The Anthroposophic Movement
GA 258
13 June 1923, Dornach
Fourth Lecture
Blavatsky's Orientation: Spiritual, but Anti-Christian
When considering a phenomenon such as Blavatsky, especially when considering it from the aspect that will be clear to you from the remarks of the last three days, the first consideration naturally is the personality as such, regarded so-to-speak simply for itself, on the one hand. On the other hand, one has to consider it in the aspect of a means, by which a certain effect was produced upon a large number of people. Well, this effect was in part certainly one of a very negative kind. Those people, one may say, who heard anything of Blavatsky's publications, in so far as they were people, say of a philosophic or psychologic turn of mind, or literary, or scientific, or what one might call in general ‘educated’, as the term is used to-day,—such people were only too glad to be rid in any way of this new apparition, and not to be obliged to pronounce any sort of judgment on it. And they could attain this aim of theirs all the better, that there were circumstances, which I touched upon yesterday, under which they could say: It was a proven fact that there had been bogus practices, and one needn't trouble one's head further about anything, where this kind of thing is said to have been evidenced.
And then, of course, more particularly, there were those people, who had possession of old, traditional wisdom,—a possession, of which I told you how little they understood it, but which they used in one direction or another as a means of power,—members of one or other of the secret societies. And one must never forget, that any number of things in the world are an effect of influences that go out from such secret societies.
These people were not only glad not to need to pronounce any judgment, but they were above all things concerned to devise every conceivable means of preventing any more wide-spread effects resulting from this open demonstration of the spiritual world. For the things, as we saw, had been made public; they could be read by everyone, spread abroad by everyone. And thereby a good piece at least of the means of power, which these societies wanted to keep in their own hands, was taken from them.—And accordingly, behind things like those I described yesterday one finds of course associates of such societies,—particularly in the creation of opinion: there are bogus practices behind.
But what must seem to us of more importance still for our present purpose, is that, in spite of all this, Blavatsky's writings, and all the other things attached to her person, did nevertheless create a certain impression with a large number of people of the day; and that thereby those various movements came into being, which bear the name, in a sense, of theosophical.
In all that is here said, I beg you to note that I always try, as far as possible, to make the designations accord with the facts. To-day the very usage of the words alone makes this impossible for one,—impossible that is in many quarters. For it is only too easy for a person to-day, who hears a word, at once to establish what I might call a kind of lexicographal relation between himself and the word: he looks up some sort of verbal explanation, to spare himself as far as possible the trouble of going into the thing itself.
This kind of literary gentleman,—and many people, too, who carry more weight than literary gentlemen,—when they hear of ‘theosophy’, look it up in the encyclopedia (or, which may be much the same thing, in their heads), and find out there what it is. Or they may go further, they are much more conscientious maybe, and study all sorts of documents in which such a word as ‘theosophy’ occurs; and then from this they take the grounds for their sub-sequent criticism. You must notice, with writings that deal with such things, in how far what they say is the out-come of this kind of procedure.
But in direct contrast to all this, one might say: How did the particular society—or societies, indeed—that collected round the Blavatsky phenomenon, come by their name of ‘Theosophical Society’? One may have never so much,—and I have enumerated much that one may have,—against the Theosophical Society; but at any rate it certainly cannot be said about its origin at the beginning of the nineteenth century, that they took the dictionary meaning of the word ‘theosophy’, and founded a ‘Theosophical Society’ because they wanted to spread Theosophy as understood in the dictionary sense. That was most decidedly not the case. The case was, that a whole mass of communications were lying there from the spiritual world, that had come through Blavatsky,—lying there, ready, as communicated material. And the people now found them-selves, for reasons which I will discuss later, as good as compelled to execute the charge of this material by the method of a society. And then there came the need of a name. And then, the people who were ... well, everything is ‘debated’ to-day, and they ‘debated’ everything even in those days ... who were debating then, what name they should give it, asked themselves whether it should be called the ‘New Mystical Society’? or should it be called the ‘Rosicrucian Society’? or the ‘Magian Society’? And then they hunted up what other words there were, and finally hit on the word ‘theosophy’ and ‘theosophical’.
So that the word in actuality has very little to do with what was spread abroad under it, so far as it is a word with an historic derivation. It has therefore not much sense, when people take the ‘meaning of the word’ as a basis for discussing the actual things,—and especially not for liking or disliking them. It is a question of these quite definite, concrete things, which came into the world either through Blavatsky's writings, or through other communications of hers. And it is the purest accident, one might say, that the associations which collected round these things took the name ‘Theosophical Society’. It was simply, that no better word occurred to them. This is a fact that must by no means be left out of account;—for naturally there exist not only historic judgments, as I might say, but also historic sentiments. Those, who have historically studied the course of development in some special branch of learning, find the term ‘theosophy’ turning up in a variety of places; but what they find turning up there, has nothing whatever to do in reality with what took again the name of ‘Theosophical Society’.
Indeed, my dear friends, things like this must at any rate in the Anthroposophical Society be treated very seriously, and there should be, there at any rate, a certain dominant love of accuracy; so that in time a true instinct may grow up for all the quite unreal, superficially written stuff that has gradually collected round these things in the world.
The question, however, that must occupy us most peculiarly is this: How did it come about, in spite of all, that a great number of people in these recent times have felt inwardly impelled towards these things that were thus revealed? For, here too is a point, from which we shall be led on to what is again of quite a different character, namely, to the anthroposophic movement.
Now, when studying the phenomenon of Blavatsky, there is one peculiarity of this personage on which especially stress must be laid, for it is a very marked peculiarity. It is this, namely, that H. P. Blavatsky was absolutely, one may really say, anti-christian in mind,—absolutely anti-christian in her orientation. In her Secret Doctrine, the different impulses of a variety of primal religions, and the evolution of religions, are displayed by her in what might be called one grand splash. For objective demonstration she had simply no capacity. Everywhere, even in cases where one would rightly have expected an objective demonstration, she drags her subjective judgments, her subjective sentiments into the picture.
And not only did she pass judgments, but she plainly shows throughout, that she has profound sympathy with every kind of religion in the world, excepting Judaism and Christianity, and, on the other hand, a profound antipathy to Judaism and to Christianity. Everything that comes from Judaism and Christianity is everywhere, quite sharply, represented by Blavatsky as being inferior and worthless, compared with the great revelations of the various heathen religions:—a quite pronounced anti-christian orientation, namely: but a quite pronouncedly spiritual one. There is the ability in her to speak of spiritual beings and spiritual events, as people usually speak of beings and events in the sensible world; and also to speak about many things of this world in such a manner, that one may truly say, she possessed the faculty for moving amongst actual spiritual agencies, as the man of to-day is accustomed to move amongst physical, sensible effects; spiritual phenomena are by Blavatsky talked of with the same feelings of reality, with which the things of the physical world are talked of usually by other people. A pronounced spiritual orientation, therefore; and a pronounced anti-christian orientation.
With this, however, comes the further capacity for discovering the characteristic impulses in the different heathen religions, the different natural religions, and raising them to the surface and to people's understanding.
Now there are two things which might surprise one: first, the appearance at all to-day (meaning ‘to-day’ of course in the historic sense) of a person whose orientation is in so pronounced a degree anti-christian, and who looks to this anti-christian orientation for the salvation of mankind. And secondly, one might find it surprising, seeing that, after all, very few people on the outside are heathen, but that people, on the outside, have mostly a Jewish or Christian orientation,—at least in our civilized regions,—that, nevertheless, despite their Jewish and Christian orientation, a very determinative and deep-reaching influence was exerted upon these people (especially on those of a Christian orientation,—less on those of the Jewish).—These are two questions that must present themselves to our souls in any discussion whatever of these life-conditions, by which modern spiritual life is attended amongst the wider masses of mankind.
Now, as regards Blavatsky's own anti-christianism, I would only remind you, that there was another person, much better known in Central Europe,—better known in some circles at least,—who was at the least quite as anti-christian in his orientation as Blavatsky; and that was Nietzsche, One cannot well be more anti-christian in one's orientation, than the author of the Antichrist was. And unlike as Nietzsche is to Blavatsky, if only from the fact that Blavatsky, in respect of what is called the modern education of the day, was really more or less of an uneducated woman, whereas Nietzsche stood at the top of modern culture; yet, unlike as they otherwise were in the whole character of their souls, in this respect they present a remarkable similar-ity: that the orientation of both is eminently anti-christian. And it would be nothing short of superficial, my dear friends, if one did not make at least some enquiry into the reason of this anti-christian orientation in these two persons. One gets, however, no answer, without going somewhat deeper into the matter.
One must be clear to oneself namely, that men to-day—and indeed, ever widening strata of mankind,—have come to be altogether cleft in two as regards their soul-life;—a cleft which people do not always make clear to themselves, which they try to smother over with their intellect, try to smother over through a sort of intellectual cowardice; but which only winds and weaves in these souls all the more deeply, in the subconscious feelings of the mind.
One should only clearly recognize, what the human race in Europe, what the whole European race of mankind, together with their American appendage, have become, under the influence of the educational tendency of the last three, four, five centuries. One should only consider, how great the division is in actual reality, between all that to-day makes up the substance of worldly education, and that which dwells as a religious impulse in men. For, in truth, the majority of people are given to most terrible delusions in this respect. They are introduced, even from their first primary school, into this modern style of education. Every power of thought, every inclination of the soul, is directed into this modern style of education. And then, as an addition, they are given, besides, what is supposed to satisfy their religious desires. And between the two there opened up a terrible gulf.
But people do not get so far as really to put this gulf plainly before their souls. They do not get to this. They prefer indeed to give themselves up in this respect to utter delusions.
What, then, one must ask oneself was the historic process that led to the cleavage of this gulf?—There you must look back my dear friends, to those centuries, when as yet this modern education did not exist, to times where the learned life was pursued only by a small number of individuals, who had received a very thorough preparation. Be quite clear as to the fact, that at the present day, as regards exterior education, a twelve-year-old schoolgirl has more in her than any educated man of the eleventh or twelfth or thirteenth century. Such things must not be overlooked. And this is education has grown to rest upon a most extraordinarily i«tense feeling of ‘authority’, a downright invincible sense of authoritativeness. This education has come, in the course of the centuries, to have something ever more and more so to speak, at its command, which makes the belief in this authoritativeness of modern education ever greater and greater.
More and more during the course of the centuries has this modern education come to be directed only to what the external senses tell men, or what calculation tells them. Now the less men go inwardly to council with themselves, the more plain it appears to them, that what is true, is what they see—as the saying is—with their five senses; or what can be seen in the sense of being calculated, such as: twice two are four: ‘What I see with my five senses, what is like twice two are four, that is true.’ And in course of rejecting everything else, and only at last taking up more and more into modern education what is true in the way those things are true which one sees with one's five senses or can count i»i one's five fingers, so gradually—since they are such great authorities this twice two are four and the five senses!—so it came about, little by little, that modern education, of which one can say, that it is as certain as twice two are four and what the five senses tell one,—that gradually this modern education came to be equipped with the sense of authoritativeness which it possesses.
But thereby too there arose ever more and more a feeling, that everything which a man believes, everything which a man takes for true, must justify itself before the tribunal of this ‘quite certain’ modern education. And now, as this modern education passed over more and more into the Sensible and the Calculable, it became impossible ever to put before men at all, in a suitable way, any sort of truth whatever from those regions, where mathematics are no longer valid and the senses are no more of account.
In what way, then, were truths of this sort put before men in earlier centuries, before this modern education existed?
They were put before them in ceremonial images. In the spread of religion, throughout long centuries, the essence lay, not in the sermon, but in the ceremony, in the rites of the ritual. It was plainly recognized that: One can't speak through the intellect (which was not as yet developed in its present form at all), one must speak through the image.
Just conceive for a moment, how it was still in the fourteenth, in the fifteenth centuries, in Christian countries for example. It was not the sermon there, that was the main thing: the main thing was the ceremony; the main thing was, that men grew at home in a world which they saw dis-played before them in sublime and splendid imagery. All round the walls were the painted frescoes, bringing home to them the life of the spiritual world; much as though, with our earthly life, we could reach up to the highest tops of the mountains, and then, could one but climb only a little higher, the spiritual life would begin. Pictorial,—speaking to the imagination,—or in the audible harmonies of music, or else, if words were used, then mantrical, in forms of prayer in forms of formula, was the language that told of the spiritual world.
To those ages it was quite clear, that for the spiritual world one needs the image, not the abstract thought, — not that about which one may dispute, but the visible illustration, the pictorial likeness; that one needs what speaks to the senses, and yet speaks to the senses in such a way, that, through the sensible presentation, it is the spirit speaking.
And now came the rise of the modern education, with its claims of the intellect, with the claim that everything should be justified, as the saying is, to reason.
Now everything about Christianity too and about the mysteries of Christianity, as well as about the Mystery of Golgotha and its bearers, had all been told mainly in this picture form; and in so far as words were used, in picture-form also, namely, in the form of stories. And when dogmas began, they, too, were still something that the mind grasped pictorially. So that one may say that down to the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, the teaching of Christianity was carried on in an altogether old-fashioned form. But this Christian teaching remained uncontested in its own domain from any quarter, so long as the intellectualistic education had not yet come on the field,—so long as people were not required to justify these things to reason.
Only study it in its rise, historically, through the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth centuries, with what a storm it burst in: this new demand in men to understand everything with the intellect! What a world-historic critical analysis begins! People as a rule to-day are no longer in the least fully aware, what a world-historic critical ;analysis it is, that there began!
One may say then, that the man of to-day,—and really not only amongst the upper ten thousand, but throughout the very broadest grades,—is introduced in Christianity into a religious life too; but alongside it he is introduced also into an education of the modern style; and the two,—Christianity and modern education,—now dwell together in his soul. And it now turns out,—and it does so turn out in fact, although people may not clearly recognize it,—that with what this intellectualist education has brought men, the truths of Christianity cannot be proved. The truths of Christianity cannot be proved by it. And so, from childhood up, to-day, one learns the ‘Quite Certainty’ that twice two are four, and that one must apply one's five senses to this alone. One learns this Quite Certainty; and one discovers, that if one intends to abide by this Quite Certainty, ... that then, ... then, it will not do to bring Christianity and this Quite Certainty into connection.
Those theologists,—the modern theologists,—who have tried to bring the two into connection, have ended by losing the Christ; they are no longer able to speak to the broad masses of the Christ; at most they speak of the person of Jesus. And so it keeps its ground during these latter centuries, in the same old forms, but forms, which the modern man simply fails in his soul any longer to accept;—so it keeps its ground, this Christianity, but loses all inner consistency, so to speak, in the soul.—What is the reason?
My dear friends, look at everything that history has already brought forth in the form of Christianity. It is the greatest dishonesty, when modern theologians to-day try to explain this Christianity in any way rationalistically. It is quite impossible rationalistically to explain this Christianity. One cannot explain this Christianity, this Mystery of Golgotha and its bearers with rationalities; one is obliged to speak of spiritualities, if one would speak of Christ; to speak of Christ, one must speak of a spiritual world. One cannot possibly only believe in the Quite Certainty of one's five senses and that twice two are four, and then honestly speak of Christ as well. That is what one cannot do. And so it looked, in the innermost bottom of their souls, as though the men of modern times had no possibility, with an education such as they receive, of understanding the Christ, of actually comprehending Him; for rationalism and intellectualism have robbed men of the spiritual world. The Christ name, indeed, the Christ tradition, has remained; but without any aura, without the vision of the Christ as a spirit among spirits, as a spiritual being in a spiritual world. For the world which the modern astronomy, biology, natural science, has brought with it, is an un-spiritual world.
And so in time there came numbers of souls, with a quite definite need arising from these undergrounds of their being. Time really moves on; and. the men of to-day, as I have often insisted, are no longer the men of earlier times. They cannot but ask themselves: I find myself joining together with a number of others for the cultivation of spiritual truths: Why do I do so? Why do you do so, each one of you? What drives you to do so?
Now, what drives people to do this, has its seed for the most part so deep down in the sub-reasoning, unconscient grounds of the soul's life, that people as a rule are not very clear about it. But the question is one that must be raised here, in what, as I particularly said at the beginning, is intended as an exercise in Self-Recollection for Anthroposophists.
When you look back into earlier times, it is a self-evident matter to people, that outside them there are not only material things and material proceedings, but that every-where through it all there are spirits. People found a world of spirit all about them, in their surroundings. And because they found a world of spirit, they could comprehend the Christ. With modern intellectualism one can nowhere find a world of spirit—if one is honest; consequently one cannot either really comprehend the Christ. And the modern educated man does not comprehend the Christ. The people who have living in them two different things. Yes, as a fact, are, in fact, quite definite souls. They are those souls, who have living in them two different things. Yes, as a fact, in most of these people who come together in societies such as we are speaking of, there are two things living, of a double kind.
In the first place, there is a quite vague feeling which rises up in the soul, and which the people can't describe, but which is there. And if one examines this feeling by the means one possesses in the spiritual world, one finds it to be a feeling originating in earlier earth-lives, but earth-lives in which people still had a spiritual world round about them.
Yes, indeed, my dear friends, people are beginning to come up to-day, in whose souls something is inwardly rumbling from earlier earth-lives. We should have no theosophists nor anthroposophists either, if there were not people of this kind, in whom there is a rumbling of earlier earth-lives. Such people are to be found in every grade of our modern population. They do not know that the thing comes from earlier earth-lives; but it does come from earlier earth-lives. And from this there arises the striving after a quite definite road, after a quite definite form of know-ledge.—Truly, my dear friends, the trees, as you saw them in earlier earth-lives, the external material substances, as you then saw them,—that does not work on after into this present life on earth; for, all that, you saw with your senses, and those senses are scattered to the dust of the cosmos; but what works on after, is the inner, the spiritual substance of your earlier earth-lives.
Now, a person may stand here at the present day in two different ways. He may have a sense: There is something inside me ... he doesn't know that it comes from earlier earth-lives; but it is something coming from earlier earth-lives, and he has the sense: There is something inside me—it is working in me,—it is there; and however much I may know about the world of the senses, this thing cannot be 'described; for it has brought nothing over with it save what is spiritual; and if everything is now taken away from me at the present day that is spiritual, then this thing, which comes over from earlier earth-lives, remains dissatisfied.—That is one thing.
The other thing living in men is that they have a vague feeling: ‘My dreams should really tell me more than the sense-world!’ It is, of course, an error, a delusion, when people fancy that their dreams should tell them more than the sense-world does. But what is the origin of this delusion?—this delusion which in reality has grown up in proportion with the growth of the modern style of education? For there is a peculiar circumstance about this modern style of education: when people to-day, who are ‘educated’ in the modern sense, come together in their educated society gatherings, then, well then, one is obliged to be ‘educated’; then one talks in the way befitting persons who have a proper schooling in the modern style. Should anyone begin to say anything whatever about spiritual agencies in the world, then one must curl one's lips sarcastically,—for that is the educated thing to do. In our public-school education it is not admissible to talk of spiritual agencies in the world. If one does so, one is a superstitious, uneducated person. Then one must curl one's lips; one must show that such things are proper to the superstitious section of the populace.
Well, very often such society gatherings form into two groups. Usually there is somebody present who takes half a heart to talk about spiritual things of the kind. The company curls its lips, and the major part goes off, and goes to play cards or to some other pastime befitting human dignity. A few, however, grow inquisitive; and they withdraw into a side-room and there begin a long conversation about these things; while the rest play cards or do other things that I am not so interested to describe. And there sit the people in the side-room, listening with open mouths, and cannot have enough of listening to what they hear.—Only it must be in a side-room, otherwise one is not ‘educated’.
And yet, all that the modern man can get to like this, is still more or less of the nature only of a dream. The things for the most part are as disconnected and chaotic as dreams, that he hears told in this way. And yet the man likes it all the same. Why does he like it? The others, too, would like it really, who have gone off to play cards; only that the passion for card-playing is more strong than the liking to listen,—at least they persuade themselves that it is.
What is it, then, that makes men in this modern age so fond of going after dreams?—It is because they feel,—and again quite instinctively, without being clearly aware of it:—‘All this that I have in my thoughts, and that lies painted before my eyes in the outer, physical world,—it is all very well; but it gives me nothing for my own soul-life. Behind it all there must be something else. I feel it within me. There is a secret thinking and feeling and willing that goes on as uncontrolled in me even when I am awake, as my dream-life goes on uncontrolled in me when I am asleep.’—There is something in the background of men's souls that is really dreamed, even when awake. This the modern man feels. And he feels it, because in the outer world outside him the spiritual is failing; he can only still snatch at it in dreams. In earlier earth-lives he had it round about him in his surroundings. And now the time has come when souls are born, who, in addition to those impulses which rumble in them from earlier earth-lives, have also rumbling within them that which went on in their pre-earthly state of existence in the spiritual world. For this bears a relation to the inner dreaming; and this inner dreaming is an after-working of the living reality in the pre-earthly state of existence.
Just consider to yourselves! The men of earlier times were conscious of spiritual surroundings; their earthly state of life did not, as it were, deprive them of the spirit. The men of the new times feel the spiritual within them-selves. But not only does the constitution of the soul in this age deprive them of the spirit, but, in addition, a form of education has come into the field which is hostile to the spirit, which argues the spirit away.
If we ask, what is it that brings men together in societies of the kind we are here describing? it is because of these two properties of the soul:—because there is something rumbling within them from earlier earth-lives;—because there is something rumbling within them from their pre-earthly state of existence. With most of you this is the case. You would not be sitting here if there were not these two things rumbling within you.
And if you think back into earlier states of society:—In quite ancient times the social institutions were altogether derived from the Mysteries, were in unison with the things that were spiritually transmitted to men. Man was interwoven with—we will say—a Social Being, which was at the same time one with the object of his own soul's desire.
Take an Athenian. He looked above to the Goddess Athene. He felt within his own soul his inner relationship with the Goddess Athene. He made part of a common social life and being, of which the people knew: it was instituted in accordance with the designs of the Goddess Athene. It was the Goddess Athene who had planted the olive trees round about Athens; the laws of the State were inscribed at Athene's dictate. One had one's place as man in a social community which accorded completely with the voice of inner belief. Nothing was taken from a man there, which the Gods, so to speak, had given him.
Compare this with the modern man. His position amid his social circumstances is such, that there is a cleft gulf between what he feels in his inward life, and the way he is outwardly entangled in these social circumstances. He seems to himself,—he does not clearly recognize it: it sits in his sub-consciousness,—as though his soul was in constant danger of having his body taken from it by external circumstances. He feels his own connection through those properties of the soul,—those impulses of which I spoke, from earlier earth-lives and pre-earthly existence;—he feels his own connection with a spiritual world. His body belongs to the external institutions. His body must behave in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of the external institutions. This exerts in his sub-consciousness a continual dread upon the modern man, lest in reality well, there are already modern States where a man may feel as though his own coat did not properly belong to him, because he owes it to the tax-office!—But, at any rate, you will agree, my dear friends, that in a large measure even one's physical body does not belong to one; for in fact it is claimed by the external institutions.
This dread haunts the modern man, that every day, so to speak, he must deliver up his body to something which has no connection with what is in his soul. And so modern man becomes a seeker after something which belongs to quite other ages of the world, and which he knew in his earlier lives on earth;—so modern man becomes a seeker after something which does not belong to the earth at all, which belongs to the spiritual world, where he was in his pre-earthly existence.
All this takes effect unconsciously, instinctively. Nevertheless, it takes effect. And truly, one may say that what our anthroposophic society has now come to be has really grown out of small beginnings. It had to work at the beginning in the most primitive fashion in quite small circles.
One could tell a great many stories about the way in which the work was carried on from small circles. At one time, for instance, during the first years in Berlin, I had to lecture at erst in a room with the jingling of beer-glasses going on at the back, because it was a pot-house opening on to the street. And once, when this was not available, we were shown into something which was a sort of stable.
And thither the people came,—the people who were, who are, of the particular constitution I have described to you.—In one German town I have lectured in a hall, which in part had no sort of flooring, so that one continually had to look out that one didn't tumble into a hole and break one's leg. But the people came together there all the same,—those that had these impulses in them. However, it is a movement which set out from the first to be a common human one; and so the satisfaction was just as great when the simplest minds turned up in places such as I have just described. Rut still, it was not felt to be all too disagreeable,—for, after all, that too was part of human nature!—when people turned up, more of the kind—as I might say—that then stood sponsors to the anthroposophic movement in an aristocratic style, as was the case in Munich. The door was not closed to any kind of human forms and fashions. But always the thing, my dear friends, which had to be regarded was this: that the souls who thus came together were of the kind that were constituted as I have described: so that, in reality, the people who came together in associations like these were people marked out by fate,—and are so still to-day: marked out by fate.
If people of this kind had not been there, you see, a personage like Blavatsky would have met with no interest. For only with persons such as these did she meet with any interest. What was it then that these people more immediately felt? What was for them the all-important thing? What was it that responded, so to speak, to their own sentiments?
Well, one of the two things rumbling in their souls found its response in the doctrine of recurrent earth-lives. Each one could say to himself now, ‘I live, as Man, in all ages of time; I am inwardly stronger than those powers, which day by day are trying to snatch my body from me.’ This most deep-seated and intimate feeling, that verged really on the nature of will in men, had to be met, then, by the doctrine of recurrent earth-lives.
And the other thing: of feeling the soul's life really more like a dream, feeling it free from the body (even the simplest countryman has this sense of the soul's being free of the body), this, one could meet more and more with a form of knowledge that was not directed merely on the lines of material substance and material processes; for within this material substance and its processes there was nothing whatever that corresponded to what the man felt in his own soul-life, and that was an after-echo of his pre-earthly existence. This, one could only respond to, when one made it clear to him, that—startling though it may sound—‘Our deepest human being is woven as it were out of dreams.’ For what is woven out of us, as dreams are woven,—only that it has a stronger reality, a stronger existence,—has no likeness to the things which are in our physical surroundings. A man is like a fish that is taken out of water and expected to live in air, when, with what he bears within his soul, he is expected to live in the world that modern education conjures up before men's fancy. And just as the fish, when it can't breathe in the air, begins to gasp and snap its gills, because it can't live; so souls like these live in the modern atmosphere, gasping and snapping after the thing they need. And this thing which they need they don't find; because it is something spiritual. For it is the after-echo of what they knew and lived in during their pre-earthly existence in the spiritual world. They want to hear of spiritual things,—that something spiritual is there,—that the Spiritual is in the midst of us.
Understand well, my dear friends, that these were the two most important matters for a particular section of man-kind: To have it explained to them that man lives beyond one single earth-life; and to have it explained to them that beings exist in the world at all of such a kind as man is: that there are spirits amongst the things and the pro-cesses of nature.—This was brought by Blavatsky in the first place. And this people required to have first, before, in the next place, they could understand the Christ.
And now we have the curious fact that, with a note of compassion—one might say—for humanity, we find Blavatsky saying to herself: ‘These people are gasping after knowledge from the spiritual world. If we disclose the old heathen religions to them, we shall be disclosing what responds to their spiritual needs.’ That was the first thing to be done.
And that this led to an immense one-sidedness, led, namely, to a form of Anti-christianity, is in every way quite understandable; just as it is quite understandable that a review of the modern Christianity, out of which he himself had grown, led to such an intense Anti-christianity in Nietzsche.
Of this Anti-christianity and its remedy I propose to speak to you in the next lectures. I only wish distinctly to note that this Anti-christianity which showed itself in Blavatsky was, from the first, absent from the anthroposophic movement. For the first lecture-cycle ever held by me was the lecture-cycle From Buddha to Christ, as I mentioned before. Thereby the anthroposophic movement stands therefore on its own footing, as something inde-pendent in the midst of all these spiritual movements, through the fact that, from the very beginning, it has pur-sued the road that leads from the heathen religions towards Christianity.
And one must no less understand, why it was that the others did not take this road.
As I said, we will talk of this tomorrow.
Vierter Vortrag
Wenn man eine solche Erscheinung wie A. P. Blavatsky betrachtet, und zwar betrachtet von dem Gesichtspunkte aus, der Ihnen schon aus den vorangehenden drei Betrachtungen klar geworden sein wird, so kommt auf der einen Seite natürlich zunächst diese Persönlichkeit als solche, gewissermaßen für sich hingestellt, in Betracht. Auf der anderen Seite kommt in Betracht das, wodurch auf eine große Anzahl von Menschen eine gewisse Wirkung ausgegangen ist. Nun ist ja allerdings diese Wirkung zum Teil eine recht negative gewesen. Man kann sagen: Diejenigen Menschen, welche etwas vernommen haben von den Veröffentlichungen der Blavatsky, insoferne sie, sagen wir, philosophisch, psychologisch, literarisch, naturforscherisch, man könnte auch im allgemeinen sagen, so wie das Wort heute gebraucht wird, gebildet gesinnt waren, sind froh gewesen, auf irgendeine Weise diese Erscheinung los zu werden, nicht genötigt zu sein, irgendein Urteil abzugeben. Sie konnten ja dieses ihr Ziel auch dadurch erreichen, daß unter Umständen, die ich gestern wenigstens angedeutet habe, man einfach sagen konnte: es seien unreelle Praktiken konstatiert worden, und man brauche sich nicht abzugeben mit etwas, von dem dergleichen, wie man sagt, nachgewiesen ist.
Dann waren natürlich gerade diejenigen, welche im Besitze alter traditioneller Weisheit sind — in einem Besitze, von dem ich Ihnen gesagt habe, wie wenig sie ihn eigentlich verstanden, die ihn aber in der einen oder in der anderen Hinsicht als ein Machtmittel benützten -, Mitglieder dieser oder jener Geheimgesellschaften. Man darf nie vergessen, daß sich zahllose Wirkungen in der Welt an dasjenige anschließen, was von solchen Geheimgesellschaften ausgeht. Die waren nicht nur froh, kein Urteil abgeben zu brauchen, sondern sie waren vor allen Dingen darauf bedacht, alle Mittel ausfindig zu machen, damit nicht eine breitere Wirkung von einer solchen Darstellung der geistigen Welt ausgehe. Denn die Dinge waren ja, wie wir gesehen haben, veröffentlicht worden, sie konnten von jedem gelesen, von jedem verbreitet werden. Und dadurch war ihnen ein gutes Stück wenigstens der Machtmittel, welche solche Gesellschaften sich bewahren wollten, genommen worden. Daher stecken hinter denjenigen Dingen natürlich, die ich gestern charakterisiert habe, schon Angehörige solcher Gesellschaften, namentlich an dem Aufbringen des Urteiles: Da liegen unreelle Praktiken vor.
Aber wichtiger noch für unseren gegenwärtigen Zweck muß uns erscheinen, daß immerhin von Blavatskys Schriften und von alldem, was sonst sich an ihre Person angeschlossen hat, bei einer großen Anzahl von Menschen der Gegenwart ein gewisser Eindruck gemacht worden ist. Dadurch sind diejenigen Bewegungen entstanden, die in gewissem Sinne sich als theosophische bezeichnet haben.
Ich möchte Sie bitten, bei all diesen Auseinandersetzungen zu beachten, daß ich immer versuche, die Charakteristiken möglichst so zu geben, daß sie den Tatsachen entsprechen. Das wird einem ja heute schon durch den Gebrauch der Worte unmöglich gemacht, in vielen Kreisen nämlich unmöglich gemacht. Es ist so heute, daß der Mensch sehr leicht, wenn er ein Wort bekommt, eigentlich zu diesem Worte sich zunächst, ich möchte sagen, in eine Art lexikale Beziehung bringt, daß er eine Art Worterklärung sucht, um auf diese Weise möglichst davor verschont zu bleiben, in die Sache selbst einzudringen. Wenn so ein Literat und auch mancher Mensch, der ernster genommen wird als ein Literat, von "Theosophie hören, dann schlagen sie -— was meinetwillen auch in ihrem Kopfe geschehen kann - im Lexikon auf und erkundigen sich da, was das ist. Oder sie gehen weiter; vielleicht sind sie viel gewissenhafter und studieren allerlei Schriften, worinnen solch ein Wort wie Theosophie vorkommt, und dann nehmen sie von daher die Grundlage zu ihrer Beurteilung. Sie müssen bei den Schriften, die über solche Dinge handeln, darauf achten, wieviel auf ein solches Vorgehen eigentlich zu stehen kommt.
Dem muß immer gegenübergestellt werden: Wie ist diejenige Gesellschaft, oder wie sind die Gesellschaften, könnte man sagen, welche sich an die Erscheinung der Blavatsky angeschlossen haben, zu dem Namen «Theosophische Gesellschaft» gekommen? Man mag noch so viel haben gegen diese Theosophische Gesellschaft — und ich habe ja manches aufgezählt, was man gegen sie haben kann -, aber das lag ja gewiß bei Ihrem Entstehen am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts nicht vor, daß man die lexikale Bedeutung des Wortes Theosophie nahm und nun eine Theosophische Gesellschaft begründete, weil man Theosophie, so wie man es lexikonhaft versteht, verbreiten wollte. Das war gar nicht der Fall. Sondern es war eine Summe von Mitteilungen aus der geistigen Welt durch die Blavatsky vorhanden, die zunächst als solche da war. Nun hat man aus Gründen, die ich auch noch erörtern will, eben sich bemüßigt gefunden, die Pflege dieser Mitteilungen auf gesellschaftlichem Wege zu vollführen, und da brauchte man einen Namen. Dann haben diejenigen, die da nun debattierten — debattiert wird ja heute über alles, debattiert ist auch schon dazumal über alles geworden -, welchen Namen man geben soll, sich gefragt: Soll das heißen NeuMystische Gesellschaft, soll das heißen Rosenkreuzerische Gesellschaft, soll das heißen Magische Gesellschaft? Und dann haben sie nachgesehen, was es noch für Worte gibt und sind auf das Wort Theosophie und theosophisch gekommen.
Also das Wort hat wirklich mit dem, was da sich verbreitet hat, nicht viel zu tun, insofern es ein historisch hergebrachtes Wort ist. Daher ist es ziemlich unsinnig, wenn man die Dinge von der Wortbedeutung aus bespricht, namentlich aber liebt oder haßt. Es handelt sich eben um die ganz bestimmten, konkreten Dinge, die durch die Schriften oder die sonstigen Mitteilungen der Blavatsky in die Welt hereingetreten sind. Und es ist, möchte man sagen, der reine Zufall, daß da die Gesellschaften, die sich angeschlossen haben, sich Theosophische Gesellschaft genannt haben. Es ist einfach keinem ein besseres Wort eingefallen. Das muß man durchaus bedenken, denn es existieren natürlich nicht nur historische Urteile, sondern historische Empfindungen. Bei denjenigen, die für diese oder jene Wissenschaft die geschichtliche Entwickelung gelernt haben, ist mannigfaltig der Ausdruck Theosophie aufgetaucht, aber das, was da bei ihnen aufgetaucht ist, hat eben gar nichts zu tun eigentlich mit dem, was sich wiederum Theosophische Gesellschaft nannte.
Solche Dinge müßten mindestens innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sehr ernst genommen werden, und es müßte da ein gewisser Trieb nach Genauigkeit herrschen, damit erst die richtige Empfindung entstehen kann für all das unsachliche Geschreibe, das sich an diese Dinge allmählich in der Welt angeknüpft hat.
Diese Frage aber muß uns ganz besonders beschäftigen: Woher ist es gekommen, daß doch eine große Anzahl von Menschen in der neuesten Zeit den Trieb gehabt haben nach diesen Dingen, die da geoffenbart worden sind? Denn wir werden dann von da aus den Übergang finden auch zu dem, was doch wiederum ganz anders geartet ist: zur anthroposophischen Bewegung.
Nun muß man aber, wenn man die Erscheinung der Blavatsky ins Auge faßt, eine Eigenschaft dieser Persönlichkeit ganz besonders betonen, weil sie eine hervorragende Eigenschaft ist, das ist diese, daß H.P.Blavatsky ganz und gar, man kann schon sagen, antichristlich gesinnt war, ganz und gar antichristlich orientiert war. In ihrer «Geheimlehre» hat sie ja, man möchte sagen, in einem großen Wurf die verschiedenen Impulse mannigfaltiger Urreligionen und die Entwickelung der Religionen enthüllt. Zu objektiver Darstellung war sie eben nicht fähig. Sie hat überall, wo man auch objektive Darstellungen eigentlich erwarten mußte, ihr subjektives Urteil, ihr Empfindungsurteil in die Darstellung hineingemischt. Sie urteilte nicht bloß, sondern sie zeigte überall, daß sie eine tiefe Sympathie für alles das hat, was an Religionen in der Welt war außerhalb des Judentums und Christentums, dagegen eine tiefe Antipathie gegen Judentum und Christentum. Überall wird scharf dasjenige, was aus dem Judentum und Christentum kommt, als etwas Minderwertiges gegenüber den großen Offenbarungen der verschiedenen heidnischen Religionen durch die Blavatsky hingestellt: also eine ganz ausgesprochen antichristliche Orientierung, aber eine ganz ausgesprochen spirituelle Orientierung. Die Möglichkeit ist bei ihr vorhanden, von den geistigen Wesen und den geistigen Vorgängen so zu sprechen, wie man sonst von den Wesen und Vorgängen in der sinnlichen Welt spricht, und manches aus dieser geistigen Welt so zu besprechen, daß man schon sagen kann: Es ist die Fähigkeit vorhanden gewesen, unter geistigen Wirksamkeiten sich so zu bewegen, wie sich der Mensch der Gegenwart sonst unter physisch-sinnlichen Wirkungen bewegt. Es wird mit denselben Realitätsgefühlen von geistigen Erscheinungen von der Blavatsky gesprochen, wie sonst von Dingen der physischen Welt von den Menschen gesprochen wird. Also eine ausgesprochen geistige Orientierung, und eine ausgesprochen antichristliche Orientierung.
Dadurch ist aber die weitere Fähigkeit vorhanden, charakteristische Impulse der verschiedenen heidnischen Religionen, der verschiedenen Naturreligionen an die Oberfläche und zum Verständnis der Menschen zu bringen.
Nun könnte man sich über zweierlei wundern: erstens daß überhaupt eine Persönlichkeit heute auftritt — das «heute» meine ich natürlich in historischem Sinne -, die in einem so ausgesprochenen Maße antichristlich orientiert ist und das Heil der Menschen von dieser antichristlichen Orientierung erwartet. Und zum zweiten könnte man verwundert sein darüber, daß, da ja der Außenseite nach die wenigsten Menschen heidnisch orientiert sind, sondern der Außenseite nach die Menschen, wenigstens in unseren zivilisierten Gegenden, doch jüdisch oder christlich orientiert sind, daß trotzdem auf diese jüdisch und christlich Orientierten, namentlich auf die christlich Orientierten — auf die jüdisch Orientierten sogar weniger — ein mafßgebender, tiefdringender Einfluß immerhin ausgegangen ist. Das sind zwei Fragen, die sich uns vor die Seele stellen müssen, wenn wir über die Lebensbedingungen des neueren Geisteslebens mehr bei den breiten Massen überhaupt sprechen.
Nun, in bezug auf die antichnistliche Orientierung der Blavatsky selbst möchte ich nur daran erinnern, daß eine in Mitteleuropa viel mehr bekannt gewordene, oder wenigstens in gewissen Kreisen viel mehr bekannt gewordene Persönlichkeit zum mindesten ebenso antichristlich orientiert war wie die Blavatsky. Das ist Nietzsche. Man kann schon nicht mehr antichristlich orientiert sein, als es der Verfasser des «Antichrist» war. So unähnlich Nietzsche der Blavatsky ist - und schon dadurch, daß Blavatsky mehr oder weniger in bezug auf das, was man heute moderne Bildung nennt, eigentlich eine ungebildete Frau war, während Nietzsche auf den Höhen der Bildung stand -, so unähnlich sie sonst waren in der ganzen Haltung ihrer Seelen, darinnen zeigen sie eine merkwürdige Ähnlichkeit, daß sie eben eminent antichristlich orientiert sind. Es wäre durchaus eine Oberflächlichkeit, wenn man nach dem Grunde dieser antichristlichen Orientierung bei den beiden Persönlichkeiten gar nicht fragen wollte. Aber man bekommt darauf auch keine Antwort, wenn man nicht etwas tiefer in die Sache hineindringt.
Man muß sich nämlich klar sein darüber, daß heute die Menschen, und zwar immer breitere Schichten der Menschen, mit Bezug auf ihr Seelenleben überhaupt in einen tiefen Zwiespalt kommen, den sich die Menschen nicht immer klarmachen, den sie durch den Verstand auszulöschen suchen, in einer gewissen intellektuellen Feigheit auszulöschen versuchen, der aber um so mehr in den unterbewußten Tiefen des Gemütes webt und west bei den Seelen.
Man muß sich nur klar darüber sein, was aus der europäischen Menschheit, der gesamten europäischen Menschheit mit ihrem amerikanischen Anhange geworden ist unter dem Einflusse des Bildungsstrebens der letzten drei, vier, fünf Jahrhunderte. Man bedenke nur, wie groß sich in Wirklichkeit das unterscheidet, was heute den Inhalt der weltlichen Bildung ausmacht, von demjenigen, was der religiöse Impuls in den Menschen ist. Es ist ja wahr, die meisten Menschen geben sich in dieser Beziehung den furchtbarsten Illusionen hin. Sie werden schon von der Volksschule aus in diese moderne Bildung hineingeführt; alles Denken, alle Seelenrichtung wird in diese moderne Bildung hineingeführt. Dann wird ihnen auch übermittelt dasjenige, was ihre religiösen Sehnsuchten befriedigen soll. Da klafft zwischen beiden ein furchtbarer Abgrund. Aber die Menschen kommen nicht dazu, sich eigentlich diesen Abgrund richtig vor die Seele zu stellen, sie kommen nicht dazu, sie lieben es sogar, in dieser Beziehung sich den ärgsten Illusionen hinzugeben.
Nun muß man sich fragen: Wie steht es denn mit dem geschichtlichen Hergang bezüglich der Entstehung dieses klaffenden Abgrundes? Da müssen Sie zurückschauen in diejenigen Jahrhunderte, in denen noch nicht diese moderne Bildung da war, wo dasjenige, was gelehrtes Leben war, eben nur von einigen wenigen, die dazu gründlich vorbereitet waren, getrieben wurde. Seien Sie sich doch klar darüber, daß heute ein zwölfjähriges Schulmädchen in bezug auf äußere Bildung mehr in sich trägt als irgendein Gebildeter des 11. oder 12. oder 13. Jahrhunderts. Diese Dinge darf man nicht übersehen. Und diese Bildung ist so geworden, daß sie getragen wird von einem ganz außerordentlich intensiven Autoritätsgefühl, von einer schier unbezwinglichen Autoritätsempfindung. Es steht sozusagen dieser Bildung im Laufe der Jahrhunderte immer mehr und mehr etwas zu Gebote, was diesen Autoritätsglauben an die moderne Bildung immer größer und größer macht. Es ging im Laufe der Jahrhunderte diese moderne Bildung immer mehr und mehr über auf dasjenige, was nur die äußeren Sinne sagen, oder was die Rechnung sagt. Nun, je weniger der Mensch innerlich mit sich zu Rate geht, desto mehr leuchtet ihm ein, daß das wahr ist, was er, wie man sagt, mit seinen fünf Sinnen sieht, und was man so sieht, daß es errechnet ist, wie zwei mal zwei vier ist. Was du siehst mit deinen fünf Sinnen, was so ist, wie zwei mal zwei vier ist, das ist wahr. Indem man alles andere abgeleugnet hat und nur schließlich immer mehr und mehr das aufgenommen hat in die moderne Bildung, was so wahr ist, wie das, was man mit den fünf Sinnen sieht oder mit den fünf Fingern abzählen kann, so wurde eben — weil das eine so große Autorität ist, dieses «zwei mal zwei ist vier» und diese fünf Sinne — die moderne Bildung nach und nach mit der Autoritätsempfindung, die sie hat, ausgerüstet, weil man von ihr sagen kann, sie ist so gewiß wie das, daß zwei mal zwei vier ist, und wie dasjenige, was die fünf Sinne sagen.
Dadurch aber entstand immer mehr und mehr auch das Gefühl: Alles, was der Mensch glaubt, was der Mensch für richtig hält, müsse sich rechtfertigen vor dieser ganz gewissen modernen Bildung. Und indem diese moderne Bildung immer mehr und mehr nur auf das Sinnliche und auf das Errechenbare gegangen ist, war es unmöglich, überhaupt irgend jemals eine Wahrheit aus denjenigen Reichen, wo die Mathematik nicht mehr gilt und wo die Sinne nicht mehr gelten, vor die Menschen noch in entsprechender Weise hinzustellen. Wie wurden denn solche Wahrheiten in früheren Jahrhunderten, wo es diese moderne Bildung noch nicht gegeben hat, vor die Menschen hingestellt?
Hingestellt wurden sie in zeremoniellen Bildern. Es lag ja durch die Jahrhunderte in der Religionsverbreitung das Wesentliche nicht etwa in der Predigt, sondern in der Zeremonie, in den Ritualien. Man war sich klar: Man kann nicht durch den Intellekt sprechen, der noch gar nicht in der heutigen Weise entwickelt war, sondern man mußte durch das Bild sprechen. Stellen Sie sich nur einmal vor, wie es noch im 14., 15. Jahrhundert zum Beispiel in christlichen Ländern war. Da war die Predigt nicht die Hauptsache, da war die Hauptsache die Zeremonie. Da war die Hauptsache, daß der Mensch sich einlebte in eine Welt, die ihm in mächtigen, grandiosen Bildern dargestellt war. Überall waren an den Wänden Fresken dargestellt, die ihm das geistige Leben nahebrachten: wie wenn ungefähr unser irdisches Leben bis an die höchsten Berge hinaufreichen könnte, da aber, wenn man nur noch ein wenig höhersteigen könnte, würde das geistige Leben beginnen. Bildhaft, zur Imagination gehend, oder in den hörbaren Harmonien des Musikalischen, oder aber, wenn gesprochen wurde, in der mantrischen, in der Gebetstorm, in der Formelform wurde eben von der geistigen Welt gesprochen. Diese Zeiten waren sich ganz klar darüber: Für die geistige Welt braucht man das Bild, nicht den Begriff, nicht dasjenige, worüber man diskutieren kann, sondern man braucht das Anschauliche, man braucht das Bildhafte. Man braucht dasjenige, was zu den Sinnen spricht, aber zu den Sinnen so spricht, daß durch das Sinnlich-Gegebene der Geist hindurchspricht.
Nun kam die moderne Bildung herauf mit ihren intellektualistischen Ansprüchen, mit ihrem Anspruch, alles vor der Vernunft, wie man sagt, zu rechtfertigen. Auch über das Christentum, auch über die christlichen Geheimnisse, auch über das Mysterium von Golgatha und seine Träger wurde ja im wesentlichen in dieser Bildform gesprochen, auch in der Bildform, insofern das Wort gebraucht wurde, nämlich in der Erzählungsform. Und als die Dogmen aufkamen, so waren sie auch noch etwas bildhaft Erfaßtes. So kann man sagen: Es war bis zum 13., 14. Jahrhundert die christliche Verkündigung durchaus auf eine altertümliche Weise geschehen. Aber dieser christlichen Verkündigung wurde von keiner Seite her ihr Gebiet streitig gemacht, solange die intellektualistische Bildung noch nicht da war und solange man die Dinge nicht vor der Vernunft zu rechtfertigen hatte.
Nun studieren Sie doch einmal historisch, wie es da heraufkommt im 13., 14., 15., 16. Jahrhundert, wie es da anstürmt, daß die Menschen anfangen, alles intellektualistisch begreifen zu wollen! Welche welthistorische Kritik da einsetzt! Das macht man sich heute gewöhnlich gar nicht mehr klar, welche welthistorische Kritik da eingesetzt hat!
So kann man sagen: Der Mensch von heute — und es ist wirklich nicht etwa bloß der Mensch der oberen Zehntausend, sondern das sind die breitesten Schichten — wird in ein religiöses Leben eingeführt im Christentum, aber daneben auch in eine moderne Bildung. Nun leben die beiden, das Christentum und die moderne Bildung, in seiner Seele, und es stellt sich heraus, wenn es sich auch die Menschen nicht klarmachen, daß mit dem, was die intellektualistische Bildung gebracht hat, die christlichen Wahrheiten nicht bewiesen werden können. Es können die christlichen Wahrheiten damit nicht bewiesen werden. So lernt man von Kindheit auf heute das ganz Gewisse, daß zwei mal zwei vier ist, und daß man seine fünf Sinne nur darauf anwenden darf. Man lernt dieses ganz Gewisse, und man kommt darauf, wenn man sich an dieses ganz Gewisse halten will: dann geht es doch nicht, das Christentum an dieses ganz Gewisse heranzutragen.
Diejenigen Theologen, die modernen Theologen, die es haben herantragen wollen, haben ja den Christus verloren, können zu den breiten Schichten nicht mehr von dem Christus sprechen; sie sprechen höchstens von der Persönlichkeit Jesu. So erhält sich in den letzten Jahrhunderten dieses Christentum eben nur in den alten Formen, die aber der neuere Mensch eben einfach in seiner Seele nicht mehr gelten läßt, aber es verliert, ich möchte sagen, an innerem Halt in der Seele. Warum denn?
Nun, sehen Sie sich nur alles das an, was die Geschichte an Christentum heraufgebracht hat. Es ist die größte Unehrlichkeit, wenn heute die modernen Theologen dieses Christentum in irgendeiner Weise rationalistisch deuten wollen. Es ist unmöglich, dieses Christentum rationalistisch zu deuten. Man kann nicht dieses Christentum, dieses Mysterium von Golgatha und ihren Träger rationalistisch deuten, man muß von Spiritualität sprechen, wenn man von Christus sprechen will. Man muß von einer geistigen Welt sprechen, wenn man von Christus sprechen will. Man kann gar nicht an das ganz Gewisse, daß zwei mal zwei vier ist, und an seine fünf Sinne nur glauben und dann ehrlicherweise noch von Christus sprechen. Das kann man eben nicht, so daß es eben in dem tiefsten Seeleninnern der modernen Menschen so aussah, daß sie keine Möglichkeit hatten, aus dem, was nun einfach ihre Schulbildung ist, den Christus zu verstehen, zu begreifen. Denn der Rationalismus und Intellektualismus hat den Menschen die spirituelle Welt genommen. Es ist zwar der Christusname, die Christustradition geblieben, aber ohne ihre Atmosphäre, ohne daß der Christus erscheint als Geist unter Geistern, als eine geistige Wesenheit in einer geistigen Welt. Denn die Welt, die die moderne Astronomie, Biologie, Naturwissenschaft gebracht hat, ist eine ungeistige Welt.
Und so kamen eben zahlreiche Seelen heran, die ein ganz bestimmtes Bedürfnis aus diesen Untergründen heraus hatten. Die Zeit schreitet wirklich weiter, und die Menschen von heute, ich habe das oftmals betont, sind nicht mehr die Menschen der früheren Zeiten. Sie müssen sich doch fragen: Da trete ich mit so und so vielen zusammen, um mich mit ihnen in einer Gesellschaft zur Pflege von geistigen Wahrheiten zu finden. Warum tue ich denn das? Warum tun Sie, jeder Einzelne das? Was treibt Sie dazu? Nun sitzt das, was die Menschen dazu treibt, zumeist so tief in den unbewußten Untergründen des Seelenlebens, daß eben nicht viel Klarheit darüber herrscht. Aber die Frage muß doch aufgeworfen werden hier, wo, wie ich gerade in der Einleitung gesagt habe, Selbstbesinnung der Anthroposophen geübt werden soll.
Wenn Sie zurückblicken in frühere Zeiten, da war es den Men sehen selbstverständlich, daß nicht bloß materielle Dinge und materielle Vorgänge da draußen sind, sondern daß überall Geister sind. Die Menschen fanden eine geistige Welt um sich herum in ihrer Umgebung. Und weil sie eine geistige Welt fanden, konnten sie den Christus begreifen.
Mit dem modernen Intellektualismus findet man nirgends eine geistige Welt, wenn man ehrlich ist, folglich kann man auch den Christus nicht wirklich begreifen. Der moderne Gebildete begreift auch den Christus nicht, Die Menschen, die sich nun so sehnen, wieder ein Geistesleben zu finden, das sind nämlich ganz bestimmte Seelen. Das sind diejenigen Seelen, in denen zweierlei lebt. Wirklich, in den meisten Seelen derer, die sich in solchen Gesellschaften, von denen hier die Rede ist, zusammenfinden, in denen lebt heute ein Zweifaches: Erstens taucht ein ganz unbestimmtes Empfinden auf in der Seele, das die Menschen nicht beschreiben können, aber es ist da. Und untersucht man es mit den Mitteln, die man in der geistigen Welt hat, dann ist es das Empfinden, das aus früheren Erdenleben herrührt, in denen man aber noch eine geistige Umgebung hatte. Heute erstehen die Menschen, in denen innerlich seelisch etwas rumort von früheren Erdenleben. Wir hätten weder Theosophen noch Anthroposophen, wenn es nicht solche Menschen gäbe, in denen etwas rumort von früheren Erdenleben. Diese Menschen finden sich in allen Schichten unserer heutigen Bevölkerung. Sie wissen nicht, daß das von früheren Erdenleben kommt; aber es kommt von früheren Erdenleben. Dadurch entsteht das Streben nach einem ganz bestimmten Wege, nach einer ganz bestimmten Erkenntnis.
Ja, meine lieben Freunde, wie Sie die Bäume in früheren Erdenleben gesehen haben, wie Sie die äußeren materiellen Substanzen gesehen haben, das wirkt nicht nach in dieses jetzige Erdenleben, denn das haben Sie mit ihren Sinnen gesehen. Die Sinne sind zerstäubt im Kosmos. Dasjenige, was nachwirkt, ist der geistige Inhalt der früheren Erdenleben.
Nun kann der Mensch heute dastehen in zweifacher Weise. Er kann spüren: Da ist etwas in mir — er weiß es nicht, daß es aus früheren Erdenleben kommt, aber es kommt aus früheren Erdenleben -, da ist etwas in mir, es wirkt, es ist da. Aber wenn ich noch so viel von der Sinneswelt weiß, das kann nicht beschrieben werden, denn das hat nichts herübergetragen, was nicht geistig ist. Wenn mir nun in der Gegenwart alles genommen wird, was geistig ist, dann ist dieses, was aus früheren Erdenleben herüberkommt, unbefriedigt. Das ist das eine.
Das andere, was in den Menschen lebt, ist, daß sie ein unbestimmtes Gefühl haben: Mir müßten eigentlich die Träume mehr sagen als die Sinneswelt. — Es ist natürlich ein Irrtum, eine Illusion, wenn die Leute glauben, daß ihnen die Träume mehr sagen müßten als die Sinneswelt. Aber woher kommt denn diese Illusion, die wirklich in demselben Maße heraufkommt, in dem die moderne Bildung heraufgekommen ist? Denn mit dieser modernen Bildung hat es nämlich eine eigentümliche Bewandtnis. Wenn sich die Menschen, die modern gebildet sind, heute in ihren gebildeten Gesellschaften zusammenfinden, dann muß man eben gebildet sein, dann redet man so, wie es einem im heutigen Sinne geschulten Menschen entspricht. Fängt einer an, irgend etwas von geistigen Wirkungen in der Welt zu reden, dann muß man spöttisch die Mundwinkel ziehen, denn das ist gebildet. Innerhalb unserer Schulbildung gilt es nicht, von geistigen Wirkungen in der Welt zu reden. Da ist man ein abergläubischer, ein ungebildeter Mensch. Da muß man die Mundwinkel ziehen. Da muß man zeigen: So etwas ist nur für den abergläubischen Teil der Bevölkerung.
Nun, in solchen Gesellschaften bilden sich dann oftmals zwei Gruppen. Zumeist ist irgendwer da, der faßt so einen Viertelsmut, über solche geistigen Dinge zu reden. Da ziehen die Leute die Mundwinkel. Der größte Teil geht weg, geht zum Kartenspiel oder zu sonstigen menschenwürdigen Beschäftigungen. Einige aber werden neugierig. Da geht man in ein Nebenzimmer, und da beginnt man dann über diese Dinge lange zu reden, während die anderen Karten spielen oder irgend etwas anderes machen, was ich weniger beschreiben möchte. Da hören die Leute in dem Nebenzimmer dann mit offenem Mund zu, können gar nicht genug kriegen vom Zuhören; aber es muß im Nebenzimmer sein, denn sonst ist man nicht gebildet. In dem, wozu der moderne Mensch da kommen kann, ist doch nur mehr oder weniger Traumähnliches. Die Dinge, die da erzählt werden, sind ja meist so unzusammenhängend und chaotisch wie Träume, aber der Mensch liebt es doch. Warum liebt er es? Es würden nämlich die anderen es auch lieben, die zum Kartenspiel abgezogen sind. Es ist nur die Leidenschaft des Kartenspieles noch stärker als diese Liebe zum Zuhören; wenigstens reden sie es sich ein.
Warum hat denn der Mensch in dieser modernen Zeit den Drang, Träumen nachzugehen? Weil er fühlt, wiederum ganz instinktiv, ohne daß er das klar weiß: Was ich da in meinen Gedanken habe, und was mir die äußere physische Welt abbildet, das ist ganz schön, aber es gibt mir ja nichts für mein Seelenleben. Dahinter liegt doch etwas anderes, das fühle ich in mir. Ein geheimes Denken, Fühlen und Wollen lebt auch, wenn ich wache, so frei in mir, wie das Traumleben frei lebt, wenn ich schlafe. Es ist etwas in dem Hintergrunde der Seelen, das wird eigentlich geträumt auch beim Wachen. Das fühlt schon der moderne Mensch. Und das fühlt er, weil ihm gerade in der Außenwelt das Geistige fehlt. Er kann es nur noch im Traume erhaschen. In früheren Erdenleben hat er es in seiner Umgebung geschaut.
Jetzt werden eben die Seelen geboren, die neben diesen Impulsen, die aus früheren Erdenleben in ihnen rumoren, auch das in sich rumorend haben, was im vorirdischen Dasein in der geistigen Welt gespielt hat. Das ist verwandt mit diesem innerlichen Träumen. Das innerliche Träumen ist eben eine Nachwirkung von dem Lebendigen im vorirdischen Dasein.
Denken Sie doch: Die Menschen früherer Zeiten wußten eben von geistiger Umgebung, ihr irdisches Dasein nahm ihnen gewissermaßen nicht den Geist. Die neueren Menschen fühlen das Geistige in sich. Aber nicht nur, daß ihnen die Seelenverfassung der Zeit den Geist nimmt, es ist auch eine Bildung aufgetreten, die geistfeindlich ist, die den Geist wegbeweist.
Frägt man, wodurch sich Menschen in solchen Gesellschaften, wie sie hier charakterisiert werden sollen, zusammenfinden, so ist es eben durch diese zwei Eigenschaften der Seele: dadurch, daß etwas in ihnen rumort aus früheren Erdenleben, und dadurch, daß etwas in ihnen rumort vom vorirdischen Dasein. Bei den meisten von Ihnen ist es so. Sie säßen gar nicht da, wenn nicht diese zwei Dinge in Ihnen rumorten.
Und denken Sie an frühere soziale Zustände zurück. In ganz alten Zeiten kamen die sozialen Einrichtungen überhaupt aus den Mysterien, waren im Einklange mit demjenigen, was den Menschen geistig überliefert wurde. Der Mensch war hineinverwoben in ein, sagen wir, soziales Wesen, das zugleich eins war mit demjenigen, was seine Seele ersehnte.
Nehmen Sie einen Athener. Er schaute zu der Göttin Athene auf. Er empfand in seiner Seele seine innere Verwandtschaft mit der Göttin Athene. Er stand in einem sozialen Gemeinwesen darinnen, von dem man wußte: das war nach den Intentionen der Göttin Athene eingerichtet. Die Olivenbäume um Athen herum hat die Göttin Athene gepflanzt. Die staatlichen Gesetze hat die Göttin Athene diktiert. Man war als Mensch in eine soziale Gemeinschaft hineingestellt, die mit dem innerlichen Glauben ganz stimmte. Da wurde einem nichts genommen, was einem sozusagen die Götter gegeben hatten.
Vergleichen Sie damit den modernen Menschen. Er steht in seinen sozialen Verhältnissen so darinnen, daß eben der Abgrund klafft zwischen dem, was er innerlich erlebt, und dem, wie er äußerlich in diese sozialen Verhältnisse eingesponnen ist. Er kommt sich so vor - er macht es sich nur nicht klar, es sitzt im Unterbewußtsein —, wie wenn seiner Seele durch die äußeren Verhältnisse sein Körper fortwährend genommen werden sollte. Er fühlt sich durch diese Eigenschaften, durch diese Impulse aus früheren Erdenleben und dem vorirdischen Dasein, wovon ich Ihnen gesprochen habe, im Zusammenhange mit einer geistigen Welt. Sein Körper gehört den äußeren Institutionen an. Sein Körper muß sich so verhalten, daß er den äußeren Institutionen genügen kann. Das erzeugt im Unterbewußtsein eine fortwährende Angst im modernen Menschen, daß ihm eigentlich der physische Leib nicht mehr gehört. Nun, es gibt schon moderne Staaten, in denen man ja fühlen kann, wie einem eigentlich der Rock nicht mehr gehört, denn man ist ihn der Steuerbehörde schuldig! Aber nicht wahr, in einem weiteren Maßstab, meine lieben Freunde, gehört einem auch der physische Leib nicht. Der wird in Anspruch genommen von den äußeren Institutionen.
Diese Angst lebt in dem modernen Menschen, daß er eigentlich jeden Tag seinen Leib hingeben muß für irgend etwas, was nicht mit seinem Seelischen zusammenhängt. Und so wird der moderne Mensch ein Sucher nach dem, was ganz anderen Weltaltern angehört, was er im vorigen Erdenleben erlebt hat. So wird der moderne Mensch ein Sucher nach dem, was überhaupt der Erde nicht angehört, was der geistigen Welt angehört, und in dem er im vorirdischen Dasein war.
Das alles macht sich unbewußt, instinktiv geltend, aber es macht sich geltend. Und sagen muß man: Dasjenige, was unsere Anthroposophische Gesellschaft jetzt geworden ist, ist sie ja wirklich aus kleinen Anfängen heraus geworden. Sie mußte zuerst in der primitivsten Weise in ganz kleinen Zirkeln arbeiten. Man könnte viel erzählen von der Art und Weise, wie man aus kleinen Zirkeln heraus gearbeitet hat.
Ich habe zum Beispiel einmal in den ersten Jahren in Berlin vortragen müssen zunächst in einer Stube, in der hinten die Biergläser klirrten, weil es eine Schankstube war, die nach der Straße hinausging. Und als einmal diese nicht brauchbar war, wies man uns in etwas, was eine Art Stall war. Da kamen die Leute hin, die so beschaffen waren, so beschaffen sind, wie ich es Ihnen eben jetzt erzählt habe. In einer deutschen Stadt habe ich in einem Saal vorgetragen, in dem stückweise überhaupt kein Fußboden war, wo man immer achtgeben mußte, daß man nicht in ein Loch hineinplumpste und sich das Bein brach. Aber es versammelten sich da eben diejenigen Menschen, die diese Impulse hatten. Allerdings, diese Bewegung war von vornherein darauf angelegt, allgemein menschlich zu sein. Und so war die Befriedigung ebenso groß, wenn das einfachste Gemüt sich einfand in solchen Lokalitäten, wie ich sie eben beschrieben habe. Aber man fand das nicht zu unbehaglich, weil das eben auch zur Menschlichkeit gehörte, wenn sich, ich möchte sagen, die Menschen mehr so einfanden, daß sie dann die anthroposophische Bewegung auf aristokratische Art, wie es zum Beispiel in München war, aus der Taufe hoben. Man schloß nicht irgendeine menschliche Allüre aus.
Aber das, meine lieben Freunde, worauf gesehen werden mußte, das war immer das, daß eben solche Seelen sich zusammenfanden, die so beschaffen waren, wie ich es geschildert habe. So daß wirklich die Menschen, die in solchen Gesellschaften zusammenkamen, schicksalsmäßig gezeichnet waren, auch heute noch schicksalsmäßig gezeichnet sind.
Wären nicht solche Menschen dagewesen, so hätte eine Persönlichkeit, wie die Blavatsky ist, kein Interesse finden können. Denn gerade nur bei solchen Persönlichkeiten hat sie ein Interesse gefunden. Was fühlten denn zunächst diese Menschen? Was war ihnen denn das Allerwichtigste und was kam denn sozusagen ihren Empfindungen entgegen?
Nun, dem einen, was da in der Seele rumorte, kam die Lehre von den wiederholten Erdenleben entgegen. Man konnte sich jetzt sagen: Du lebst als Mensch in den Zeitaltern, du bist innerlich stärker als diejenigen Mächte, die dir jeden Tag etwa deinen Leib entreißen wollen. Da mußte man also diesem tief innerlichsten Fühlen, das eigentlich schon willensartig war im Menschen, mit der Lehre von den wiederholten Erdenleben entgegenkommen.
Und diesem, das Seelische eigentlich wie traumhaft empfinden, körperfrei empfinden — das tut selbst der einfachste Landmensch, das Seelische körperfrei empfinden —, dem konnte man nimmermehr entgegenkommen mit einem Erkennen, das nur auf die Materiie und ihre Vorgänge hin orientiert war. Denn innerhalb dieser Materie und ihrer Vorgänge gab es so etwas nicht wie das, was der Mensch an seinem Seelischen erlebte, was ein Nachklang war seines vorirdischen Daseins. Man konnte dem nur entgegenkommen, wenn man ihm klarmachte, wenn ich das schockierende Wort gebrauchen darf: Unser tiefstes menschliches Wesen ist wie aus Träumen gewoben, Dem, was in uns gewoben ist, wie die Träume gewoben sind, was nur ein stärkeres Sein, eine stärkere Existenz hat, dem sind die Dinge, die in der physischen Umgebung sind, nicht gleich. Man ist ja wie ein Fisch, der aus dem Wasser heraus muß und in der Luft leben soll, wenn man mit dem, was man in der Seele trägt, nur in der Welt leben soll, die die moderne Bildung vor den Menschen hinzaubert. Wie der Fisch anfängt, eben nicht atmen zu können in der Luft, wie der Fisch anfängt zu schnappen, wenn er nicht atmen kann, so leben eben solche Seelen in der modernen Atmosphäre, indem sie schnappen nach dem, was sie brauchen. Das finden sie nicht, weil es Geistiges ist. Denn es ist der Nachklang dessen, was sie erlebt haben im vorirdischen Dasein, in der geistigen Welt. Sie wollen von Geistigem hören, daß Geistiges da ist, daß mitten unter uns Geistiges ist.
Begreifen Sie, meine lieben Freunde, daß das die zwei wichtigsten Angelegenheiten waren für einen gewissen Teil der Menschheit: Aufklärung darüber zu bekommen, daß der Mensch über das eine Erdenleben hinaus lebt, Aufklärung darüber zu bekommen, daß es solche Wesen überhaupt in der Welt gibt, wie er ist, daß es Geister gibt unter den natürlichen Dingen und Vorgängen. Das war zunächst durch die Blavatsky gebracht worden. Aber das mußte man zuerst haben, bevor man wiederum den Christus verstehen konnte.
Nun liegt eben das Eigentümliche vor, daß, man möchte sagen, mit einer Betonung des Mitleides mit der Menschheit, bei der Blavatsky das auftrat, daß sie sich sagte: Diese Menschen schnappen ja nach Erkenntnissen aus der geistigen Welt. Wenn wir ihnen die alten heidnischen Religionen enthüllen, dann enthüllen wir ihnen etwas, was diesen ihren geistigen Bedürfnissen entgegenkommt. Das sollte zunächst getan werden.
Daß dabei eine ungeheure Einseitigkeit, nämlich ein Antichristianismus entstand, das ist dann durchaus begreiflich, ebenso wie es begreiflich ist, daß von dem Hinschauen auf das gegenwärtige Christentum, aus dem er selber herausgewachsen war, bei Nietzsche ein so starker Antichristianismus entstanden ist.
Von diesem Antichristianismus und seiner Heilung möchte ich Ihnen dann in den nächsten Vorträgen sprechen. Ich möchte nur noch betonen, daß dasjenige, was bei der Blavatsky als Antichristianismus aufgetreten ist, vom Anfange an in der anthroposophischen Bewegung nicht da war, denn der erste Vortragszyklus, der von mir gehalten worden ist, war der Vortragszyklus «Von Buddha zu Christus», wie ich schon erwähnt habe. Dadurch also steht die anthroposophische Bewegung als etwas Selbständiges in all diesen Geistesbewegungen drinnen, daß sie vom Anfange an den Weg von den heidnischen Religionen zum Christentum hin gegangen ist. Aber ebensogut muß man verstehen, warum die anderen diesen Weg nicht gegangen sind. Davon, wie gesagt, wollen wir dann morgen sprechen.
Fourth Lecture
When considering a phenomenon such as A. P. Blavatsky, viewed from the perspective that will already have become clear to you from the previous three lectures, on the one hand, of course, this personality as such, standing alone, so to speak, comes into consideration. On the other hand, we must consider the effect she had on a large number of people. Now, it must be said that this effect was, in part, quite negative. One could say: Those people who had heard something about Blavatsky's publications, insofar as they were, let us say, philosophically, psychologically, literarily, scientifically, or, in general, as the word is used today, educated, were glad to be rid of this phenomenon in some way, not to be forced to pass any judgment. They were able to achieve their goal by simply saying, under circumstances that I at least hinted at yesterday, that unreal practices had been observed and that there was no need to concern oneself with something that had been proven to be such.
Then, of course, there were those who possessed ancient traditional wisdom — a possession of which I have told you how little they actually understood, but which they used in one way or another as a means of power — who were members of this or that secret society. One must never forget that countless effects in the world are connected to what emanates from such secret societies. Not only were they glad not to have to pass judgment, but above all they were anxious to find every means to prevent such a representation of the spiritual world from having a broader effect. For, as we have seen, the things had been published; they could be read by anyone and disseminated by anyone. And thus, at least a good part of the means of power that such societies wanted to preserve had been taken away from them. Therefore, behind the things I characterized yesterday, there are, of course, members of such societies, namely in the passing of judgment: there are unreal practices at work here.
But even more important for our present purpose is the fact that Blavatsky's writings and everything else associated with her have made a certain impression on a large number of people today. This has given rise to movements that, in a certain sense, have called themselves theosophical.
I would ask you to note in all these discussions that I always try to present the characteristics in such a way that they correspond to the facts. Today, this is made impossible by the use of words, or rather, it is made impossible in many circles. Today, when people hear a word, they very easily, I would say, first establish a kind of lexical relationship to it, seeking a kind of explanation of the word in order to avoid, as far as possible, delving into the matter itself. When such a literary person, and also some people who are taken more seriously than a literary person, hear about “theosophy,” they look it up in the dictionary — which, for all I care, may happen in their heads — and find out what it is. Or they go further; perhaps they are much more conscientious and study all kinds of writings in which a word like theosophy occurs, and then they take that as the basis for their judgment. In writings that deal with such things, they must pay attention to how much such an approach is actually worth.
This must always be contrasted with the question: How did the society, or societies, one might say, that joined Blavatsky's movement come to be called the “Theosophical Society”? One may have many objections to this Theosophical Society — and I have listed some of the things one might object to — but when it was founded at the end of the 19th century, it was certainly not the case that the lexical meaning of the word “theosophy” was taken and a Theosophical Society was founded because people wanted to spread theosophy as it is understood in the lexicon. That was not the case at all. Rather, it was a collection of messages from the spiritual world through Blavatsky that was initially available as such. Now, for reasons that I will discuss later, it was deemed necessary to cultivate these messages in a social manner, and a name was needed. Then those who were debating what name to give it—everything is debated today, and everything was debated back then too—asked themselves: Should it be called the New Mystical Society, the Rosicrucian Society, or the Magical Society? And then they looked to see what other words there were and came up with the words theosophy and theosophical.
So the word really has little to do with what has spread, insofar as it is a historically derived word. Therefore, it is quite nonsensical to discuss things based on the meaning of the word, but to love or hate them by name. It is precisely the very specific, concrete things that have entered the world through Blavatsky's writings or other communications. And it is, one might say, pure coincidence that the societies that joined together called themselves Theosophical Societies. No one could think of a better word. This must be borne in mind, because of course there are not only historical judgments, but also historical feelings. Among those who have studied the historical development of this or that science, the term “theosophy” has appeared in many forms, but what has appeared among them has nothing to do with what was called the Theosophical Society.
Such things should be taken very seriously, at least within the Anthroposophical Society, and there should be a certain drive for accuracy so that the right feeling can arise for all the unsubstantial writing that has gradually become associated with these things in the world.
But this question must occupy us in a very special way: How did it come about that a large number of people in recent times have had an urge for these things that have been revealed? For from there we will then find the transition to something that is of a completely different nature: the anthroposophical movement.
Now, when considering the phenomenon of Blavatsky, one must emphasize one characteristic of this personality in particular, because it is an outstanding characteristic, namely that H.P. Blavatsky was, one might say, completely anti-Christian in her outlook, completely anti-Christian in her orientation. In her “Secret Doctrine,” she revealed, one might say, in one fell swoop, the various impulses of manifold primitive religions and the development of religions. She was simply incapable of objective presentation. Wherever one would actually expect objective descriptions, she mixed her subjective judgment, her emotional judgment, into the description. She not only judged, but she showed everywhere that she had a deep sympathy for all the religions in the world outside of Judaism and Christianity, and a deep antipathy toward Judaism and Christianity. Throughout, Blavatsky sharply presents everything that comes from Judaism and Christianity as inferior to the great revelations of the various pagan religions: in other words, a distinctly anti-Christian orientation, but a distinctly spiritual orientation. She has the ability to speak of spiritual beings and spiritual processes in the same way that one otherwise speaks of beings and processes in the sensory world, and to discuss some things from this spiritual world in such a way that one can already say: She had the ability to move among spiritual activities in the same way that people today otherwise move among physical and sensory activities. Blavatsky speaks of spiritual phenomena with the same sense of reality with which people otherwise speak of things in the physical world. In other words, she has a distinctly spiritual orientation and a distinctly anti-Christian orientation.
This, however, provides the further ability to bring characteristic impulses of the various pagan religions, the various nature religions, to the surface and to the understanding of human beings.
Now, one might be surprised about two things: first, that a personality should appear today — and by “today” I mean, of course, in the historical sense — who is so distinctly anti-Christian in orientation and who expects the salvation of humanity from this anti-Christian orientation. And secondly, one might be surprised that, since outwardly very few people are pagan-oriented, but outwardly, at least in our civilized regions, people are are Jewish or Christian in orientation, that nevertheless these Jewish and Christian oriented people, especially the Christian oriented — even less so the Jewish oriented — have nevertheless exerted a decisive, profound influence. These are two questions that must be addressed when we talk about the conditions of modern spiritual life among the broad masses in general.
Now, with regard to Blavatsky's own anti-Christian orientation, I would just like to remind you that a personality who became much better known in Central Europe, or at least much better known in certain circles, was at least as anti-Christian as Blavatsky. That is Nietzsche. One cannot be more anti-Christian than the author of “The Antichrist” was. As dissimilar as Nietzsche is to Blavatsky – and already because Blavatsky was more or less uneducated in terms of what we today call modern education, while Nietzsche stood at the heights of education – as dissimilar as they were in the whole attitude of their souls, they show a remarkable similarity in that they are eminently anti-Christian. It would be superficial not to ask about the reason for this anti-Christian orientation in both personalities. But you will not get an answer unless you delve a little deeper into the matter.
It must be clear that today, and indeed ever broader sections of humanity, find themselves in a deep conflict with regard to their inner lives, a conflict that people do not always realize, that they try to erase with their minds, that they try to erase with a certain intellectual cowardice, but which weaves and wails all the more in the subconscious depths of the mind and in the souls.
One need only be clear about what has become of European humanity, of the whole of European humanity with its American appendage, under the influence of the pursuit of education over the last three, four, five centuries. Just consider how great the difference really is between what constitutes the content of secular education today and what the religious impulse is in human beings. It is true that most people indulge in the most terrible illusions in this regard. They are introduced to this modern education as early as elementary school; all thinking, all soul orientation is introduced into this modern education. Then they are also taught what is supposed to satisfy their religious longings. There is a terrible gulf between the two. But people do not actually come to face this gulf properly; they do not come to it; they even love to indulge in the worst illusions in this regard.
Now we must ask ourselves: What is the historical background to the emergence of this yawning chasm? To answer this, we must look back to those centuries when this modern education did not yet exist, when scholarly life was pursued only by a few who were thoroughly prepared for it. Be aware that today, a twelve-year-old schoolgirl has more external education than any educated person of the 11th, 12th, or 13th century. These things must not be overlooked. And this education has become so that it is supported by an extraordinarily intense sense of authority, by an almost indomitable feeling of authority. Over the centuries, this education has, so to speak, increasingly been at the disposal of something that makes this belief in the authority of modern education greater and greater. Over the centuries, this modern education has increasingly focused on what the outer senses tell us, or what calculations tell us. Now, the less a person consults their inner self, the more it becomes clear to them that what they see with their five senses, as they say, and what they see in calculations, such as two times two equals four, is true. What you see with your five senses, what is as true as two times two is four, that is true. By denying everything else and ultimately incorporating more and more into modern education what is as true as what can be seen with the five senses or counted with the five fingers, modern education has gradually been equipped with the sense of authority that it has, because one can say of it that it is as certain as the fact that two times two is four, and as what the five senses say.
But this also gave rise to the feeling that everything that people believe, everything that people consider to be right, must be justified before this very certain modern education. And as this modern education focused more and more on the sensory and the calculable, it became impossible to ever present any truth from those realms where mathematics no longer applies and where the senses no longer apply to people in an appropriate way. How were such truths presented to people in earlier centuries, when this modern education did not yet exist?
They were presented in ceremonial images. Throughout the centuries, the essence of the spread of religion lay not in preaching, but in ceremony and ritual. It was clear that one could not speak through the intellect, which was not yet developed in the way it is today, but one had to speak through images. Just imagine what it was like in the 14th and 15th centuries, for example in Christian countries. Preaching was not the main thing; the main thing was ceremony. The main thing was that people immersed themselves in a world that was presented to them in powerful, grandiose images. Everywhere, frescoes were painted on the walls to bring spiritual life closer to them: as if our earthly life could reach up to the highest mountains, but if we could only climb a little higher, spiritual life would begin. Pictorially, appealing to the imagination, or in the audible harmonies of music, or, when spoken, in mantras, in prayer formulas, in formulas, the spiritual world was spoken of. Those times were very clear about this: for the spiritual world, one needs images, not concepts, not things that can be discussed, but one needs the vivid, one needs the pictorial. One needs that which speaks to the senses, but speaks to the senses in such a way that the spirit speaks through the sensory given.
Then modern education came along with its intellectualistic demands, with its demand to justify everything before reason, as they say. Christianity, the Christian mysteries, the mystery of Golgotha and its bearers were also essentially spoken of in this pictorial form, also in the pictorial form insofar as the word was used, namely in the narrative form. And when the dogmas arose, they were still something pictorially grasped. So one can say that until the 13th and 14th centuries, Christian proclamation was carried out in a thoroughly ancient manner. But this Christian proclamation was not contested by any side as long as intellectual education did not yet exist and as long as things did not have to be justified before reason.
Now study historically how it emerged in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, how it surged forth, how people began to want to understand everything intellectually! What a world-historical critique began there! Today, people usually don't even realize what a world-historical critique began there!
So we can say: People today — and it's really not just the upper ten thousand, but the broadest strata — are introduced to a religious life in Christianity, but also to a modern education. Now both Christianity and modern education live in their souls, and it turns out, even if people do not realize it, that Christian truths cannot be proven with what intellectual education has brought. Christian truths cannot be proven with it. From childhood on, we learn the absolute certainty that two times two is four, and that we must apply our five senses only to this. We learn this absolute certainty, and we come to the conclusion that if we want to hold on to this absolute certainty, then it is not possible to apply Christianity to this absolute certainty.
Those theologians, the modern theologians, who have wanted to bring it closer, have lost Christ and can no longer speak of Christ to the broad masses; at most, they speak of the personality of Jesus. Thus, in recent centuries, this Christianity has been preserved only in its old forms, which, however, modern man simply no longer accepts in his soul, but it loses, I would say, its inner hold on the soul. Why is that?
Well, just look at everything that the history of Christianity has brought forth. It is the greatest dishonesty when modern theologians today want to interpret this Christianity in any rationalistic way. It is impossible to interpret this Christianity rationally. One cannot interpret this Christianity, this mystery of Golgotha and its bearer, rationally; one must speak of spirituality if one wants to speak of Christ. One must speak of a spiritual world if one wants to speak of Christ. One cannot believe only in the certainty that two times two is four and in one's five senses and then still speak honestly of Christ. One simply cannot do that, so that in the deepest inner soul of modern human beings it appeared that they had no possibility of understanding Christ from what is now simply their school education. For rationalism and intellectualism have robbed people of the spiritual world. The name of Christ and the Christ tradition have remained, but without their atmosphere, without Christ appearing as a spirit among spirits, as a spiritual being in a spiritual world. For the world that modern astronomy, biology, and natural science have brought about is an unspiritual world.
And so numerous souls came forward who had a very specific need arising from these underlying factors. Time really does march on, and the people of today, as I have often emphasized, are no longer the people of earlier times. You must ask yourselves: I come together with so many people in order to find myself in a society dedicated to the cultivation of spiritual truths. Why do I do this? Why does each and every one of you do this? What drives you to do it? Now, what drives people is usually so deeply buried in the unconscious depths of their soul life that there is not much clarity about it. But the question must be raised here, where, as I just said in the introduction, self-reflection should be practiced by anthroposophists.
If you look back to earlier times, it was obvious to people that there were not only material things and material processes out there, but that there were spirits everywhere. People found a spiritual world around them in their environment. And because they found a spiritual world, they were able to understand Christ.
With modern intellectualism, if one is honest, one cannot find a spiritual world anywhere, and consequently one cannot really understand Christ either. The modern educated person does not understand Christ either. The people who now long to find a spiritual life again are very specific souls. These are souls in which two things live. Truly, in most of the souls of those who come together in such societies as we are talking about here, there is a duality living today: First, a very vague feeling arises in the soul that people cannot describe, but it is there. And if you examine it with the means available in the spiritual world, it is a feeling that stems from previous earthly lives, in which people still had a spiritual environment. Today, people arise in whom something from previous earthly lives is stirring within their souls. We would have neither theosophists nor anthroposophists if there were no such people in whom something stirs from previous earthly lives. These people are found in all strata of our present-day population. They do not know that this comes from previous earthly lives, but it does come from previous earthly lives. This gives rise to the striving for a very specific path, for a very specific knowledge.
Yes, my dear friends, how you saw the trees in previous earthly lives, how you saw the outer material substances, that does not have an effect in this present earthly life, because you saw that with your senses. The senses are scattered in the cosmos. What has an effect is the spiritual content of previous earthly lives.
Now, human beings today can stand there in two ways. They can feel: there is something in me — they do not know that it comes from previous earthly lives, but it does come from previous earthly lives — there is something in me, it is working, it is there. But no matter how much I know about the sensory world, it cannot be described, for it has carried over nothing that is not spiritual. If everything spiritual is now taken away from me in the present, then what comes over from previous earthly lives is unsatisfied. That is one thing.
The other thing that lives in people is that they have a vague feeling: dreams should actually tell me more than the sensory world. — It is, of course, a mistake, an illusion, when people believe that dreams should mean more to them than the sensory world. But where does this illusion come from, which has really arisen to the same extent as modern education has arisen? For there is a peculiar connection with this modern education. When people who are modernly educated come together in their educated societies today, then one must be educated, then one speaks in a way that befits a person educated in the modern sense. If someone starts talking about spiritual influences in the world, then one must turn up the corners of one's mouth in derision, because that is what is considered educated. In our school education, it is not acceptable to talk about spiritual influences in the world. That makes you a superstitious, uneducated person. You have to turn up the corners of your mouth. You have to show that such things are only for the superstitious part of the population.
Well, in such societies, two groups often form. Usually there is someone who plucks up the courage to talk about such spiritual matters. People turn up their noses. Most of them walk away, go to play cards or engage in other dignified activities. But some become curious. They go into the next room and start talking about these things at length, while the others play cards or do something else that I would rather not describe. The people in the next room listen with their mouths open, unable to get enough of what they are hearing; but it has to be in the next room, because otherwise you are not educated. What modern man can achieve is more or less dreamlike. The things that are told are usually as incoherent and chaotic as dreams, but people love it. Why do they love it? Because the others who have gone off to play cards would love it too. It's just that the passion for card games is even stronger than this love of listening; at least that's what they tell themselves.
Why do people in this modern age feel the urge to pursue dreams? Because they feel, again quite instinctively, without knowing it clearly: What I have in my thoughts, and what the external physical world reflects to me, is very beautiful, but it gives me nothing for my soul life. There is something else behind it, I feel it within me. A secret thinking, feeling, and willing also lives when I am awake, as freely within me as dream life lives freely when I sleep. There is something in the background of the soul that is actually dreamed even when awake. Modern man already feels this. And he feels it because he lacks the spiritual in the outer world. He can only catch it in dreams. In earlier earthly lives, he saw it in his surroundings.
Now souls are being born who, in addition to these impulses that rumble within them from earlier earthly lives, also have within them what played out in the spiritual world in their pre-earthly existence. This is related to this inner dreaming. Inner dreaming is precisely an aftereffect of the living in pre-earthly existence.
Just think: people in earlier times knew about the spiritual environment; their earthly existence did not, in a sense, take away their spirit. Modern people feel the spiritual within themselves. But not only does the state of mind of the times take away their spirit, a form of education has also emerged that is hostile to the spirit, that drives the spirit away.
If one asks what brings people together in societies such as those described here, it is precisely these two characteristics of the soul: the fact that something from their previous earthly lives is stirring within them, and the fact that something from their pre-earthly existence is stirring within them. This is the case for most of you. You would not be sitting here if these two things were not stirring within you.
And think back to earlier social conditions. In ancient times, social institutions arose from the mysteries and were in harmony with what had been handed down to people spiritually. People were woven into a social being, so to speak, that was at one with what their souls longed for.
Take an Athenian, for example. He looked up to the goddess Athena. He felt in his soul his inner kinship with the goddess Athena. He stood within a social community that was known to have been established according to the intentions of the goddess Athena. The goddess Athena planted the olive trees around Athens. The goddess Athena dictated the laws of the state. As a human being, one was placed in a social community that was entirely in tune with one's inner beliefs. Nothing was taken away from one that had been given, so to speak, by the gods.
Compare this with modern man. They are so caught up in their social circumstances that there is a gulf between what they experience inwardly and how they are externally entangled in these social circumstances. They feel as if their soul is constantly being taken away from their body by external circumstances, but they are not aware of this; it is in their subconscious. Through these characteristics, through these impulses from previous earthly lives and pre-earthly existence, of which I have spoken to you, they feel connected to a spiritual world. Their body belongs to external institutions. Their body must behave in such a way that it can satisfy the external institutions. This creates a constant fear in the subconscious of modern man that his physical body no longer belongs to him. Well, there are already modern states in which one can feel that one's coat no longer belongs to one, because one owes it to the tax authorities! But isn't it true, my dear friends, that on a broader scale, one's physical body does not belong to one either? It is claimed by external institutions.
This fear lives in modern man, that he actually has to give up his body every day for something that is not related to his soul. And so modern man becomes a seeker of what belongs to completely different worlds, what he experienced in his previous earthly life. Thus, modern man becomes a seeker of what does not belong to the earth at all, what belongs to the spiritual world, and in which he was in his pre-earthly existence.
All this asserts itself unconsciously, instinctively, but it does assert itself. And it must be said: what our Anthroposophical Society has now become has indeed grown out of small beginnings. It first had to work in the most primitive way in very small circles. Much could be said about the way in which we worked out of small circles.
For example, in the early years in Berlin, I once had to give a lecture in a room where beer glasses were clinking in the back because it was a bar that opened onto the street. And when that room was unusable, we were directed to something that was a kind of stable. The people who came there were the kind of people I just described to you. In a German city, I gave a lecture in a hall where parts of the floor were missing, and you had to be careful not to fall into a hole and break your leg. But it was precisely those people who had these impulses who gathered there. Of course, this movement was designed from the outset to be universally human. And so the satisfaction was just as great when the simplest minds found their way to such locations as I have just described. But people did not find this too uncomfortable, because it was also part of humanity when, I would say, people came together in such a way that they launched the anthroposophical movement in an aristocratic manner, as was the case in Munich, for example. No human affectation was excluded.
But what had to be seen, my dear friends, was always that souls of the kind I have described came together. So that the people who came together in such societies were truly marked by fate, and are still marked by fate today.
If such people had not been there, a personality like Blavatsky's would not have been able to find any interest. For it was only with such personalities that she found interest. What did these people feel at first? What was most important to them and what, so to speak, met their feelings?
Well, the teaching of repeated earthly lives met with what was stirring in their souls. One could now say to oneself: You live as a human being through the ages, you are inwardly stronger than those forces that want to snatch your body away from you every day. So one had to respond to this deepest inner feeling, which was actually already present in the human will, with the teaching of repeated earthly lives.
And this feeling of the soul as if in a dream, feeling it without the body — even the simplest country person does this, feels the soul without the body — could never be met with a recognition that was oriented only toward matter and its processes. For within this matter and its processes there was nothing like what human beings experienced in their souls, which was an echo of their pre-earthly existence. One could only meet this need by making it clear to them, if I may use the shocking word: our deepest human nature is woven from dreams. What is woven within us, as dreams are woven, has a stronger being, a stronger existence, and is not the same as the things that are in the physical environment. One is like a fish that has to leave the water and live in the air if one is to live in the world that modern education conjures up before people with what one carries in one's soul. Just as the fish begins to be unable to breathe in the air, just as the fish begins to gasp when it cannot breathe, so such souls live in the modern atmosphere, gasping for what they need. They cannot find it because it is spiritual. For it is the echo of what they experienced in their pre-earthly existence, in the spiritual world. They want to hear about the spiritual, that the spiritual exists, that the spiritual is among us.
Understand, my dear friends, that these were the two most important matters for a certain part of humanity: to learn that human beings live beyond this one earthly life, to learn that there are beings in the world like themselves, that there are spirits among natural things and processes. This was first brought by Blavatsky. But one had to have this first before one could understand Christ.
Now, the peculiar thing is that, with an emphasis on compassion for humanity, Blavatsky said to herself: These people are hungry for knowledge from the spiritual world. If we reveal the old pagan religions to them, we reveal something that meets their spiritual needs. That should be done first.
It is quite understandable that this gave rise to an enormous one-sidedness, namely an anti-Christianity, just as it is understandable that Nietzsche's observation of contemporary Christianity, from which he himself had grown out, gave rise to such a strong anti-Christianity.
I would like to talk to you about this anti-Christianity and its cure in the next lectures. I would just like to emphasize that what appeared as anti-Christianity in Blavatsky was not present in the anthroposophical movement from the beginning, because the first lecture cycle I gave was the lecture cycle “From Buddha to Christ,” as I have already mentioned. Thus, the anthroposophical movement stands as something independent within all these spiritual movements in that it has followed the path from pagan religions to Christianity from the very beginning. But it is just as important to understand why the others did not follow this path. As I said, we will talk about this tomorrow.