur Geltung zu bringen, denn es sind viele Menschen in der Welt, die prädestiniert sind, Anthroposophie zu dem wichtigsten Inhalt ihres Herzens und ihrer ganzen Seele zu machen. Aber die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft muß das Nötige dazu tun. So daß also, wenn man einer solchen Sache gegenübersteht, es sich sofort klar zeigt: Angefangen muß zunächst jetzt werden mit etwas ganz anderem, angefangen muß zunächst werden damit, wirklich Anthroposophie vor die Welt hinzutragen, so daß die Menschheit kennenlernt die Anthroposophie.

Unsere Gegner tragen sie als Karikatur vor die Welt hin. Da wird sehr stark gearbeitet. Überall ist auch das, was in den Zyklen steht, in die Schriften der Gegner hineingeheimnißt. Und jetzt gibt es ja Leihbibliotheken, wo sie ausgeliehen werden können, die Zyklen und so weiter! Die alte Art, über die Dinge zu denken, ist heute nicht mehr tunlich. Es gibt durchaus Antiquariate, die Einrichtungen haben, daß man gegen ein Entgelt Zyklen ausborgen kann. Die kann jeder lesen, das ist nun schon so. Man kennt ja auch gar nicht die Bedingungen unseres gegenwärtigen sozialen Lebens, wenn man glaubt, daß man ewig solche Dinge sekretieren kann. Das kann man eben in der Gegenwart nicht mehr. In dieser Beziehung ist unser Zeitalter tatsächlich auch geistig demokratisch geworden. Das muß wieder verstanden werden, daß Anthroposophie eben vor die Welt hingetragen werden soll. Das lebt nun tatsächlich in dieser losen Vereinigung.

Die Menschen, die sich dort zusammengefunden haben, haben von vornherein das Bestreben, die Anthroposophie in der breitesten Weise vor die Welt hinzutragen. Ich weiß ganz gut, daß dadurch wiederum allerlei neue Kanäle geschaffen werden, um das, was man glaubt, in der Gesellschaft halten zu können, eben aus der Gesellschaft hinauszuliefern. Aber man muß sich den Notwendigkeiten der Zeit fügen. Und man muß als Anthroposoph ein aufmerksames Seelenauge haben können auf das, was die Zeit fordert. Deshalb ist es so, daß Anthroposophie gerade jetzt so angesehen werden muß, daß sie Lebensinhalt werden kann, wie ich das ja auch gestern angedeutet habe.

Nun, meine lieben Freunde, wie gesagt, es ist der Versuch gemacht worden, mit diesen zwei Strömungen in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in einer loseren Bindung zueinander zu stehen, und ich hoffe, daß damit wiederum, wenn es richtig verstanden wird, wenn es richtig gehandhabt wird, sich eine Zeitlang leben läßt, wahrscheinlich eine gar nicht sehr lange Zeit, darüber gebe ich mich keinen Illusionen hin. Dann wird ja natürlich wieder etwas anderes gemacht werden müssen.

Aber ich habe ja damals gesagt, als ich nach Stuttgart reist zu dieser Generalversammlung der Deutschen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, daß es notwendig wäre, weil die Anthroposophie von Deutschland ausgegangen ist und die Welt das auch weiß und akzeptiert hat, daß zunächst innerhalb der Deutschen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft eine gewisse Ordnung geschaffen werde, daß aber dann dies der Ausgangspunkt sein soll für das Ordnung-Schaffen auch außerhalb. Ich stelle mir allerdings vor, daß die Anthroposophischen Gesellschaften in den verschiedensten Sprachgebieten, die ja überall vorhanden sind, sich nun auch veranlaßt sehen werden, in einem ähnlichen oder in einem andern Sinne etwas zur Konsolidierung der Gesellschaft zu tun, so daß tatsächlich überall der Versuch gemacht wird, die Lebensbedingungen dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft so zu gestalten, daß Anthroposophie der Welt das werden kann, was sie werden soll.

Tenth Lecture

I would now like to report on the second of the lectures I gave in Stuttgart, not so much as a verbatim report, but rather to discuss the things that were said in this lecture here as well, in order to add a few comments about the Stuttgart meeting. This second lecture was about pointing out the reasons why, in a society such as the anthroposophical one, even though it should not be the case, something easily occurs that is a well-known fact in other similar societies for all those who are familiar with the history of such societies, that is, societies based on a certain spiritual worldview. As you know, such societies have always existed. They were shaped according to the different ages of humanity. In earlier times, people had a different kind of consciousness for penetrating the spiritual worlds; today they have another. And the point is that, as a rule, those who have joined together to establish a science based on a higher, supersensible insight have usually, indeed always, included among their principles the development of brotherhood among their members. But you also know, and those who are familiar with the history of such societies know this particularly well, that this brotherhood has easily been broken, and that it is precisely in such societies, founded on spiritual principles, that the strongest disharmonies, and often the worst forms of unbrotherliness, have developed. Now, if anthroposophy is correctly understood, the Anthroposophical Society is completely protected from such unbrotherly behavior. But it is not always correctly understood. However, it can perhaps be understood more correctly than is often the case if one becomes a little clearer about the reasons for this unbrotherly behavior.

Let us once again consider the things I presented to your mind's eye yesterday. I said: We initially distinguish between three levels of consciousness, one is that of waking daily life, then we have dream consciousness, and finally sleep that is not interspersed with dreams. Human beings experience their dream images as a world. At the moment of dreaming, they are quite capable of taking their dreams for reality; they take them for reality in the same way as they take the phenomena and facts of the physical world in which they find themselves when awake. But, as I said yesterday, there is a huge difference between dream experiences and everyday experiences. In dream experiences, the dreamer is isolated. Someone else, I said, may be sleeping next to him, having different dreams, and thus may have a completely different world. The two do not communicate about their respective worlds while dreaming. And if ten people are sleeping in one room, each may have his own world before his consciousness. Ultimately, this is not particularly surprising for those who can immerse themselves in the often wonderful world of dreams through spiritual science, because the world in which people live while dreaming is also a real world. However, through its images, it is connected to those things that concern people as individual human personalities. Certainly, dreams clothe what is experienced in them in the images of the physical world; but I have often pointed out that these images are the clothing of dreams. Reality—and there is certainly reality in dreams—is actually behind these images; these images are only the superficial expression of this reality.

Those who approach dreams in a spiritual scientific sense in order to understand their meaning do not look at the images, but at the drama of the dream that lies behind the images. One person may see these dreams, another may see those dreams, but both dreamers will find, for example, an ascent, standing before an abyss or some kind of danger, a solution. This drama is the essence, which is then only clothed in images. And what appears as dream drama is often rooted in long-past earthly lives, or it also points to later earthly lives. What is the thread of fate that runs through human life, perhaps through many earthly lives, is what plays into dreams. In dreams, human beings are definitely dealing with what is their individual core. They are also outside their bodies with their ego and their astral body; that is, they are outside the body with their ego, which they carry from one earthly life to the next, and they are in their astral body, that is, in the world that can witness the whole environment of events and beings in which we are before we descend to earth, and again when we have passed through death to live in a supersensible world.

But we are also isolated from our physical body and our etheric body during sleep. Dreams only take on images when the astral body touches the etheric body or leaves it, that is, when we wake up or fall asleep. But as dreams, they are present even though the human being has no idea of them in ordinary consciousness. Humans dream from evening to morning throughout their sleep. They are always preoccupied with what actually concerns only them. When humans wake up, they are in the world in which they are in community with their fellow human beings. Ten people cannot be in one room and each have their own world, but they all have the internal conditions of the room as their common world. On the physical plane, people who are together initially experience their shared world. And then yesterday I pointed out that it is necessary for there to be a kind of jolt of consciousness, a reawakening to those worlds from which we then receive real insights into the supersensible, those insights that deal with the true nature of the human being and which are to be made accessible precisely through anthroposophy. So we have three stages of consciousness.

But let us now assume the following case: the kind of consciousness in images that the sleeping human being rightly develops continues into ordinary everyday consciousness, into the physical world. Such cases do occur. Due to pathological processes in the human organism, the human being imagines in the physical world what he otherwise only imagines in dreams: he lives in images that belong only to him. This is the case with what are called abnormal states of mind. Actually, these are states caused by something pathological in the physical or etheric organism. In this way, people can, in a sense, exclude themselves from experiencing the outer world, as they otherwise only do in sleep. Instead, due to their pathological organism, similar images arise in them as those that otherwise only occur in dreams. Certainly, we have all degrees of disturbance, from what I would call the most slight disturbance of the normal soul life of human beings to mental illness. But what happens when a person carries the dream state of consciousness into ordinary physical life on earth? Then he stands next to his fellow human beings just as the dreamer sleeps next to his fellow human beings. Then he isolates himself, then he has something in his consciousness that his fellow human beings do not have. And then, without the person ultimately being responsible for it to any great extent, a particular kind of egoism emerges in such a person. They know only what lives in their own soul; they do not know what lives in the soul of another. We humans are led to live together by the fact that we have common sensory perceptions, about which we then form common thoughts. But when someone brings what is the state of the soul in dreams into ordinary earthly life, they isolate themselves into egoism, they walk beside their fellow human beings and assert things as true that the other person does not experience. And you will have already experienced in your own lives the degree of egoism to which this can lead when people carry their dream life into their ordinary everyday lives.

The same aberration can occur when people unite with others, say in a group, to cultivate anthroposophical truths, and what I characterized yesterday does not happen: that in such groups, one soul awakens in another to a certain higher, if not consciousness, then at least a certain higher feeling, an intense higher experience. Then the degree of selfishness that one rightly has in the physical world is carried over into the conception of the spiritual world. And just as someone who brings his dream consciousness into the physical world becomes an egoist in the physical world, so one becomes, albeit to a different degree, but still an egoist for the spiritual world, in the conception of the spiritual world, if one carries the whole soul mood, soul state, which is right for the physical world, into the conception of the higher worlds.

But this is how it is for many people. Out of a certain sensation of life, they are interested in the fact that human beings consist of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, and an ego, that they have repeated earthly lives, that they have karma. They inform themselves about this in the same way that one informs oneself about any truth or fact of the physical world. We see how this happens every day, especially today, in the battle being waged against anthroposophy. For example, ordinary scientists come along and say: anthroposophy should be tested by ordinary science. That would be like trying to test what is happening in the physical world using images from dreams. How absurd it would be if someone were to say: I will only believe that so many people are gathered here in this room, that an anthroposophical lecture is being given here, when I have dreamed about it afterwards. Think how absurd that would be! But it is just as absurd when someone hears anthroposophical truths and says that they will only believe them when they have been proven by ordinary science, which is only valid on the physical plane. One only needs to approach things seriously and objectively, and they become completely transparent. Just as someone who brings their dreamlike ideas into the physical world becomes an egoist, so too does someone who preserves the ordinary view that people have of all things in their view of the higher world isolate themselves to a greater degree, separate themselves from other people, and want only to be completely right. But that is precisely what people do. Most people even want something special from anthroposophy. In their view of life, they find this or that there according to their feelings and sensibilities; that is what they would like to have. Therefore, they accept it as true, and because it is not proven to them in the physical world, they want it to be proven to them by anthroposophy.

So the state of consciousness of the ordinary physical world is carried into the conception of the higher worlds. And this results in the fact that, even if one has brotherhood as a principle, one carries unbrotherliness into it, just as someone who dreams in the physical world can behave quite unbrotherly toward his neighbor. If this neighbor acts reasonably, he may say to him from his dream images: You are a fool, I know better. - In the same way, those who approach the conception of the higher world from the pretensions of the physical world may say to those who have united with them, if they have a different conception: You are a fool or a bad person — or something similar. It is precisely a matter of developing a different state of mind, a completely different way of thinking and feeling toward the spiritual world. Then unbrotherliness ceases, and brotherliness can unfold. It is given to the highest degree precisely through the anthroposophical nature, but one must also view this anthroposophical nature without any sectarianism or similar things, which actually come only from the physical world.

If one knows the reasons why unbrotherhood can so easily enter a society based on spiritual foundations, one also knows how to avoid it by really allowing oneself to change one's soul somewhat when one sets out to cultivate the knowledge of the higher worlds together with other people. And that is also the reason why those who say, “I will only believe what I have seen there when I have dreamed it afterwards” — and who act according to this principle in relation to anthroposophy — find even the language in which anthroposophy is spoken offensive. How many people say they cannot tolerate the language in which anthroposophy is presented, especially in my books! Yes, the point is that when presenting insights from the supersensible worlds, one must not only speak about different things, but also speak differently. All this must be taken into account. If one is deeply convinced that in order to understand anthroposophy, a certain leap is necessary from one life situation to another, then anthroposophy will indeed become as fruitful for life as it should be. For even though anthroposophy must be experienced through a state of mind that is quite different from the ordinary one, what one gains from anthroposophy will in turn have an effect on the entire formation of the soul, on the soul's individual character, morally, religiously, artistically, and cognitively, just as this physical world has an effect on the dream world. One must only consider the level of realities in the right way.

In dreams, we do not need to be in special communication or in a special relationship with other people, because in dreams we are basically working on our continuing ego. What we do behind what is presented in images in dreams concerns only us. In dreams, we work on our karma. Someone may have this or that in the images of their dream, but behind these images, their soul, their ego, is working on their karma.

Here in the physical world, we work on what lives in the human race, which is embodied in physical bodies. We must work together with other people in order to do our part in the overall development of humanity. In the spiritual world, we work together with those who are beings like us humans, except that they do not live in a physical body, but in spiritual elements, in spiritual substance. It is simply a different world from which the supersensible truths are taken, and we must adapt ourselves to each of these worlds.

This is the core of what I have expressed in so many lectures here, that it is not just a matter of taking in the insights of anthroposophy like other insights, but of taking them in with a different feeling, above all with the feeling that through them one makes such a leap in life as one otherwise only makes through the colors that flow into the eye, through the sounds that the ear hears, as opposed to the self-generated images of the dream world.

Just as someone who knows that there is a spot here or there in a sheet of ice where they can break through, can avoid misfortune through their knowledge, so too can those who are aware of the danger develop egoism on a higher level, especially in relation to spiritual truths, if one does not approach them with the right state of mind, avoid what leads to unbrotherhood. In relation to spiritual truths, one must continually develop, in the highest sense, what can be described in the best sense of the word as tolerance. Tolerance is part of interacting with people who want to engage in anthroposophical spiritual science together. And when we look at this beautiful quality of human tolerance from this point of view, we will at the same time realize how necessary it is to educate ourselves to be tolerant, especially in our present time. For the most peculiar thing about our time is that no one listens properly to anyone else anymore! Is it even possible to say a sentence without the other person expressing their own opinion at the very first words, and opinions remaining at odds? That is basically what today's civilization is like: no one listens anymore, everyone values only their own opinion, and everyone else who does not share their opinion is considered a fool.

But, my dear friends, when a person expresses an opinion, no matter how foolish we may consider it, it is a human opinion, and we must be able to accept it; we must be able to listen to it. I would like to say something quite paradoxical to you: when you have attuned your soul to today's intellectualistic state of mind, you always know what is sensible. Every single person always knows what is sensible. I am not saying that it is not sensible; most of the time it is sensible! But that only goes so far. Up to that point, the sensible person considers those who do not yet have an opinion to be fools. We find this judgment extremely common today, and rightly so for ordinary circumstances. Sometimes it is terrible for people who have acquired a sound judgment of various circumstances to hear the foolish things that some people say. One cannot blame people for finding such things foolish. Yes, fine, but that only goes so far. One can then become even smarter than smart, one can then acquire even more. In particular, one can allow one's intelligence to be colored somewhat by supernatural insights. The strange thing is that one's interest in foolishness does not diminish, but rather grows. When you yourself have become somewhat wise, you quite enjoy – forgive me for using such a harsh expression – when people say stupid things to you. Sometimes you even find stupidity smarter than what average-intelligence people say, because there is sometimes infinitely more humanity behind foolishness than behind the average intelligence of average-intelligence people. Actually, a truly deeper and deeper insight into the world is accompanied by an ever-increasing interest in human foolishness. For these things are always different for the different worlds. A person who is foolish to an intelligent person in our ordinary physical world may, under certain circumstances, be the revelation of something that is wisdom in a completely different world, which only comes to light, I would say, in a broken and caricatured form. The world is truly, if I may use a word of Nietzsche's, “deeper than the day thought.”

Such things must underlie our world of feeling if the Anthroposophical Society, that is, the association of those who practice anthroposophy, is to be placed on a healthy foundation. Then, precisely because they know that one must behave differently toward the spiritual world than toward the physical world, human beings will bring the right things from this spiritual world into the physical world. They will not become dreamers in the physical world, but rather practical people. And that is necessary. It is really necessary that people do not become useless to the ordinary physical world because they are anthroposophists. This must be emphasized again and again. I wanted to discuss this in my second Stuttgart lecture, so that some light might be shed on the way in which individuals in the Anthroposophical Society should concern themselves with cultivating the right anthroposophical life in this society. For what must live in this society is by no means merely a matter of knowledge; it is a matter of the heart. But to what extent it is a matter of the heart must be understood.

Certainly, one may find that life circumstances necessitate going one's own solitary path. One can do that. But in Stuttgart we discussed the living conditions of the Anthroposophical Society, and so these had to be discussed. If the Society is to continue to exist, those who want to form the Society must have an interest in the living conditions of this Society. But then they must also be interested in those things that are connected with the daily increasing opposition to this Society. I also had to explain a few things in this direction in Stuttgart. I said that since 1919, many things have been established within this Society that are good in themselves, but it has not been possible to place these things in the right way within the entire anthroposophical movement, that is, to make them a common concern of anthroposophists. Those who join today cannot be blamed if they have no interest in what has been established without them since 1919, and if they are simply seeking anthroposophy in the narrower sense, as young people do, for example. But opposition has actually developed mainly in response to these new foundations. Certainly, opposition existed before, but it was not necessary to concern oneself with it. Now, in connection with these developments, I felt compelled to say something about these opponents that should actually be known within the Anthroposophical Society. My dear friends, I have spoken to you about the three phases of the Anthroposophical Society and have pointed out how, in the last, third phase from 1916, 1917 until now, a whole host of anthroposophical insights into the supersensible world have come to you in the lectures. Yes, all of this had to be worked out; it required real research into the spiritual world. Anyone who looks at it with an open mind will see how much has been brought out of the spiritual world and incorporated into the lectures in recent years, especially compared to earlier times.

Now, among the opponents, there are certainly countless people who do not really know why they are opponents, who are opponents simply because they follow others, because they allow themselves to be deluded for the sake of convenience. But there are also some leading figures among these opponents who know very well what is at stake, who simply have an interest in ensuring that these truths about the spiritual world, which alone could truly elevate human dignity and bring peace to the earth, do not come to light, who would like to eradicate these truths. The others go along with them, but there are a few who simply do not want anthroposophical insights to enter the world. They act quite consciously with their opposition and with the opposition they instigate among their followers. For what do they want? They want, if I may speak for myself in this case, me to be so busy defending myself against opponents that I can no longer engage in actual anthroposophical research; for anthroposophical research requires a certain calm, a certain inner activity of the soul that has nothing to do with what one would have to do if one wanted to ward off all the mostly foolish opposition.

Now, in his truly brilliant lecture on opponents in general, which he gave in Stuttgart, Mr. Werbeck drew attention to how many books there are in the field of theology alone. I believe he cited a dozen or more, so there are so many that if one were to read them all, one would have enough to do. And just imagine: refuting all of that! One would never get around to doing any research. And that is only in one field. In other fields, at least as many or even more books have been written. One is bombarded with opposing writings in order to be deterred from actual anthroposophical activity. This is systematic, it is intentional. But if the necessary resources are available on the other side, it is possible to cultivate anthroposophy and push these opposing writings aside. I don't even know many of them by title, but I usually stack up the ones I have, because it is not possible to engage in truly genuine spiritual research and deal with this opposition at the same time. Well, then the opponents say: He does not answer himself. But what is put forward by the opponents can also be answered by others. And since the justifications have actually arisen since 1919 on the initiative of others, it is necessary that the Society take on its obligation in this area, that the fight against the opponents be taken over by the Society, so to speak, otherwise it is not possible to really maintain anthroposophical research.

That is precisely what the opponents want. They would even prefer to take legal action — they are showing their intention to do so everywhere — because they know that this would force us to bring our entire state of mind and mood into a field that would destroy the actual anthroposophical activity. Yes, my dear friends, the opponents usually know very well what they want; they are well organized. But that is what must also be known in the Anthroposophical Society. The necessary attention must be paid to these things, then they will lead to action.

I have told you how it came about in Stuttgart that the Anthroposophical Society will be able to work again for a while. But there was a moment when I should actually have said: Now that this has happened, I am withdrawing from the Society. Of course, for other reasons, it is not possible now, after the Society has taken this in, to withdraw from it. But if it had only been a matter of what developed in the assembly hall in Stuttgart at that moment, then it would have been entirely justified to say: Now I must find another way to represent anthroposophy to the world; I must withdraw from the Anthroposophical Society. That moment came when the following occurred. The Committee of Nine had decided to give a number of presentations on the activities within this or that area of the Anthroposophical Society. A lecture was to be given on the Waldorf School, on the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for Free Spiritual Life), on the “Kommender Tag” (The Coming Day), on the magazine “Anthroposophie,” on the magazine “Die Drei” (The Three), and so on, as well as lectures on the opponents and, in particular, the treatment of the opponents.

Now, as I said, Werbeck, who has dealt with the opposition, gave a brilliant lecture on the way in which the opposition can be dealt with in literature. But now it was necessary to go into the concrete details of the opposition. And what happened? Right in the middle of this presentation on the opposition, a motion was made to stop listening to the presentations and continue the discussion. Without actually knowing anything about what had happened in society, people wanted to continue the discussion. So a motion was made to stop the presentations, right in the middle of the presentation on the opposition! The motion was accepted.

It turned out to be even more bizarre: the evening before, Dr. Stein had been scheduled to give a presentation on the youth movement. It was already very late in the evening. Mr. Leinhas, who was the chairman, was really in an unenviable position, because, as I told you the day before yesterday, he was literally bombarded with procedural motions, which in turn became encapsulated. When one procedural motion was made, another immediately followed, and no one could even see how the debate should now be conducted. Well, those who had come to this delegates' meeting were not as persistent in sitting as those who had prepared it. In Stuttgart, we are already used to this; we have had meetings that lasted until six in the morning, after starting not much later than half past nine or ten in the evening. But as I said, the delegates were not yet trained in this way. And so it was already late before Dr. Stein was to give his presentation on the youth movement and the wishes of young people, and some kind of misunderstanding had arisen, so that no one really knew whether he would give the presentation or not – and a lot of people left. But then he did give it. And the next day, when they came back, people heard that he had given the presentation and that they had not been there. A motion was then made that he should give the lecture again. It failed because he was not there. But just as Dr. Stein arrived to give his lecture on the opponents, the situation arose that they now did not want to hear his lecture not only twice, but not even once; a corresponding motion was accepted. He then gave this lecture later. But this presentation should have been followed by a discussion of the specific opposition. To my surprise, Stein did not talk about the specific opposition, but developed a kind of metaphysics of anthroposophical opposition, which did not really make the matter very clear. It was a very witty lecture, but not about the specifics of the opponents, but about the metaphysics of the opponents. And basically, it showed that the whole society — because the delegates' meeting represented the entire Anthroposophical Society in Germany — did not want to know anything about the opposition!

This is understandable, of course. But today it is so necessary for understanding the conditions of life of the Anthroposophical Society that anyone who refuses to get to know the opposition when given the best opportunity to do so is not serious about the Anthroposophical Society. And everything really depends on the way anthroposophical members behave toward the opposition, which is becoming more intense every day, in order to represent anthroposophy to the world. So at that moment, I felt it was necessary to say from the assembly: I can no longer participate in this if the only thing that interests anyone is what can be said over and over again in general terms: “Humanity must meet humanity,” and how general these words are. They have also been discussed extensively in Stuttgart, although one cannot say discussed, but rather paraphrased or something similar. But of course it is not possible today to separate oneself from something that exists not only in the imagination but in reality: to separate oneself from this Anthroposophical Society! And so it has become necessary to look beyond such things and try to find the mode that I described to you on Saturday: that on the one hand, the old Anthroposophical Society continues to exist in full reality, and on the other hand, there is a loose association that can also lead to the formation of communities in the sense I described yesterday in terms of its conditions, and that then a kind of link is created to bridge the contradiction that exists.

For we must be absolutely clear that anthroposophy is something eternal. Therefore, every person can study it in complete solitude, and they have the right to do so; they do not need to be interested in the Anthroposophical Society at all. It could happen, and until 1918 it was entirely possible, that anthroposophy would only be disseminated through literature or through lectures addressed to those who wanted to hear them. Until 1918, the Anthroposophical Society was entirely true to its nature in that it could have ceased to exist at any time without anthroposophy ceasing to exist. Those outside the Anthroposophical Society who were genuinely interested in anthroposophy could have everything just as they could have had through the Anthroposophical Society. The Anthroposophical Society provided only a working collaboration and an awakening of one human soul to another. But from what was customary, something has developed through the initiative of this or that personality within the Anthroposophical Society, something that now binds, that is there, that cannot be given up every day. And this must be maintained by the old Anthroposophical Society. That is why, however unsympathetic one may find the way in which the old committee catalogs and bureaucratizes and behaves in general, it must do what it has to do. No one else can do it. It is a completely blind faith to think that someone who is only interested in anthroposophical life in general, as was the case in 1902, can now take on the responsibility of all these things. You have to have grown into it. You have to have gotten to know it in its essence.

So this old Anthroposophical Society must continue to exist, for it is indeed something very real. But alongside it, those who simply want anthroposophy as such have every right to approach anthroposophy. For them, the loose association I told you about yesterday has now been created, which in turn has its own committee of trust, whose names I have given you. So we have these two committees of trust, and both committees of trust will gradually form closer committees, which will then negotiate with each other, so that the Society still forms a unity. The fact that even in the looser association there can be an interest in everything that comes out of the Anthroposophical Society was demonstrated by the fact that immediately, and precisely from the youngest members of the youth movement, from the academic youth movement, a motion was made for a new foundation, which will therefore be there again and as such has its full justification. I would say that it was even one of the most justified, most intimately justified questions of the anthroposophical movement, the Society.

One motion that was submitted was particularly interesting. It came from the students in the upper grades of the Waldorf School. I read it out myself because it had been sent to me. The students in the upper grades of the Waldorf School submitted a motion with the following content. They said: We have now developed according to the principles of the Waldorf School. Next year is the year in which we are supposed to take our Abitur exams. Perhaps we will not be able to take the Abitur exams because we will encounter difficulties. But in any case, if we are now being educated according to the correct principles of the Waldorf school and are now supposed to go to a regular university, how will we fare there? – And so the Waldorf students have already characterized this university in a very nice way and therefore submitted a proposal that a free university should be established where Waldorf students can now study.

It is quite sensible, it is quite justified. The proposal was immediately taken up by the representatives of the academic youth movement, and a considerable sum of money has already been raised – although at the current exchange rate it does not amount to much – but still a considerable sum of, I believe, 25 million marks as start-up capital for the establishment of such a free university. Of course, 25 million marks is not enough to establish a university today, but if an American were to be found to establish such a university, with perhaps a billion or more, then one could start. There would be no other way, of course, and even that might not be enough; I can't estimate it right now. But if the opportunity were given, then there would be an embarrassment, a terrible embarrassment, even if there were prospects that the doctoral degrees and examinations would be recognized, namely this: Should I now fill this university with Waldorf teachers? With the individual members of our research institutes? That would be possible, at best. But then we would have no Waldorf schools and no research institutes! Because of the particular way in which the Anthroposophical Society has developed in recent years, those people who, I would say, could be good in the Anthroposophical Society have tended to be deterred. Today, when a new Waldorf teacher is to be hired to start a Waldorf school class, it is really an incredibly difficult problem to find one among the ranks of anthroposophists. For there is something to be said for the fact that, despite our brilliant congresses and everything else we have had, the attitude in the Anthroposophical Society has often been such that people have said: We like anthroposophy very much, but we do not want to join the Society.

And the first thing we need to work on is to restore the Society's reputation, because there are many people in the world who are predestined to make anthroposophy the most important thing in their hearts and souls. But the Anthroposophical Society must do what is necessary to achieve this. So when one is faced with such a situation, it immediately becomes clear that we must begin with something completely different, we must begin by truly bringing anthroposophy to the world, so that humanity can get to know anthroposophy.

Our opponents present it to the world as a caricature. They are working very hard at this. Everything that is in the cycles is also mystified in the writings of our opponents. And now there are lending libraries where the cycles and so on can be borrowed! The old way of thinking about things is no longer feasible today. There are certainly antiquarian bookshops that have facilities where cycles can be borrowed for a fee. Anyone can read them; that is already the case. One is completely unaware of the conditions of our present social life if one believes that such things can be kept secret forever. That is no longer possible in the present day. In this respect, our age has indeed become spiritually democratic. It must be understood once again that anthroposophy should be brought before the world. This is now actually alive in this loose association.

The people who have come together there have from the outset sought to bring anthroposophy to the world in the broadest possible way. I am well aware that this in turn creates all kinds of new channels for delivering what one believes to be able to hold in society out of society. But one must adapt to the necessities of the times. And as an anthroposophist, one must be able to have an attentive soul's eye for what the times demand. That is why anthroposophy must be regarded right now as something that can become the content of life, as I also indicated yesterday.

Well, my dear friends, as I said, an attempt has been made to establish a looser connection between these two currents in the Anthroposophical Society, and I hope that, if this is properly understood and handled, it will be possible to live with it for a while, probably not for very long, I have no illusions about that. Then, of course, something else will have to be done.

But I said at the time, when I traveled to Stuttgart for this general meeting of the German Anthroposophical Society, that it would be necessary, because anthroposophy originated in Germany and the world knows and accepts this, to first create a certain order within the German Anthroposophical Society, but that this should then be the starting point for creating order outside as well. I imagine, however, that the anthroposophical societies in the various language areas, which are present everywhere, will now also feel compelled to do something in a similar or different sense to consolidate the society, so that attempts are actually made everywhere to shape the living conditions of this anthroposophical society in such a way that anthroposophy can become what it should become in the world.