The Life, Nature, and Cultivation of Anthroposophy
GA 260a
Member Newsletter, 9 March 1924
8. The Work in the Society II
Members will have observed that in the public lectures which I give on behalf of the Anthroposophical Society I take every opportunity to refer to such points of knowledge or insight as our age has developed on the subject I am speaking of. I do so because Anthroposophy must not stand before the world like a sectarian belief, conceived in an arbitrary way. Anthroposophy must always bring to expression what it really is, namely the wider outlook on the world, the fuller conduct of life, for which our age is calling.
In my view an anthroposophist who merely repudiates what the spiritual and intellectual life of the time is bringing forth outside of Anthroposophy, completely misses the mark. And if, as sometimes happens, we do this in such a way that an expert will perceive we are insufficiently acquainted with the things we refute, Anthroposophy will make no progress.
The active members in the different Groups must be mindful of this point in future. It does not mean that we must arrange, alongside of our anthroposophical lectures, others in which the various branches of modern learning are dealt with in the same way as is done outside the Anthroposophical Movement. By this procedure we should not attain the desired end, but only succeed in establishing a gap—a very painful one for the anthroposophical members in our audience—between the customary type of modern learning and that which should be the real message of Anthroposophy.
It is bad to open up a subject and create the impression from the very outset that we are only looking for an opportunity to criticise some particular ideas of the present time. We should always consider most carefully to begin with, whether these ideas may not contain healthy and significant points of departure. In almost every case we shall find that they do. This does not imply that we must reserve all criticism. But we should only criticise when we have first given an intelligent and appreciative characterisation.
If this were borne in mind, a thing that has given rise to some difficulties in recent years might fall away from the Anthroposophical Society. We can but welcome in the deepest sense the increasing activity of those among us who are scientists or scholars. And yet, many members have come to feel that this scientific work is ‘not anthroposophical enough’.
In this connection we must mention the attempts which have been made to evolve an anthroposophical conduct and method of life in various undertakings of a practical or external nature. Here again, many members have come to feel that the conduct of these things has been anything but anthroposophical.
Undoubtedly the criticism that has been leveled at these efforts is only partly justified. Those who pass judgment often fail to see the immense inherent difficulties in any such attempts at the present juncture, nor do they appreciate that for proper and adequate realisation everything requires time.
None the less, there is a sound basis to the feeling of many members on these matters. Our first duty as anthroposophists is to sharpen our soul's vision by means of Anthroposophy, so as to see in its true light what the civilisation of our age brings forth. It is characteristic of our age that it produces an unlimited variety of fruitful and promising results, yet lacks the proper soil in which to plant them. Undoubtedly, in many cases, the very fact that we adopt a positive rather than a negative attitude to them, drives us in the end to criticise the productions of our age most strongly.
As soon as we forget this fundamentally positive attitude to the life of our time, we are bound to fall into the danger of fearing, at the crucial moment, to speak in the truly anthroposophical way. How often do we hear it said, just by the scientists in the Society, ‘We shall scare the non-anthroposophists away if we start speaking to them of an etheric or astral body’. But our work remains unfruitful if we merely criticise the non-anthroposophists in their own domain, and yet confine ourselves as we do so to lines of thought which can arise equally well in that domain. It is perfectly possible to speak of the etheric and astral bodies if we truly state the reasons.
We must endeavour to speak of all things bearing on Anthroposophy in such a way that the anthroposophical quickening of our perceptions is everywhere in evidence. Then, too, among the members of the Anthroposophical Society there will no longer be the painful feeling that our scientists speak and our practical people act in ways that are not anthroposophical enough, or that ought not to be expected of members of this Society at all.
We shall have to set our minds and hearts in this direction if the aims of our Christmas Meeting are to advance towards fulfillment. Should we fail to do so, they would remain so many pious wishes.
8. Die Arbeit In Der Gesellschaft
Man wird sich erinnern, daß ich in meinen öffentlichen Vorträgen, die ich im Dienste der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gehalten habe, nach Möglichkeit versuchte, überall einzufügen, was an entsprechenden Erkenntnissen im gegenwärtigen Zeitalter vorhanden ist. Ich tat dieses, weil Anthroposophie nicht dastehen darf wie eine willkürlich ersonnene Sektenmeinung. Sie muß zum Ausdrucke bringen, was sie in Wahrheit ist: die von unserer Zeit selbst geforderte Weltanschauung und Lebenspraxis.
Es erscheint mir ganz verfehlt, wenn der Anthroposoph zur abweist, was außer seinem Gebiete von dem geistigen Leben der Gegenwart hervorgebracht wird. Tut er dies sogar in einer solchen Weise, daß der Kundige sogleich bemerkt, er weist ab, was er gar nicht genügend kennt, so wird Anthroposophie niemals etwas ausrichten können.
Diein den Zweigen tätigen Mitglieder werden dies beachten müssen. Man wird aber nicht erreichen, was erstrebenswert ist, wenn man neben den anthroposophischen Darlegungen auch solche veranstaltet, die aus den verschiedensten Wissensgebieten der Gegenwart die Dinge so bringen, wie dies außerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung geschieht. Dadurch wird nur eine für die zuhörenden Mitglieder peinigende Kluft geschaffen zwischen dem heute üblichen Erkennen und demjenigen, von dem Anthroposophie sprechen muß.
Es ist vom Übel, wenn ein Thema aufgeworfen wird und von vorneherein der Eindruck entsteht, es werde nur die Gelegenheit ergriffen, um Kritik an irgendwelchen Gegenwarts-Vorstellungen zu üben. Es sollte erst überall sorgfältig geprüft werden, inwiefern in einer solchen Vorstellung ein gesunder Ausgangspunkt gegeben ist. Die Sache liegt zumeist so, daß in der Gegenwart überall solche bedeutsame Ausgangspunkte vorliegen. Man wird deshalb nicht mit der Kritik zurückhalten müssen. Aber man sollte nur kritisieren, was man zuerst auch in seiner Eigenart auseinandergesetzt hat.
Würde das beachtet, so könnte in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft etwas hinwegfallen, was in der letzten Zeit Schwierigkeiten gemacht hat. Es haben die Wissenschafter bei uns eine Wirksamkeit entwickelt, über die man nur tief befriedigt sein kann. Und doch ist in vielen Mitgliedern das Gefühl entstanden, daß diese Wissenschafter zu «wenig anthroposophisch» wirken.
Ein Seitenstück dazu ist dadurch entstanden, daß anthroposophische Haltung versucht worden ist als Lebenspraxis auf verschiedenen Gebieten auszubilden. Auch da ist in vielen Mitgliedern das Gefühl entstanden, es gehe in solchen «Unternehmungen» gar nichtanthroposophisch zu.
Die Kritik, die hier einsetzt, ist gewiß nur zum Teil berechtigt. Denn der Kritiker sieht oft nicht, wie schwierig derartige Versuche in der Gegenwart sind, und wie alles Zeit braucht, um in entsprechender Art verwirklicht zu werden.
Aber eine gesunde Grundlage hat doch die Empfindung vieler Mitglieder. Man hat als Anthroposoph zunächst die Aufgabe, durch Anthroposophie das Seelenauge zu schärfen, um dasjenige im rechten Lichte zu sehen, was unsere Zeitkultur hervorbringt. Denn diese hat ja das Eigentümliche, daß sie unendlich viel Fruchtbares findet, aber des Bodens ermangelt, in dem sie in richtiger Art dieses Fruchtbare einpflanzen kann. Sicherlich muß man oft gerade dann mit der herbsten Kritik schließen, wenn man sich positiv und nicht negativ zu den Zeiterscheinungen der Gegenwart stellt.
Wenn man die positive Orientierung außer acht läßt, wird man der Gefahr nicht entrinnen, zurückzuzucken vor dem Sprechen in der wirklichen anthroposophischen Art. Wie oft hört man gerade von Wissenschaftern in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sagen: wir schrecken die Nicht-Anthroposophen ab, wenn wir ihnen so ohne weiteres vom ÄAther- oder Astralleib reden. Aber wir bleiben unfruchtbar, wenn wir die Nicht-Anthroposophen auf ihrem Felde kritisieren und dabei uns nur derjenigen Urteile bedienen, die auch auf diesem Felde selbst wachsen können. Man kann von Äther- und Astralleib sprechen, wenn man sagt, warum man dieses tut. Bestrebt man sich aber, von dem eigentlich Anthroposophischen so zu sprechen, daß man überall das von Anthroposophie geschärfte Seelenauge walten läßt, dann wird auch unter den Mitgliedern der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft das Gefühl verschwinden, unsere Wissenschafter reden in einer Art, die nicht anthroposophisch genug ist, und die Praktiker handeln so, wie man es von Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft nicht erwarten sollte.
Man wird die Gesinnung in dieser Richtung orientieren müssen, wenn unsere Weihnachtstagung nicht eine Summe frommer Wünsche bleiben soll, sondern wenn ihre Absichten der Verwirklichung entgegengehen sollen.
8. Work in Society
You will remember that in my public lectures given on behalf of the Anthroposophical Society, I tried as far as possible to include all the relevant insights available in the present age. I did this because anthroposophy must not stand as an arbitrarily conceived sectarian opinion. It must express what it truly is: the worldview and way of life demanded by our time itself.
It seems to me completely misguided for anthroposophists to reject what is produced outside their field by the spiritual life of the present. If they do so in such a way that the knowledgeable observer immediately notices that they are rejecting what they do not know sufficiently, anthroposophy will never be able to achieve anything.
Members active in the branches will have to bear this in mind. However, the desired goal will not be achieved if, in addition to anthroposophical presentations, presentations are also organized that present things from a wide variety of contemporary fields of knowledge in the same way as this is done outside the anthroposophical movement. This only creates a painful gap for the listening members between today's common understanding and that which anthroposophy must speak of.
It is unfortunate when a topic is raised and the impression arises from the outset that it is only being used as an opportunity to criticize certain contemporary ideas. First, it should be carefully examined in all cases to what extent such an idea provides a sound starting point. In most cases, such significant starting points are available everywhere in the present. Therefore, there is no need to hold back with criticism. But one should only criticize what one has first examined in its own right.
If this were taken into account, something that has caused difficulties in recent times could be eliminated in the Anthroposophical Society. The scientists among us have developed an effectiveness that can only be deeply satisfying. And yet many members have developed the feeling that these scientists are not “anthroposophical” enough.
A parallel to this has arisen in the attempt to develop an anthroposophical attitude as a way of life in various fields. Here, too, many members have developed the feeling that such “undertakings” are not at all anthroposophical.
The criticism that arises here is certainly only partially justified. For the critic often fails to see how difficult such attempts are in the present day, and how everything takes time to be realized in the appropriate manner.
But the feeling of many members has a healthy basis. As an anthroposophist, one's first task is to sharpen the soul's eye through anthroposophy in order to see what our contemporary culture produces in the right light. For this culture has the peculiarity of finding an infinite amount of fruitfulness, but lacking the soil in which to plant this fruitfulness in the right way. Certainly, one must often conclude with the harshest criticism when one takes a positive rather than a negative view of the phenomena of the present age.
If we disregard the positive orientation, we will not escape the danger of shrinking back from speaking in the true anthroposophical way. How often do we hear scientists in the Anthroposophical Society say: we scare non-anthroposophists away when we talk to them so readily about the etheric or astral body. But we remain fruitless if we criticize non-anthroposophists in their own field and in doing so only use judgments that can also grow in this field itself. One can speak of etheric and astral bodies if one says why one is doing so. But if we strive to speak about what is actually anthroposophical in such a way that we allow the soul's eye, sharpened by anthroposophy, to prevail everywhere, then even among the members of the Anthroposophical Society the feeling will disappear that our scientists speak in a way that is not anthroposophical enough and that practitioners act in a way that should not be expected of members of the Society.
We will have to orient our thinking in this direction if our Christmas Conference is not to remain a collection of pious wishes, but if its intentions are to be realized.