Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Unutterable Name, Spirits of Space and Time
GA 296

17 August 1919, Dornach

Translator Unknown

The explanations which I gave you yesterday on the path which the human intellect will take in future, are based upon quite definite facts, which come to light through spiritual-scientific knowledge. Let me indicate some of these facts today. You should realize that practically when the human being stands before you, he is that being described in Anthroposophy. That is to say, we first have before us (you know this from my THEOSOPHY) a fourfold being. We have before us the Ego, the so-called astral body, the etheric body and the physical body. The fact that whenever we face a human being we always have before us these four members, implies that the ordinary way of looking at the world today does not really enable us to know the true essence of the person who stands before us. We really do not know it. We think that the person we see before us fills out space with his physical body and that we see his physical body. Yet we could not see this physical part as we generally see it with our ordinary power of vision, if it only stood before us as a physical body. We see the physical body with our ordinary eyes, as it generally appears to us, only because it is permeated by the etheric body, by the astral body and by the Ego. It may sound strange to you if I tell you that our physical body is a corpse, even during the existence between birth and death. When we see a human corpse, we really have before us man's physical body. The corpse is the physical body which is not permeated by the etheric body, by the astral body and by the Ego. It is abandoned by these bodies and then reveals, as it were, its true being. You do not have a true conception of yourself if you think that you are carrying through space what you imagine to be your physical body. You would have a far better conception of yourself, if you were to think of yourself as a corpse, carried through space by your Ego, your astral body and your etheric body.

If we go back as far as the 8th Century, B.C., which is as you know, the beginning of the 4th post-Atlantean Epoch, we come, as you also know, to the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch of the earth's development. There, human bodies had a different constitution from that of today. The human bodies of olden times, the mummies which you can now see in museums, were not constituted, in their finer essence, as human bodies are now constituted. They were filled to a far greater extent with vegetative life, they were not so lifeless, not so corpse-like as the human bodies of today. These physical bodies were, so to speak, far more similar to the plant nature, whereas the physical body of modern man—and this is already the case from the Graeco-Latin epoch onward—has a greater resemblance with the mineral world. If through some cosmic miracle we would now be endowed with the bodies of the Egyptian-Chaldean peoples, we would all be ill. They would bring us illness. We would bear within our body tissues which tend towards an over-exuberant growth. Many an illness simply consists in the fact that the human body in part goes back to conditions which were normal in the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch. In the present time we find ulcerous growths in the human body, which are simply due to the fact that in the one or in the other person a piece of the body tends to become something resembling the whole body among the Egyptian-Chaldean population.

What I told you now, essentially depends on the development of humanity. We modern people therefore carry about with us a corpse. This was not the case with the Egyptian: his knowledge was different from ours, his intelligence worked differently from our intelligence.

Now consider carefully the following question: What does the human being recognize with the aid of that knowledge which he designates as modern science and in which he takes so great a pride? Only lifeless things! Science constantly emphasizes that the ordinary intelligence cannot grasp life. To be sure, some investigators believe that if they continue experimenting, they will one day be able to understand the alternating play of life through complicated combinations of atoms, molecules and their alternating forces. This will never arise. Along the chemical-physical path, they will only be able to understand the mineral, lifeless substance; that is to say, they will only be able to grasp that part of living matter which is now a corpse.

But that part in man which is intelligent and exercises cognizant forces, is nevertheless the physical body; that is, the corpse. What is really done by the corpse which we carry about with us? It goes furthest of all along the path of mathematical-geometrical knowledge. There, everything is transparent; but the further away we go from the mathematical-geometrical sphere, the less transparent things become. This is because the human corpse is, today, the true instrument of cognition, and because a lifeless instrument can only be used to recognize lifeless things. The etheric body, the astral body and the Ego in man are not instruments of cognition, but they remain, as it were, standing in the dark. If the etheric body were able to cognize, in the same way in which the physical body recognizes lifeless things, it would first of all recognize the living essence of the vegetable world.

With their living, plant-like body, the Egyptians perceived the plant world quite differently from the way in which we perceive it now. Many an instinctive knowledge concerning the plant world can be traced back to Egyptian insight, to what became embodied with the Egyptian culture through an instinctive form of cognition. Even certain botanical facts in the medical sphere are, in many respects, based on the traditions of ancient Egyptian wisdom. Indeed, to the lay judgment it may often appear amateurish to draw in Egyptian sources, when certain truths are transmitted which do not seem to be of great value. You know that many so-called lodges, which have not a right foundation, call themselves “Egyptian Lodges.” This is only because in these circles there still exist traditions of the wisdom which could be obtained through an Egyptian body.

We can say that with the gradual transition from the Egyptian into the Graeco-Latin epoch, man's living plant-like body died; already in ancient Greece this living, plant-like body had more or less died, or was at least dying off slowly. Now we already have a physical body which is dead to a high degree, and this lifeless condition particularly applies to the human head. I already explained to you that an initiated spiritual scientist can perceive the human head as something lifeless, as something which is constantly dying. Humanity will grow more and more conscious of the fact that it is the corpse which we use as an instrument of cognition, and that this corpse can only grasp lifeless things.

The more we advance into the future, the more intensive will be the longing to recognize only that which is living. But the ordinary intelligence, which is bound up with the lifeless body, cannot perceive what is alive. Many things will be needed in order that man, who has lost the possibility to penetrate into the world in a living way, may once more attain to this. We should bear I mind all that we have lost.

When the human being passed over from the Atlantean to the post-Atlantean age, he was as yet unable to do many of the things which he does now. You see, each one of you, from a certain time of your childhood upward, can say “I” when referring to yourself. You pronounce this word “I” very carelessly. But in the course of human development this word was not always uttered so carelessly. There were older times in the evolution of humanity—though even in ancient Egypt these olden times had to a great extent already waned—there were older times in which the Ego was designated by a name, and if this name was uttered, it dazed people. One therefore avoided pronouncing it. If the name applicable to the Ego, which was only known to the initiates, had been pronounced in the presence of people in the times immediately following the Atlantean catastrophe, the sound of this name would have dazed the whole congregation; all the people would have fallen to the ground, so strong would have been the effect of the name applicable to the Ego.

An echo of this may still be found among the ancient Hebrews, where one spoke of the unutterable name of God in the soul, a name which could only be pronounced by the initiates, or shown to the congregation in eurhythmic gestures. The origin of God's unutterable name may therefore be seen in the facts explained to you just now.

But little by little this name was lost. And with it was lost the deep effect which radiates from such things.

During the first post-Atlantean epoch we have a deep influence proceeding from the Ego; during the second post-Atlantean epoch, a deep influence proceeding form the astral body; during the third post-Atlantean epoch, a deep influence going out from the etheric body, but one which people could bear, for, as I explained to you yesterday, it brought them in connection with the universe, made them feel their relationship with the universe. In the present time, we may pronounce the word “I,” we may pronounce all manner of things, but they do not make any effect upon us, because we now grasp the world through our lifeless body. That is to say, we only take hold of the lifeless, mineral essence of the world. But we must again ascend and return to the regions enabling us to grasp life. Whereas from the Graeco-Latin epoch, beginning in the 8th Century, B.C., up to the middle of the 15th Century A.D., the greatest value was attributed to an ever larger acquisition of knowledge through the lifeless body, our intelligence now follows the path described to you yesterday. But we must resist mere intelligence. We must add something to our intelligence.

A characteristic which we should bear in mind is that we must now retrace the path in a right way; in the present time, in the 5th post-Atlantean epoch, we must in a certain way learn to know the vegetable world; during the 6th epoch we must learn to know the animal kingdom, and only during the 7th epoch the real kingdom of man. Thus it is one of the tasks of humanity to transcend the mere knowledge of the mineral world and ascend to the knowledge of the vegetable world.

Now that you are able to understand this upon a deeper foundation, consider who is the person whose chief characteristic is this search for a knowledge of the plant world. This man is Goethe. By approaching life from the basis of lifeless things and by reaching, in opposition to the science of his days, the law of metamorphosis, the living process of plants, Goethe appears to us as the representative of the 5th post-Atlantean age, in its first beginnings. Read Goethe's small pamphlet, written in 1790, entitled: “An ATTEMPT to explain the metamorphosis of plants,” and you will find in it that Goethe incessantly tried to grasp the plant in its process of growth, not as something dead and finished, but as something in a constant process of growth, passing from leaf to leaf. Here you may find the beginning of the knowledge which should be sought in the 5th post-Atlantean age.

Goetheanism therefore strikes the fundamental note for what we should seek during the 5th post-Atlantean epoch. Science should, as it were, wake up to the meaning of Goethe and proceed from the study of lifeless things to that of living things. This is what I mean when I continually emphasize that we should acquire the capacity to abandon dead, abstract concepts and to penetrate into living, concrete concepts. The explanations which I gave you yesterday and the day before yesterday really constitute the path leading into these living, concrete regions of thought.

But it will not be possible to penetrate into such thoughts and concepts unless we take the trouble to unite the elements which form our world conception and our views on life. Through the special configuration of modern civilization, the different currents of our world conception are allowed, as it were, to run inorganically side by side. Consider how inorganic and disunited are in many cases a person's religious and natural-scientific views! Many people have both religious and scientific concepts, yet they do not throw a bridge from the one to the other. Indeed, they have a certain reluctance, a certain fear in doing this. Yet we should clearly realize that things cannot remain as they are.

During my present visit, I pointed out to you how selfishly modern people develop their world conception. I drew attention to the fact that today people are chiefly interested in the soul's life after death. Out of pure egoism they take an interest in the life of the soul after death. I have also told you that it is now necessary to take an interest in the life of the soul from birth onwards insofar as this life is a continuation of the life before birth or conception. Our world conception would become far less selfish than it is today, if we were to observe a child's development, the way in which it grows as a continuation of its pre-natal, soul-spiritual existence, with the same longing and the same interest with which we think of the life after death.

This egoistic character of our modern world conception depends on many other things besides. Now I come to a point which clearly shows that modern people must become more and more conscious of the real facts lying at the foundation of these things. During the epoch leading up to the present time, the egoistic element chiefly developed in man; the Ego has permeated our world conception and the Ego has also permeated the human will. Let us not fall a prey to any illusion in regard to this.

Most egoistic of all have become religions, religious creeds. Even superficial facts can show you that religious beliefs have become egoistic. Consider how much a modern priest must reckon with people's egoism. The more he takes into account human egoism, the more promises he makes for the soul's life after death, the more easily he reaches his aims. Among modern people we do not really find much interest for any other thing, for they do not care much for that weaving spiritual life of the soul which manifests itself so wonderfully after birth; i.e., after conception.

One result of this egoistic interest in the life after death is the way in which modern people think about God in the different religions. To think of God as the highest Being, does not imply anything special. In this connection it is necessary to eliminate every delusion. What do most people imply when they speak of “God”? I have already mentioned this before. What kind of Being do they mean, when they speak of God? It is an Angel, an Angelos—their own Angel whom they call God! It is nothing else, my dear friends! People still have some inkling of the fact that a guiding spirit accompanies them in life; to this guiding spirit they look up, and it is this Angel-being whom they call God. Though they do not speak of it as an Angel, though they name it “God,” they nevertheless only mean their Angel. The selfish note of religious faiths is that their idea of God does not go beyond the Angel. As a consequence, human interests have grown narrower, a trait which may be clearly seen today in public life.

What are the questions which people ask today? Do they inquire after the general destinies of humanity? Oh, in a certain sense it is very painful today to speak to people of general human destinies! People also have no idea how many changes have taken place in this connection, even in a comparatively short space of time. You see, today we may tell people that the war which has been waged on earth during the past four or five years will be followed by the mightiest spiritual battle ever waged, a battle which will spread over the whole world, which never existed before in this form, a battle which is a consequence of the fact that the Occident designates as a Maya or as an ideology what the Orient designates as reality, and that the Orient designates the ideology of the Occident as a reality. Today we may draw attention to this important, weighty fact, yet people do not even realize that if this same thing had been said only a hundred years ago, it would have stirred the souls so much that they would have had no peace!

The most striking fact of all is this change in humanity, this indifference in regard to the great destinies of human existence. Today nothing penetrates into the human souls, but rebounds, as it were. The most encompassing, the most important and intensive facts are now taken as sensational facts. They do not shake the human souls enough. This is only dependent on the fact that the constantly increasing, intelligent egoism restricts human interests.

People may now have democracies or parliaments—they may come together in parliaments, but the destinies of humanity do not breathe through these parliaments, for the men who are elected into parliament are not filled with the breath of mankind's destinies. They are filled with the breath of egoistic interests. Each person has his own egoistic interest. External schematic similarities in these interests, often due to a common profession, induce people to form groups. And if these groups are sufficiently large, they become majorities. In that case it is not human destinies which pass through parliament, or through these representative groups of people, but only human egoism, multiplied by so and so many persons.

Even religious faiths have been transferred to the sphere of egoism, because the human souls are only filled by interests which appeal to their egoism. Religious faiths will pass through the renewal which they need, when human interests have grown wider, when they have acquired a form which transcends the purely personal destiny and ascends to the destiny of mankind as such, when people will once more be stirred, deeply stirred on hearing that in the West there is a civilization which differs from that of the East, and that in the Centre there is a civilization differing from that of the two poles of East and West; a religious renewal will come when human souls will be stirred to hear that in the West the great goals of humanity are sought (if they are sought at all!) by turning to mediumistic people, who in a trance condition are, as it were, consciously brought into a sub-earthly connection with the spiritual worlds so that they reveal, mediumistically, something about the great historical aims.

In Europe, one could so frequently explain, though people will not believe it, that there really exist societies in Anglo-American countries where people with mediumistic faculties are brought into a kind of trance, in order to discover from them, by cleverly formulated questions, something about the great destiny-goals of humanity.

People also do not believe that the Orientals, too, obtain information concerning the great destiny aims of humanity, not mediumistically, but mystically. This is almost palpably evident today, for one can everywhere buy Rabindranath Tagore's beautiful speeches, revealing on a large scale how an Oriental thinks about the goals of humanity. People read his poems, as if they were the feuilletons of some cheap writer, for today they do not distinguish cheap writers from men endowed with great spirituality such as Rabindranath Tagore. They do not realize that today the most varied racial substances live, as it were, side by side. I already explained to you, in many lectures, the standpoints which should be applied to Central Europe, but these explanations were not taken as they should have been taken.

With these words, my dear friends, I only wish to prove that it is possible to grow conscious of something which transcends egoistic human destinies, something which is connected with the destiny of whole groups of man, so that differentiations can be made throughout the world. If we raise our soul's eye with understanding to these destinies of mankind in the whole world, if we take a deep interest in this element transcending the personal destinies, we attune our soul for the comprehension of something higher and more real than the Angel; namely, the Archangel. Thoughts revealing the true nature of the Archangel cannot come to us if we only move in spheres pertaining to purely egoistic, personal human interests. If preachers only move in the regions of human egoism, their sermons may be full of words dealing with the Divine, yet they will only preach of the Angel. The fact that they give it another name constitutes an untruth, and does not change it. Only if we begin to take an interest in human destiny extending over wide spaces do we attune our soul for the comprehension of the Archangel.

Let us now pass over to something else. Let us try to develop a feeling of the successive impulses in the evolution of humanity, indicated in recent lectures. Consider the fact that a great number of our leading men are given a classical education during the years in which the human soul can still be shaped and molded; they are taught in schools which are not the product of modern civilization, but of a past culture, of the Graeco-Latin epoch. You see, if the Greeks and Romans had done the same thing which we are doing now, they would have established Egyptian-Chaldean schools. But they avoided this. They took their subject of instruction from life itself. We take it from the preceding epoch and train the human beings accordingly. This has a great significance in human life, but we have not recognized it. Had we recognized the importance of this fact, the feminist movement would have struck a different note, voicing the following truth; Men who are to learn how to use their intellectual powers are now being trained in antiquated schools. This hardens their brain. Women fortunately were not admitted to these schools (the “gymnasiums” of the Continent). Let us therefore develop our intellectual powers more originally; let us show how they can unfold in the present time, if they are not dulled in youthful years by a Graeco-Latin schooling.

But the feminist movement did not strike this note. On the contrary, it often advanced the following claim: Men have crept under the Graeco-Latin schooling, let us women also creep into it. Let us also have a gymnasium training.

You can therefore see, my dear friends, how the understanding of the things which were really needed, did not exist. We should know that in the present time we are not being educated in keeping with modern requirements, but in accordance with standards pertaining to the Graeco-Latin culture. Consequently this Graeco-Latin culture fills modern life. We should be aware of this. We should feel the Graeco-Latin ingredients of culture in the leading personalities of our days, in the so-called intelligentsia, among the intellectuals; this is one stratum which exists in the present time. Our whole spiritual culture is permeated by it. We do not read any newspaper which does not contain traces of Graeco-Latin culture, for we write in a Graeco-Latin style, even though we write in our own language.

As already explained to you, our juridical views are steeped in Roman thought—which is again something obsolete and antiquated. Roman life fills modern law. Sometimes the old native law comes into conflict with Roman law, but it cannot assert itself. This, too, should be felt: That what we call justice or injustice in public life is steeped in the impulses of a past epoch.

In the economic sphere alone we really live in the present. It is a significant fact that we only live in the present in the economic sphere. Some things will therefore have to be modified. Let me say in parenthesis that many women collect modern concepts only in regard to cooking; i.e., in domestic economy, so that there they are truly modern; but everything else is antiquated; it is something which we graft into the present. I do not say that this is a specially desirable thing—in any case, the other thing is not at all desirable; namely, that in the present time even the souls of women turn back to antiquated cultures.

When we survey our cultural environment, we do not find in it only that which is active in space, but also the impulses which come from very remote times. And if we acquire a feeling for such things, we discover not only the influence of the past, but also that of the future. In fact, it is our task to introduce into the present these impulses of the future. For, my dear friends, if a kind of rebel against the past would not live in each one of us, opposing the Greek character of our culture and the Roman character of modern legislation, if the future were not to shed its light into these spheres, our fate would be a sorry one.

In regard to modern culture, we should therefore consider, in addition to space, also time; that which penetrates into the present, into the history of our times, from a remote past and from the future. As modern people we should realize that in the same way in which America, England, Asia, China and India exist in the present time, so the past and the present exist in the human soul and send their influences into it, insofar as we are Europeans, for past and present represent the two poles of East and West. We thus have within us ancient Greece and ancient Rome and the future. And if we take the trouble to envisage this fact, if we realize that past and future, or things to come, live in our soul, we are filled by a new feeling, which can transcend egoism in human destiny; it is a feeling which differs from that of a mere spatial contemplation of life.

Only if we develop this mood in our soul, will we acquire the possibility to develop thoughts concerning the sphere of the Spirits of Time, or the Archai. That is to say, we come to the third Divine element in the hierarchic order. It is good to envisage these three Hierarchies in thoughts and concepts, with the aid of the means just explained. For the Spirits of Form, which come after the Archai, are far more difficult to understand. But for modern people it suffices to make the attempt to transcend egoism and to penetrate into the unegoistic sphere; they should repeat this attempt again and again and occupy their minds with the things just characterized!

This should particularly be the case with teachers (let me emphasize this). What I explained to you just now should be borne in mind particularly in the training of teachers. Teachers should not have the right to educate and train children unless they acquire a concept of that egoism which only reaches up to the nearest Divinity; i.e., the Angel, and unless they acquire a concept of the unegoistic powers which determine destiny and which exist spatially side by side here on earth; i.e., the Archangels. And they should also acquire a concept of the influences of past and future in modern culture—the Roman character of law, the Greek spiritual substance—and of the undefined rebel of the future in man, who can rescue him.

At the present time, however, people are not much inclined to penetrate into such things. A short time ago, I emphasized again and again in my lectures that one of the social tasks of the present time is to extract our educational substance for the years which young people now pass in schools, from the present, to do the same thing which the ancient Greeks also did: to extract our educational substance from the present.

At the same place where I repeatedly spoke of this matter as one of the most important social problems, there appeared a short time after my lectures—I do not wish to construct a casual connection; this is indifferent, but it is symptomatic!—a large number of advertisements in all the local newspapers making propaganda for the local “gymnasium.” I gave lectures in which I characterized, as I have now done, the classical gymnasium education and at the same time advertisements appeared in praise of a gymnasium education, stating all that the youth of Germany owes to its gymnasiums for the “strengthening of national consciousness” of “national strength”, etc., etc. And this, a few weeks before the Peace of Versailles! These advertisements were signed by the local school celebrities, etc. What one has to say today from a truly objective foundation of human evolution always rebounds, flies back again. People reject it—it does not touch the depths of their souls.

This explains the difficulty of acting in regard to the social question. For the superficial attitude with which people approach the social question will never be of any use. The social question is a deeply significant one; it is a problem which cannot be solved unless one is willing to look into the depths of man's being and of the universe. This very fact should be able to show us how necessary it is to set up certain truths contained in the threefold structure of the social organism.

But we must acquire an organ capable of grasping what our present time really needs. It will be difficult to acquire this organ in the spiritual sphere, for the spiritual substance in education, which has gradually been assimilated by the ruling body, the state, drew out of the human being every active force, every true striving, thus transforming him into a “resigned” member within the structure of the state. I have already spoken to you here, I think, of the question: How does the great majority of the people really live? (Exceptions are, of course, always borne in mind). Up to the sixth year of his life a human being is allowed to live unhampered, for he is still too grubby for the state! The state would not like to take over the tasks entailed by the care of young children; the state therefore leaves the human being in the care of powers outside its own sphere. But then it lays claim on the human being, the state then trains him so that he may fit into the state economy, into the stereotyped model; he ceases to be a real human being and becomes something which bears the imprint of the state. In that case he can be “of use” to the state. He strives after this, for it is inculcated into him; in that case, the state does not only look after him while he is working, but also when he ceases to work, by according him a pension until he dies. To many people a position entailing the right of a pension is a great “ideal”! And the religions speak of a kind of pension for the time after death! The soul obtains a pension; without any effort on its own part it obtains eternal life through the church itself. The church sees to this! It is uncomfortable to hear that salvation can only be attained by a free spiritual striving, independently of the state, and that the state should limit itself to the juridical sphere. The right of having a pension will NOT exist in a juridical state! This alone is for many people one reason ... for rejecting it! One can see this again and again.

And in regard to the most intimate life of the spirit, we must say that religious life will, to be sure, require a world conception valid for the future; it must demand from man that he should work for his immortality, that he should be active in his soul, so that he may take up the divine impulse, the Christ Impulse, through his own activity.

During my life I received innumerable letters from church people stating that Anthroposophy is a fine thing, but that it contradicts the “simple”, “plain Christian faith” of the soul's salvation through Christ, of eternal life attained through Christ, without having to do anything for it. “Faith in the salvation through Christ” is something which they cannot abandon. When people write or say such things, they think that they are especially pious. But they are simply selfish, thoroughly selfish and egoistic, for they do not wish to make any effort in their soul, they wish to leave everything to God, who will carry their soul safely through the portal of death and pension it off.

Matters will not be so comfortable in the world conception which will in future create the religious substance. We will have to grasp that the divine essence within us must be developed within the soul. It will then no longer be possible to submit passively to churches who promise to carry the human souls safely through death ... one objectionable custom at least has now ceased; namely, to do this in exchange FOR MONEY, but secretly this still plays a certain role, even in regard to the attainment of eternal life. This transition to a stage of inner activity, so that we look up to a world to which we belong, is an urgent requirement, yet it does not attract mankind greatly.

In order to acquire a feeling for the requirements in this sphere, we must envisage the facts explained today—the metamorphosis of humanity since the times of ancient Egypt, where even the body had a more plant-like character. But if it were now to fall back into this plant-like condition, it would grow ill—ulcerous growths, etc. would appear—and then the fact that we really carry a corpse about with us, which is the true instrument of cognition. These truths enable us to gain a feeling for the requirements of humanity, showing us how to progress in the right direction, how progress can now be made in regard to the social question. We should no longer be content to regard an important matter such as the social question in as simple a way as possible.

You see, this is the extraordinary difficulty of the present time, and you should bear in mind the fact that modern people like to hear explanations on the most important facts of life in a few abstract sentences. When a book like the “Fundamental Points of the Social Question” contains more than a few abstract sentences, when such a book contains the results of an observation of life itself, then people say that they cannot understand it, and that it seems confused to them. But it is the misfortune of the present time that people do not like to penetrate into the very things into which they should penetrate. For abstract sentences which are quite transparent, only deal with lifeless things; but the social sphere is a living sphere. Here we must apply elastic conceptions, elastic sentences, elastic forms. It is therefore necessary, as I frequently explained to you, to consider not only the transformation of single things, but we must also learn to think differently in regard to the innermost structure of our thoughts and reflections.

On taking leave from you again for a couple of weeks, my dear friends, I wished to speak of these things, for now we must feel that we are standing under the sign of cooperation in our anthroposophical or social movement. I would like you to be filled more and more with the understanding that if anything is to be attained in the social sphere, the spiritual science of Anthroposophy must flow into human souls. Let me recommend one thing to you, although I repeated it again and again—it really is essential that the anthroposophical truths which we are able to gain for ourselves should be recognized as the true rule of conduct for our activities and for our striving in the present time; we should have the courage and the will to push through with anthroposophical truths. The worst thing of all is that modern people lack the courage to push through with something which is really needed. They allow the best forces of their will to be broken; they are not willing to carry them through, although this is so sorely needed.

You see, my dear friends, learn to stand courageously by the fact that the people who take an interest in the representative edifice of our spiritual efforts, in the Goetheanum, are well accepted by you; be glad for each person who shows but a grain of understanding, and go towards him, but do not set store on the fact that people bring bad will, or what is more frequent today, lack of understanding towards Anthroposophy—limit yourselves to reject this in a corresponding way. The essential thing is the courage to push through with these things. Let us consider ourselves as that small group of men whose destiny it is to know and to communicate to the world the very things which it needs most of all. Let the people mock at us, let them say that it is conceit to think this; it is nevertheless true. To say to ourselves that “it is nevertheless true,” to say this earnestly, so that our whole soul is filled by it, calls for an inner courage which we must have. Let this courage fill our soul with anthroposophical substance. This will enable us to do what must be done by each one in the place where he is standing. This is what I wish to tell you today.

We can really say that we are welcoming each day which brings us nearer to the goal (which now encounters the greatest obstacles) of working in the world through our Building. For this Building is, after all, the only thing which takes into account even in its architectural forms, the great destinies of humanity. And it is good that people already begin to take notice of the Goetheanum. But another thing is needed for a progressive activity in regard to the social question; namely, that through a means such as the Goetheanum, with its forms which are stronger than any other architectonic forms of the present, an influence should be exercised on the spiritual improvement of the human forces; people should once more become accessible to truths which must be known, so that they may rise up not only to the sphere of the Angel world, but also to the sphere of the Archangel world and that of the Time Spirit.

Sechster Vortrag

Wenn ich Ihnen gestern ausgeführt habe, welches der Weg des menschlichen Intellektes, der menschlichen Intelligenz gegen die Zukunft hin sein wird, so beruht diese Auseinandersetzung auf ganz bestimmten Tatsachen, welche durch geisteswissenschaftliche Erkenntnis an den Tag gefördert werden können, und von denen wir heute einige anführen wollen. Sie müssen sich, ich möchte sagen, praktisch bewußt sein: Wenn der Mensch vor Ihnen steht, so ist dieser Mensch eben durchaus dasjenige Wesen, von dem wir in der anthroposophischen Geisteswissenschaft sprechen. Das heißt, wir haben zunächst Sie kennen ja diese Dinge aus meiner « Theosophie» —, dessen müssen Sie sich immer bewußt sein, ein viergliedriges Wesen vor uns. Wir haben vor uns das Ich, den sogenannten astralischen Leib, den Ätherleib und den physischen Leib. Der Umstand, daß wir diese vier Glieder der menschlichen Wesenheit jedes Mal vor uns haben, wenn sozusagen der Mensch vor uns steht, das bewirkt, daß für das gewöhnliche heutige menschliche Anschauen man eigentlich nicht weiß, was man mit dem Menschen vor sich hat. Man weiß es eigentlich wirklich nicht. Man denkt: das, was man vor sich stehen sieht, den Raum erfüllend, das sei der physische Leib. Allein, was da dran physisch ist, das würde man nicht so sehen, wie man es sieht mit gewöhnlichen Augen, wenn es eben nur als physischer Leib vor uns stünde. Wir sehen dasjenige mit gewöhnlichen Augen, was als physischer Leib vor uns steht, so wie es ist, nur deshalb, weil es durchdrungen ist von Ätherleib, astralischem Leib und Ich. Dasjenige, was physischer Leib ist, das ist, so sonderbar das klingen mag, auch so lange wir leben zwischen der Geburt und dem Tode, Leichnam. Und eigentlich, wenn wir einen menschlichen Leichnam vor uns haben, so haben wir in Wahrheit den physischen Leib des Menschen vor uns. Wenn Sie den Leichnam sehen, dann haben Sie den physischen Menschen, ohne daß er durchdrungen ist von Ätherleib, astralischem Leib und Ich. Er ist von diesen verlassen und zeigt gewissermaßen seine wahre Wesenheit.

Sie stellen sich selber daher nicht richtig vor, wenn Sie das, was Sie vermeinen als den physischen Leib des Menschen aufzufassen, glauben mit sich durch den Raum herumzutragen; Sie würden viel richtiger sich selber vorstellen, wenn Sie sich als Leichnam dächten und sich so begreifen würden, daß Ihr Ich, Ihr astralischer Leib, Ihr Ätherleib diesen Leichnam durch den Raum trägt.

Dieses Bewußtsein von der wahren Natur der menschlichen Wesenheit wird für unsere Zeit immer wichtiger und wichtiger. Denn sehen Sie, so wie das heute ist im gegenwärtigen Entwickelungszyklus der Menschheit und schon lange her, so war es nicht immer. Natürlich kann man diese Dinge, die ich jetzt erzähle, nicht durch die äußere physische Wissenschaft konstatieren, aber geisteswissenschaftliche Erkenntnis liefert eben diese Tatsache. Wenn man zurückgeht hinter das achte vorchristliche Jahrhundert, mit dem, wie Sie wissen, der vierte nachatlantische Zeitraum beginnt, dann würde man kommen, wie Sie wiederum wissen, in die ägyptisch-chaldäische Erdenperiode. Ja, da waren die menschlichen Leiber anders beschaffen, als sie heute beschaffen sind. Das, was menschliche Leiber waren, die Ihnen jetzt in den Museen als Mumien gezeigt werden, die waren in ihrer feineren Beschaffenheit wirklich nicht so beschaffen, wie der heutige menschliche Leib ist. Sie waren viel mehr durchsetzt von Pflanzlichkeit, sie waren nicht so vollständig Leichnam wie der heutige menschliche Leib Leichnam ist. Sie waren gewissermaßen als physischer Leib ähnlicher der Pflanzennatur, während der heutige physische Leib des Menschen - und schon seit der griechisch-lateinischen Zeit — ähnlicher ist der mineralischen Welt. Würden wir heute durch irgendein kosmisches Wunder dieselben Leiber bekommen, welche die ägyptisch-chaldäische Bevölkerung hatte, so würden wir alle krank sein. Das würde für uns eine Krankheit bedeuten. Wir würden wuchernde Gewebe im Leibe mit herumtragen. Und manche Krankheit besteht einfach darinnen, daß der menschliche Leib atavistisch teilweise zurückgeht in Zustände, welche die normalen waren während der ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeit. Es gibt heute geschwürige Bildungen des menschlichen Leibes, welche einfach davon herrühren, daß ein Stück eines Leibes bei dem oder jenem Menschen die Neigung bekommt, so zu werden, wie der ganze Leib bei der ägyptisch-chaldäischen Bevölkerung war.

Nun hängt das, was ich eben gesagt habe, mit der Entwickelung der Menschheit ganz wesentlich zusammen. Wir tragen also als gegenwärtige Menschen einen Leichnam herum. Der Ägypter noch nicht; der Ägypter trug etwas Pflanzenartiges mit sich herum. Davon war eben die Folge, daß seine Erkenntnis eine andere war als unsere Erkenntnis, seine Intelligenz anders wirkte als unsere Intelligenz wirkt. Bedenken Sie jetzt ganz genau: Was eigentlich erkennt denn der Mensch mit dem, was er heute seine Wissenschaft nennt, und worauf er so ungeheuer stolz ist? Nur das Tote! Es wird ja immer in der Wissenschaft betont: DasLeben wird mit der gewöhnlichen Intelligenz nicht begriffen. Zwar glauben diese und jene Forscher, wenn sie chemisch immer weiter und weiter experimentieren, dann werde einmal der Zustand eintreten, daß man durch komplizierte Kombinationen der Atome, Moleküle und deren Wechselkräfte das Wechselspiel des Lebens kennenlernen werde, Dieser Zustand wird niemals eintreten. Man wird auf chemisch-physischem Wege nur das mineralisch Tote begreifen, das heißt, man wird so viel begreifen an dem Lebendigen, als an dem Lebendigen heute Leichnam ist.

Aber was im Menschen intelligent ist und erkennt, das ist trotzdem dieser physische Leib, das heißt der Leichnam. Was tut denn eigentlich dieser Leichnam, den wir mit uns herumtragen? Er bringt es am weitesten in der mathematischen, geometrischen Erkenntnis. Da ist alles durchsichtig; dann wird es immer undurchsichtiger, je weiter man sich vom Mathematisch-Geometrischen entfernt. Das rührt davon her, daß der menschliche Leichnam der wirkliche Erkenner für uns heute ist, und daß das Tote nur das Tote erkennen kann. Was Ätherleib ist, was astralischer Leib ist, was Ich ist, das erkennt heute im Menschen nicht, das bleibt sozusagen im Dunkel stehen. Würde der Ätherleib ebenso erkennen können, wie der physische Leib das Tote erkennt, so würde der Ätherleib das Lebende der Pflanzenwelt zunächst erkennen. Das war aber das eigentümliche, daß im pflanzlich-lebendigen Leib der Ägypter diese Ägypter die Pflanzenwelt in einer ganz anderen Weise erkannten als der gegen iinNn wärtige Mensch. Und manche instinktive Erkenntnis aus der Pflanzenwelt, sie ist noch zurückzuführen auf die ägyptische Einsicht in dasjenige, was aus einem instinktiven Erkenntnisbewußtsein heraus der ägyptischen Kultur einverleibt worden ist. Selbst dasjenige, was heute in der Botanik für die Medizin gewußt wird, beruht vielfach noch auf Traditionen der alten ägyptischen Weisheit. Deshalb kommt es so oft dem Laienurteile dilettantisch vor, daß man sich gar zu gerne beruft auf irgendwelches Ägyptische, wenn man eine ja nicht sehr wertvolle Erkenntnis heute den Menschen vermitteln will. Sie wissen ja, wie sich manche gar nicht auf richtigem Fundamente ruhende sogenannte Logen «ägyptische Logen» nennen. Das rührt aber nur davon her, weil in diesen Kreisen noch Traditionen leben von der Weisheit, die durch den ägyptischen Leib zu erlangen war. Sehen Sie, man kann sagen: Mit dem allmählichen Eintritt der Menschen in die griechisch-lateinische Zeit ist der lebendige menschliche Pflanzenleib abgestorben, denn schon im Griechentum war der lebendige Pflanzenleib abgestorben, oder starb wenigstens allmählich ab. Wir tragen schon einen sehr stark toten Leib in uns, und insbesondere ist dieses Totsein für das menschliche Haupt richtig — wie ich Ihnen ja von einem anderen Gesichtspunkte auseinandergesetzt habe, daß das menschliche Haupt überhaupt für die Wissenschaft der Eingeweihten als Leichnam, als Totes, als fortwährend Sterbendes wahrgenommen wird. Dessen wird sich immer mehr und mehr bewußt werden die Menschheit: daß sie eigentlich nur mit dem Leichnam erkennt und deshalb das Tote erkennt.

Ebenso intensiv wird entstehen, je weiter wir der Zukunft entgegengehen, die Sehnsucht, wiederum das Lebendige zu erkennen. Aber man wird dieses Lebendige nicht durch die gewöhnliche Intelligenz, die an den Leichnam gebunden ist, erkennen. Es wird mancherlei notwendig sein, damit der Mensch, der verloren hat die Möglichkeit, auf lebendige Art in die Welt einzudringen, wiederum in solcher Weise in die Welt kommt. Man muß heute schon wissen, was der Mensch eigentlich alles verloren hat. Als der Mensch herüberkam aus der atlantischen Zeit in die nachatlantische Zeit, da konnte man manches nicht, was man heute kann. Sehen Sie, Sie können, jeder einzelne, wenn Sie sich meinen, seit einer gewissen Zeit in Ihrer Kindheit zu sich Ich sagen. Sie sagen dieses Ich recht respektlos. Dieses Ich wurde in der Menschheitsentwickelung nicht immer so respektlos gesagt. Es gab ältere Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung, wenn die auch schon zum Teil verglommen waren selbst in der ägyptischen Zeit - es gab ältere Zeiten, da wurde für das, was das Ich ausdrückte, ein Name gebraucht, der, ausgesprochen, den Menschen betäubte. Daher vermied man, diesen Namen auszusprechen. Hätte die erste Bevölkerung gleich nach der atlantischen Katastrophe es erlebt, daß der bei ihnen geltende und nur den Eingeweihten bekannte Name für das Ich ausgesprochen worden wäre, die ganze Versammlung würde betäubt worden sein, würde umgefallen sein, so stark hätte der Name für das Ich gewirkt. Ein Nachklang dieser Tatsache ist noch vorhanden in der alten Hebräerzeit, wo man spricht von dem unaussprechlichen Namen des Gottes in der Seele, der ja nur ausgesprochen werden durfte von Eingeweihten oder aber vor der Gemeinde eurythmisiert wurde. Der unaussprechliche Name des Gottes, er hat seinen Ursprung in dem, was ich Ihnen eben erzählt habe. Allmählich ist dies immer mehr verlorengegangen. Dafür lähmten sich ab die tiefen Wirkungen, die von solchen Dingen ausgingen. In der ersten nachatlantischen Zeit: tiefe Wirkung von dem Ich; in der zweiten nachatlantischen Zeit: tiefe Wirkung von dem astralischen Leib; in der dritten nachatlantischen Zeit: tiefe Wirkung von dem Ätherleibe, aber nun schon eine erträgliche Wirkung, eine Wirkung, die — wie ich Ihren gestern auseinandergesetzt habe — den Menschen in Zusammenhang bringt, in Verwandtschaft bringt mit dem Kosmos. Jetzt können wir das Ich, wir können alles Mögliche aussprechen, aber die Dinge wirken nicht mehr auf uns, weil wir dasjenige, was wir von der Welt erfassen, mit unserem Leichnam erfassen. Das heißt, wir erfassen von der Welt das Tote, Mineralische. Aber wir müssen uns: wiederum aufschwingen, zurückzukehren in jene Regionen, in denen wir das Lebendige erfassen. Und während der griechisch-lateinische Zeitraum vom 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert bis in die Mitte des 15. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts vorzugsweise darauf angelegt war, immer mehr tote Erkenntnis für den Leichnam zu schaffen, geht bei uns jetzt die Intelligenz den Weg, von dem ich gestern gesprochen habe. Daher müssen wir uns aber stemmen gegen die bloße Intelligenz. Wir müssen zu der Intelligenz anderes hinzufügen.

Und da ist es charakteristisch, daß wir richtig den Weg zurückmachen müssen, daß wir jetzt im fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum in gewisser Beziehung das Pflanzliche erkennen, im sechsten das Tierische, im siebenten dann erst das wahrhaft Menschliche. Also es wird eine Aufgabe der Menschheit, gerade über das bloße Erkennen des Mineralischen hinauszugehen und das Pflanzliche zu erkennen.

Und jetzt, nachdem Sie dieses einsehen aus einem tieferen Zusammenhang heraus, bedenken Sie, welches der charakteristische Mensch ist für dieses Suchen der Pflanzenerkenntnis. Das ist Goethe. Denn indem er entgegen aller äußeren Wissenschaft vom Toten herangegangen ist an das Lebendige, an die Metamorphose, an das Werden der Pflanzen, war er der Mann des fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraums in seinen elementarischen Anfängen. Wenn Sie daher die kleine Abhandlung von Goethe aus dem Jahre 1790 lesen: «Versuch, die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären», so finden Sie gerade in dieser Abhandlung, wie Goethe allmählich versucht, die Pflanze werdend zu erfassen, nicht als Totes, Abgeschlossenes, sondern als Werdendes von Blatt zu Blatt. Da sehen Sie den Aufgang jener Erkenntnis, die gerade in diesem fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum gesucht werden sollte.

Es ist also im Goetheanismus der Grundton angegeben für dasjenige, was gesucht werden soll durch diesen fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum. Es wird gewissermaßen die Wissenschaft im Goetheschen Sinne aufwachen müssen, vom "Toten zum Lebendigen herüberzugehen. Das ist ja gemeint, wenn ich immer wieder und wiederum sage, wir sollen uns aneignen, aus den toten abstrakten Begriffen herauszukommen, in die lebendigen konkreten Begriffe hinein. Und das, was ich vorgestern und gestern gesagt habe, ist im Grunde genommen der Weg in diese lebendigen konkreten Begriffe hinein.

Nun wird das Hineinkommen in diese Begriffe, in diese Vorstellungen nicht möglich sein, wenn wir uns nicht dazu bequemen, dasjenige, was wir unsere Weltanschauung und Lebensauffassung nennen, als eine Einheit auszubilden. Wir sind heute durch die besondere Konfiguration unserer Kultur genötigt, gewissermaßen unorganisch nebeneinander herlaufen zu lassen die verschiedenen Strömungen unserer Weltanschauung. Denken Sie nur einmal, wie unorganisch nebeneinander herlaufen oftmals die religiösen Weltanschauungen eines Menschen und die naturwissenschaftliche Weltanschauung. Mancher Mensch hat die eine und die andere; aber er schlägt keine Brücke. Ja, er hat eine gewisse Scheu davor, eine gewisse Angst davor, eine Brücke zu schlagen. Und das müssen wir uns schon klar machen: so kann es nicht bleiben.

Nun habe ich Sie auf eines aufmerksam gemacht während dieses meines Aufenthaltes, darauf, wie egoistisch eigentlich der Mensch heutzutage seine Weltanschauung gestaltet. Ich habe Sie auf die Tarsache hingeführt, daß den Menschen eigentlich heute vorzugsweise interessiert das Leben der Seele nach dem Tode. Aus reinem Egoismus heraus interessiert ihn dieses Leben der Seele nach dem Tode. Ich habe Ihnen gesagt, daß wir übergehen müssen zu dem Interesse des Lebens der Seele von der Geburt an, insofern dieses eine Fortsetzung ist des Lebens vor der Geburt oder vor der Empfängnis. Würden wir mit derselben Sehnsucht, mit demselben Hang und derselben Neigung die Entwickelung des Kindes betrachten, wie es hereinwächst in die Welt als Fortsetzung des vorgeburtlichen geistig-seelischen Daseins, so würde unsere Welterkenntnis einen viel unegoistischeren Charakter annehmen, als sie heute hat. Aber dieser egoistische Charakter unserer Weltanschauung hängt zusammen mit manchem anderen. Und hier komme ich auf einen Punkt, wo die Menschen der Gegenwart sich über den wirklichen Tatbestand, der zugrunde liegt, immer klarer und klarer werden müssen. In dem Zeitraume bis zu unserer Zeit hat sich einmal im Menschen vorzugsweise das Egoistische entwickelt; das Ego hat durchdrungen die Weltanschauung, das Ego hat auch durchdrungen den Willen. Darüber sollten wir uns keiner Täuschung hingeben. Und vor allem sind egoistisch geworden die Religionsbekenntnisse. Daß die Religionsbekenntnisse egoistisch geworden sind, können Sie ja schon an den Äußerlichkeiten erkennen. Denken Sie sich nur, wie die heutigen Prediger angewiesen sind, mit dem Egoismus der Menschen zu rechnen. Je mehr sie schließlich mit dem Egoismus der Menschen rechnen, den Menschen Versprechungen machen können für das Leben der Seele nach dem Tode, desto mehr erreichen sie ihren Zweck, Viel Interesse für andere Dinge ist ja im Grunde genommen in der heutigen Menschheit kaum vorhanden. Und wenig interessieren sich die Menschen für jenes geistige Weben und Leben, das sich so wunderbar nach der Geburt, beziehungsweise nach der Empfängnis, mit der Seele, die vorher in der geistigen Welt war, ankündigt.

Eine Folge davon ist die Art, wie der Mensch heute überhaupt über das Göttliche in verschiedenen Religionsbekenntnissen denkt. Daß wir einen Gott als den Höchsten vorstellen, das will ja noch nichts Besonderes sagen. In dieser Beziehung kommt es darauf an, daß wir durchaus alle Täuschungen hinwegräumen. Die meisten Menschen, die heute «Gott» sagen, was meinen sie denn eigentlich? Ich habe das auch schon einmal hier erwähnt, Welche Art Wesenheit ist das, was sie meinen, wenn sie von Gott sprechen? Ein Angelos ist es, ein Engel, ihr eigener Engel, den nennen sie Gott! Es ist nichts anderes! Die Menschen ahnen gerade noch, daß ein schützender Geist ihr eigenes Leben verfolgt, zu dem sehen sie auf, das nennen sie ihren Gott. Wenn sie es auch nicht Engel nennen, wenn sie es auch Gott nennen, sie meinen nur den Engel. Und das ist im Grunde genommen der Egoismus des religiösen Bekenntnisses, daß man mit der Gottes-Idee nicht über den Engel hinauf kommt. Der Grund davon ist die Einengung der Interessen, die durch den Egoismus bewirkt ist. Diese Einengung der Interessen, wir sehen sie ja ganz deutlich hervortreten heute in unserem Öffentlichen Leben.

Wonach fragen die Menschen heute viel? Fragen sie viel nach den allgemeinen Schicksalen der Menschheit? ‘Oh, es ist in einem gewissen Sinne recht traurig, heute zu reden zu einer Menschheit über allgemeine Menschenschicksale. Man hat auch gar keinen Begriff davon, wie es sich in dieser Beziehung schon in verhältnismäßig kurzen Zeiten geändert hat. Sehen Sie, man kann heute zu den Menschen sagen: Der Waffenkrieg, welcher in den letzten vier bis fünf Jahren die Erde überzogen hat, wird gefolgt sein von dem mächtigsten Geisteskampfe, der über die Erde hingeht, in dieser Gestalt früher nicht hingegangen ist, der davon herkommt, daß das Abendland Maja oder Ideologie nennt, was das Morgenland die Wirklichkeit nennt, und daß das Morgenland Wirklichkeit nennt, was das Abendland Ideologie nennt. Man kann heute die Menschheit aufmerksam machen auf dieses Schwerwiegende, und sie hat nicht einmal ein Bewußtsein davon, daß, wenn ein Gleiches vor nur hundert Jahren gesagt worden wäre, so würde dieses Gleiche vor hundert Jahren die Seelen so ergriffen haben, daß sie nicht wieder losgekommen wären davon!

Diese Änderung der Menschheit, dieses Gleichgültigwerden der Menschheit gegenüber den großen Schicksalen des Daseins, das ist die auffälligste Erscheinung. Es prallt ja alles ab von der Menschheit heute. Die umfassendsten, einschneidendsten, intensivsten Tatsachen nimmt man auf wie eine Sensation. Sie wirken nicht erschütternd genug. Und das rührt nur davon her, weil der immer stärker und stärker werdende intelligente Egoismus die Interessen der Menschen einengt. Daher können die Menschen heute noch so gut Demokratien haben, Parlamente haben — wenn sie schon zusammenkommen in den Parlamenten, die Schicksale der Menschheit wehen nicht durch diese Parlamente, denn die Leute, die zumeist in die Parlamente gewählt werden, werden nicht durchweht von dem Schicksal der Menschheit. Es wehen die egoistischen Interessen. Jeder hat sein eigenes egoistisches Interesse. Äußerliche schematische Ähnlichkeiten in den Interessen, wie sie oftmals durch den Beruf hervorgerufen werden, lassen die Menschen sich gruppieren. Und wenn die Gruppen genügend groß sind, lassen sie sie zu Majoritäten werden. Und dann gehen nicht Menschenschicksale durch die Parlamente oder durch die Menschenvertretungen durch, sondern nur der Egoismus, multipliziert mit so und so vielen Personen. Weil das nur in den Menschen lebt, was den Egoismus betrifft, daher ist selbst das religiöse Bekenntnis in die Sphäre des Egoismus gerückt. Das religiöse Bekenntnis wird die notwendige Auffrischung erfahren, wenn die Interessen der Menschen weiter werden, wenn sie so werden, daß der Mensch wiederum über sein persönliches Schicksal zu dem Menschheitsschicksal aufblicken kann, wenn der Mensch wiederum ergriffen wird, ganz stark ergriffen wird, wenn man ihm sagt: im Westen erblüht eine andere Kultur als im Osten, und in der Mitte wiederum eine andere Kultur als an den beiden Polen im Westen und im Osten; wenn man ihm sagt: im Westen werden die großen Ziele der Menschheit gesucht — wenn sie schon gesucht werden — dadurch, daß man an mediale Menschen sich wendet und diese Menschen in eine Art von Trance bringt, sie dadurch gewissermaßen bewußt unterirdisch in Verbindung bringt mit den geistigen Welten, und dann sich von ihnen auf medialem Wege große historische Ziele sagen läßt. Das könnte man in Europa den Menschen so oft sagen — sie werden es nicht glauben, daß es wirklich Gesellschaften in amerikanisch-englischen Ländern gibt, in denen man versucht, medial veranlagte Menschen in eine Art von Trance zu bringen, um dann durch geschickt an sie gestellte Fragen herauszubekommen, welches die großen Schicksalsziele der Menschheit sind. Man glaubt es einem nicht, daß der Morgenländer ebenfalls über diese großen Schicksalsziele der Menschheit — jetzt nicht auf medialem Wege, sondern auf mystischem Wege — Kunde erhält. Das ist heute fast mit Händen zu greifen, denn überall sind die schönen Reden des Rabindranath Tagore zu haben, in denen man lesen kann, wie ein Morgenländer über Ziele der Menschheit im Großen denkt. Diese Reden werden zwar gelesen wie das Feuilleton von einem beliebigen Zeilenschinder, denn man unterscheidet heute wenig Zeilenschinder von Menschen mit großer Spiritualität, wie des Rabindranath Tagore. Man wird sich nicht bewußt, daß nebeneinander leben, ich möchte sagen, verschiedene Rassensubstantialitäten, Was für Mitteleuropa gilt, es ist ja von mir seit vielen Jahren in öffentlichen Vorträgen gesagt worden. Als das wurde es eben nicht genommen, als das es hätte genommen werden sollen.

Ich will damit aber nur hinweisen, daß man sich bewußt werden kann von etwas, das hinausragt über das egoistische Menschengeschick, das zusammenhängt mit dem Geschick von Menschengruppen, so daß man in konkreter Weise differenziert über die Erde hin. Erhebt man den Seelenblick zu einem solchen Erfassen und Begreifen von Menschenschicksalen im Erdenraume, interessiert man sich intensiv für dies über das persönliche Geschick Hinausgehende, dann stimmt man die Seele, etwas Höheres, Wirklicheres zu begreifen als den bloßen Engel: nämlich den Erzengel. Gedanken, was das Erzengelwesen bedeutet, kommen einem gar nicht, wenn man nur in den Regionen bleibt, die den egoistischen Menschen angehen. Wenn nur in den Regionen des egoistischen Menschen gepredigt wird, dann können die Prediger noch so viel vom Göttlichen reden, sie reden nur von dem Engel. Denn daß man es anders nennt, das ist ja nur eine Unwahrheit, das macht die Sache nicht zu dem, was sie ist. Erst wenn man beginnt, sich zu interessieren für des Menschen Geschick im Raume, dann beginnt die Seele in die Stimmung zu kommen, zum Erzengelwesen sich zu erheben.

Und gehen Sie jetzt über zu noch etwas anderem. Spüren Sie in uns das, was ich in diesen Vorträgen angedeutet habe von den aufeinanderfolgenden Impulsen der Menschheitsentwickelung! Spüren Sie, daß ein großer Teil unserer führenden Menschen ausgebildet werden in den Jahren, in denen die Menschenseele einer gewissen Biegsamkeit zugänglich ist, in den Gymnasien; in den Gymnasien, die nicht herausgeboren sind aus unserer Gegenwartskultur, sondern die, so wie sie sind, noch immer herausgeboren sind aus der Vergangenheitskultur der griechisch-römischen, der griechisch-lateinischen Zeit. Sehen Sie, wenn diese Griechen und Lateiner dasselbe getan hätten wie wir, dann hätten sie ägyptisch-chaldäische Gymnasien eingerichtet. Das haben sie nicht getan. Sie haben ihren Lehrstoff vom unmittelbaren Leben genommen. Wir nehmen ihn vom vorhergehenden Zeitraume, bilden danach die Menschen aus. Das hat eine große Bedeutung für die Menschen; aber wir haben diese Bedeutung nicht erkannt. Hätten wir diese Bedeutung erkannt, dann würde es innerhalb der Frauenbewegung einen Ton geben, den es nicht gegeben hat, dann hätte es innerhalb der Frauenbewegung den Ton gegeben, der so geklungen hätte: Die Männerwelt wird, gerade wenn sie ausgebildet werden soll zur besonderen Handhabung der Intelligenz, in die antiquierten Schulen geschickt. Daher wird ihr Gehirn verhärtet. Uns Frauen ist das gute Geschick zugewachsen, daß man uns in die Gymnasien nicht hat hineingelassen. Wir wollen unsere Intelligenz auf eine ursprüngliche Note stellen, wir wollen zeigen, was man für die Gegenwart entwickeln kann, wenn man nicht abgestumpft wird in seiner Jugend durch die griechisch-lateinische Gymnasialbildung.

Diese Note hat es nicht gegeben. Im Gegenteil, manche Note hat dahin geklungen Die Männer sind untergekrochen unter die griechisch-lateinische Gymnasialbildung, kriechen wir Frauen auch hinein. Werden wir auch Gymnasiasten.

So wenig hat Verständnis Platz gegriffen in bezug auf dasjenige, was not tut. Wir sollen wissen, daß wir in unserer Gegenwart nicht für diese Gegenwart erzogen werden, sondern erzogen werden für griechisch-lateinische Kultur. Die steckt daher in unserem Leben drinnen. Man muß sie spüren. Man muß spüren, was in der Gegenwart an griechisch-lateinischer Kultur gerade bei den führenden Menschen, bei der sogenannten Intelligenz, bei den Intellektuellen waltet; das ist die eine Schicht, die bei uns ist. Sie tragen wir eigentlich in unserer ganzen geistigen Bildung in uns. Wir lesen keine Zeitung, ohne daß nicht griechisch-lateinische Bildung drinnen ist, denn wir schreiben eigentlich in griechisch-lateinischer Form, auch wenn wir in unseren Landessprachen schreiben.

Und in bezug auf unsere Rechtsanschauung, da leben wir, wie ich schon ausgeführt habe, im Römertum drinnen — wiederum etwas Antiquiertes. Da lebt im Recht das Römertum drinnen. Es führen ja manchmal die alten Landesrechte ihren Streit gegen das römische Recht, aber sie kommen nicht auf. Und das muß man wieder fühlen, wie in dem, was der Mensch Recht und Unrecht nennt im öffentlichen Leben, eine verglommene Zeit drinnen lebt.

Nur im Wirtschaftlichen leben wir eigentlich in der Gegenwart. Es will viel sagen, daß wir nur im Wirtschaftlichen in der Gegenwart leben. Daher wird sich wohl etwas sehr modifizieren. Wenn ich das in Parenthese einfügen darf: Von manchen Frauen werden natürlich die Begriffe der Gegenwart aufbewahrt - nur zum Kochen, das heißt zum Wirtschaften, und damit sind sie die eigentlichen Wesen der Gegenwart; das andere ist etwas Antiquiertes, das wir in die Gegenwart hereintragen. Ich sage nicht, daß dies als etwas besonders Wünschenswertes hingestellt werden soll; aber das andere ist jedenfalls nicht das Wünschenswerteste, daß man nun von der Gegenwart eben auch durch die Frauenseelen zurückgeht in antiquierte Kulturen. Wir haben eben, indem wir auf dasjenige schauen, was in unserer Kulturumwelt lebt, nicht nur das, was im Raume wirkt, sondern es wirken auch alte Zeiten herein. Und eignet man sich dafür eine Empfindung an, so wirkt nicht nur die Vergangenheit herein, es wirkt auch schon die Zukunft herein. Ja, es ist unsere Sache, daß die Zukunft hereinwirke. Denn würde nicht in jedem Menschen doch, für das Bewußtsein recht untergeordnet, eine Art Rebell gegen das Griechentum der Bildung und das Römertum des Rechtes sein, und würde da nicht Zukunft hereinleuchten, wir wären traurige Kerle, eigentlich recht traurige Kerle.

Neben dem Raume müssen wir also für das, was in unserer Kultur lebt, auch die Zeit in Betracht ziehen: dasjenige, was an Zeitgeschichte von alters her und von der Zukunft in unsere Gegenwart hereinragt. Wir müssen uns klar sein, daß wir, indem wir als Menschen der Gegenwart leben, hereinspielend haben in diese unsere Menschenseele Vergangenheit und Zukunft. Wie wir hereinspielen haben, indem wir Europäer sind — wie schon erwähnt —, Amerika, England, Asien, China, Indien, den Osten und den Westen, weil das die beiden Pole sind, so haben wir in uns Griechenland, Rom und die Zukunft. Und indem wir uns bequemen, das letztere ins Auge zu fassen, indem wir uns bewußt werden, wie Vergangenes, Werdendes, Entstehendes in unserer Seele lebt, geht in dieser Seele wieder eine andere Stimmung auf über das über den Egoismus hinausgehende Menschenschicksal, eine andere Stimmung als durch die bloße Raumbetrachtung. Und wenn wir diese Seelenstimmung entwickeln, dann erst entwickeln wir die Möglichkeit, Begriffe zu bilden über dieSphäre der Zeitgeister, der Archai. Das heißt, wir kommen zu dem dritten Göttlichen in der Hierarchienreihe. Es ist gut, wenn sich der Mensch zunächst darauf einläßt, diese drei Hierarchien durch die Mittel, die ich eben jetzt angeführt habe, in Begriffen, in Ideen sich vorzuführen. Denn die Formgeister, die dann kommen, sind unendlich viel schwieriger zu erfassen. Aber es genügt schon für den gegenwärtigen Menschen, wenn er den Versuch macht, über den Egoismus hinaus in die Sphäre des Unegoistischen zu dringen, und immer wieder und wiederum zu dringen, sich damit zu beschäftigen, was ich jetzt charakterisiert habe! Insbesondere sollte -— das muß ich nun wiederum besonders sagen — in der Lehrerbildung dieses vorkommen, was ich jetzt auseinandergesetzt habe. Der Lehrer sollte nicht losgelassen werden zu unterrichten und zu erziehen, ohne daß er einen Begriff bekommt von dem Egoismus, welcher aufstrebt zu dem nächsten Gotte, das heißt zum Engel, ohne daß er aber auch einen Begriff bekommt von den unegoistischen, schicksalbestimmenden Mächten, die im Raume über der Erde nebeneinander sind, von den Erzengelwesen, und ohne daß er einen Begriff bekommt von dem, wie in unsere Kultur hereinragen Vergangenes und Zukünftiges, römisches Rechtswesen, griechische Geistessubstanz und der unbestimmte Rebell der Zukunft, der uns rettet.

Aber die Menschheit ist gegenwärtig wenig geneigt, auf diese Dinge einzugehen, Vor einiger Zeit habe ich in Vorträgen immer wieder und wiederum betont, daß es zu den sozialen Aufgaben gehört, unsere Bildungsmittel für die Zeit, die der Mensch heute in Gymnasien zubringt, aus der Gegenwart zu nehmen, es so zu machen, wie es schließlich die Griechen selber gemacht haben: daß sie ihre Bildungsstoffe aus der Gegenwart genommen haben.

Es sind — wenigstens der Zeit nach - an demselben Orte, wo ich über diese Frage immer wieder und wiederum als einer wichtigen sozialen Frage gesprochen habe — bald nachher, ich will nicht einen Kausalzusammenhang konstruieren, aber das ist ja auch gleichgültig, von symptomatischer Bedeutung ist die Sache - in allen Zeitungen des betreffenden Ortes in Massen Annoncen erschienen, worinnen für das gegenwärtige Gymnasium Propaganda gemacht wird. Ich hielt die Vorträge, in denen ich die Gymnasialbildung so charakterisierte, wie ich es Ihnen jetzt charakterisiert habe - in den Zeitungen erschienen überall Annoncen: was das Deutschtum der Gymnasialbildung seiner Jugend verdankt zur «Stärkung des nationalen Bewußtseins», «der nationalen Kraft» und so weiter, ein paar Wochen vor dem Versailler Frieden! Unterschrieben waren diese Annoncen von allen möglichen dortigen lokalen Größen aus den Schulen, aus dem Unterrichtswesen. Es ist eben so, daß immer zurückprallt dasjenige, was man heute aus den wirklich sachlichen Untergründen der Menschheitsentwickelung darzulegen hat. Die Menschen lassen es zurückprallen — es berührt die Tiefen der Seele nicht.

Darauf beruht aber die Schwierigkeit des Wirkens in der sozialen Frage. Denn mit jenen Oberflächlichkeiten, mit denen man gewöhnlich heute der sozialen Frage beikommen will, wird man ihr nie und nimmer beikommen. Die soziale Frage ist eine tief bedeutsame Frage, eine Frage, der man nicht beikommt, wenn man nicht in die Tiefe des Menschen- und Weltwesens hineinschauen will. Gerade an dem Umstande, daß es so ist, könnte man ja ersehen, wie notwendig gewisse Aufstellungen sind, die gerade die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus macht.

Aber man muß sich ein Organ erwerben für dasjenige, was in unserer Zeit notwendig ist. Auf geistigem Gebiete wird es schwer sein, dieses Organ zu erwerben; denn - ich habe es Ihnen schon einmal, glaube ich, auch hier angedeutet: die vom Staate allmählich aufgesogene geistige Bildung im Unterrichtswesen, die hat wirklich herausdestilliert aus den Menschen das Aktive, das tätige Streben, die hat den Menschen zum hingebungsvollen Gliede in der Staatsstruktur gemacht. Ich sagte es ja, wie ich glaube, auch hier: Wie lebt denn eigentlich eine große Anzahl von Menschen? Ausnahmen selbstverständlich immer abgerechnet. Na, bis so zum sechsten Jahre darf der Mensch ungehindert leben, weil da die Menschheit dem Staate noch zu schmutzig ist. Den Aufgaben möchte er sich nicht hingeben, der Staat, denen man sich hingeben muß in den ersten Kinderjahren; da überläßt man von seiten des Staates noch den Menschen den außerstaatlichen Mächten. Dann aber wird der Mensch in Anspruch genommen, wird so dressiert, daß er für die Staatswirtschaft geeignet wird, daß er hineinpaßt in die Schablone, daß er aufhört, Mensch zu sein und das nun wird, was die Abstempelung des Staates gibt. Dann wird er etwas dem Staate. Er strebt danach, denn es wird ihm eingebläut; er bekommt ja nun nicht bloß seine Verpflegung vom Staate während er arbeitet, sondern noch über die Arbeit hinaus bis zum Tode in Form der Pension. Denn was für ein Ideal ist heute für viele Menschen eine pensionsberechtigte Stellung! Dazu verfügen dann die Religionsbekenntnisse die Pensionierung über den Tod hinaus. Die Seele wird pensionsberechtigt; ohne daß sie etwas dazu tun soll, bekommt sie die ewige Seligkeit durch das Wirken der Kirche selber. Die sorgt dafür! Das ist allerdings unbequem, nun zu hören, daß das Heil im freien geistigen Streben liegt, das unabhängig vom Staate sein muß; daß der Staat nur ein Rechtsstaat sein soll. Ja, Pensionsberechtigung wird es ja im Rechtsstaate nicht geben! Das ist schon ein Grund für viele, ihn abzulehnen. Man merkt das immer wieder und wiederum.

Und mit Bezug auf das intimste Geistesleben, das religiöse Leben, wird allerdings die Weltanschauung der Zukunft von dem Menschen verlangen, daß er seine Unsterblichkeit sich erarbeitet, daß er seine Seele tätig sein läßt, damit sie in Tätigkeit das Göttliche, den ChristusImpuls in sich aufnimmt.

Viele, viele Briefe habe ich in meinem Leben bekommen, immer wieder von kirchlichen Leuten, die sagen, die Anthroposophie, oder wie sie es dann schon nennen, ist ja im Grunde eine schöne Sache, aber sie widerspricht dem einfachen, schlichten christlichen Bekenntnisse, daß Christus die Seele erlöst hat, daß man in Christus selig werden kann, ohne daß die Seele etwas dazu tut. Der «schlichte Glaube des Seligwerdens durch den Christus», davon können sie nicht lassen. Die Menschen glauben, wenn sie so etwas sagen oder schreiben, besonders fromm zu sein. Egoistisch sind sie, grundegoistisch sind sie, nichts tun möchten sie in der Seele und das Göttliche dafür sorgen lassen, daß es die Seele hübsch pensionierend hinausträgt durch die Pforte des Todes.

Das ist nicht so bequem in jener Weltanschauung, in der das Religiöse geschaffen werden muß gegen die Zukunft hin. Da muß man begreifen, daß man sich das Innehaben des Göttlichen in der Seele erarbeiten muß. Da wird man nicht sich bloß passiv hingeben können an die Kirchen, welche einem versprechen, die Seelen hinüberzutragen - es ist Ja jetzt abgekommen, was einmal Anstoß gegeben hat - für Geld, obwohl im geheimen das noch immer eine Rolle spielt, auch beim Seligwerden. Aber dieser Übergang zum innerlich Tätigsein, dieses Leben im Hinblicke auf die Welt, zu der man sich hinzurechnen muß, das ist dasjenige, was die Menschheit notwendig hat und was sie noch nicht sehr liebt.

Um uns ein Gefühl für das, was auf diesem Gebiete notwendig ist, anzueignen, müssen eben solche Dinge vor unsere Seele hintreten, wie ich sie heute wieder erwähnt habe: diese Metamorphose der Menschheit seit dem alten Ägyptertum, wo sogar der Körper noch mehr pflanzlicher Natur war, so daß, wenn er zurück verfällt in der Gegenwart, er krank wird, Geschwürbildungen partiell jetzt entwickelt und so weiter, und daß wir einen Leichnam herumtragen, der eigentlich erkennt. Durch diese Dinge eignet man sich an ein Gefühl, eine Empfindung für dasjenige, was der Menschheit notwendig ist: wirklich in der Richtung vorwärtszukommen, wie man gegenwärtig in der sozialen Frage vorwärtskommen muß. Wir dürfen es uns nicht mehr gestatten, so etwas wie die soziale Frage nur in möglichster Einfachheit zu betrachten.

Sehen Sie, das ist eben das außerordentlich Schwierige in der Gegenwart, und das müssen Sie sich klarmachen, dieses Schwierige, daß die Menschen mit ein paar abstrakten Sätzen über die wichtigsten Angelegenheiten des Lebens aufgeklärt sein möchten. Wenn so etwas wie «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» mehr enthält als einige abstrakte Sätze, wenn es enthält die Ergebnisse einer Lebensbeobachtung, dann sagen die Leute, das verstehen sie nicht. Das erscheint ihnen sogar verworren. Aber das ist das Unglück der Gegenwart, daß die Menschen nicht eingehen wollen auf dasjenige, auf was sie gerade eingehen sollten. Denn nicht wahr, abstrakte Sätze, die ganz durchsichtig sind, die beziehen sich ja auf das Tote; das Soziale soll aber das Lebendige sein. Da müssen biegsame Anschauungen, biegsame Sätze, biegsame Formen in Anwendung sein. Deshalb ist es schon notwendig, daß wir nicht nur nachdenken, wie ich schon öfter gesagt habe, über die Umwandlung einzelner Einrichtungen, sondern daß wir uns dazu bequemen, wirklich umzudenken und umzulernen mit Bezug auf das innerste Gefüge unseres Denkens und unseres Sinnens.

Das ist dasjenige, was ich Ihnen, da ich ja heute wiederum für ein paar Wochen von Ihnen Abschied nehme, vortragend zurücklassen möchte — jetzt, wo wir im Zeichen des Zusammenwirkens unserer anthroposophischen und sozialen Bewegung uns fühlen müssen. Ich möchte, daß wirklich immer mehr und mehr verstehend durchdrungen werde, wie anthroposophisch orientierte Geisteswissenschaft in die Seelen der Menschen einfließen muß, wenn im Sozialen irgend etwas erreicht werden soll. Und da möchte ich Ihnen eines ans Herz legen, was ich in verschiedenen Formen ja schon immer wiederholt habe: Es handelt sich wirklich darum, dasjenige, was wir in anthroposophischer Erkenntnis uns aneignen können, als wahre Richtschnur für das Wirken und Streben der Gegenwart anzuerkennen, den Mut zu haben, mit dem Anthroposophischen durchdringen zu wollen. Es ist ja dies das Schlimmste, daß die Menschen der Gegenwart so wenig den Mut haben, mit etwas, was not tut, wirklich durchdringen zu wollen. Sie lassen ihre besten Willenskräfte gewissermaßen zerbrechen; sie wollen nicht sie durchbringen, so notwendig dieses wäre.

Lernen Sie es mutvoll zu vertreten, daß diejenigen Menschen, die diesen Bau, den Repräsentanten unseres geistigen Strebens, mit Interesse betrachten, wohl von Ihnen aufgenommen werden; freuen Sie sich über jeden einzelnen, der nur ein bißchen Verständnis zeigt, kommen Sie ihm entgegen, aber bauen Sie gar nichts darauf, als daß Sie es entsprechend zurückweisen, wenn die Menschen mit bösem Willen oder mit dem, was heute noch häufiger ist, Unverstand der Sache entgegenkommen. Um den Mut handelt es sich, diese Dinge durchzubringen. Wir wollen uns so betrachten, daß wir da sind als das kleine Häuflein, das durch sein Schicksal bestimmt ist, dasjenige zu wissen und dasjenige der Welt mitzuteilen, was ihr heute am allernötigsten ist. Mögen uns die Leute auslachen und mögen sie sagen, daß es eine Anmaßung ist das zu glauben; wahr ist es ja doch. Und dieses «wahr ist es ja doch» sich zu sagen, aber ernsthaftig, so daß es die ganze Seele erfüllt, dazu gehört eben ein innerer Mut, den wir haben müssen. Der durchdringe uns als die anthroposophische Substanz. Dann werden wir das machen, was wir machen sollen, jeder an seinem Platze. Das möchte ich heute noch ausgesprochen haben.

Es ist so, daß wir schon, ich möchte sagen herbeisehnen möchten jeden Tag, der uns näher bringt dem Wirken — das ja jetzt außerdem sehr erschwert ist — durch diesen Bau für die Welt. Das ist ja schließlich das einzige, dieser Bau, was mit den großen Schicksalen der Menschen auch in den Formen rechnet. Und es ist erfreulich, daß diesem Bau jetzt schon Aufmerksamkeit zugewendet wird. Aber ein Weiteres ist für ein gedeihliches Fortwirken in der sozialen Frage noch notwendig. Das ist, daß gerade durch so etwas wie diesen Bau, in seinen stärkeren Formen, als heute andere architektonische Formen sind, gewirkt werde auf die geistige Aufbesserung der Menschheitskräfte; daß die Menschen wieder mehr zugänglich werden für dasjenige, wovon man möchte, daß die Menschen es wissen, damit es sie erhebt, nicht nur bis zum Engelhaften: bis zum Erzengelhaften, zum Zeitgeistmäßigen.

Mit diesen Worten möchte ich mich eben wiederum für ein paar Wochen von Ihnen verabschieden. Ich hoffe, daß wir in ein paar Wochen diese Betrachtungen fortsetzen können und daß wir gerade während dieser Zeiten einer regen Wirksamkeit auch für unseren Bau selbst entgegengehen. Denn, meine lieben Freunde, es wird mit Recht betont von allen Seiten in der Welt draußen: Arbeitslust, Arbeitsbereitwilligkeit ist bei den Menschen wiederum notwendig. Die wird nicht kommen, wenn die Menschen nicht überzeugt werden von großen Zielen. Ich glaube, daß wenn die Menschen überzeugt werden können davon, daß sie durch die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus ein menschenwürdiges Dasein erlangen, dann fangen sie auch wiederum an zu arbeiten. Sonst streiken sie fort. Denn die Menschen gebrauchen einen solchen Antrieb, der sie in tiefster Seele ergreift in unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit. Das auf dem Gebiet der physischen Arbeit.

Aber auch nicht anders als dadurch, daß wir zeigen, wie unsere Arbeit wenigstens an einem Objekte fruchtbar wird und hinausstrahlt in die Welt, werden wir den Antrieb geben können der Menschheit geistig zu überwinden dasjenige, was bloß tot ist in unserer Zeit. Überlegen wir uns das, meine lieben Freunde, bis zu dem Zeitpunkte, wo wir hier wiederum zusammen sprechen werden. Auf Wiedersehen!

Sixth Lecture

When I explained to you yesterday what the path of human intellect, of human intelligence, will be toward the future, this discussion was based on very specific facts that can be brought to light through spiritual scientific knowledge, some of which we would like to cite today. You must be practically aware, I would say, that when a human being stands before you, this human being is precisely the being we speak of in anthroposophical spiritual science. That is to say, we have before us — as you know from my Theosophy — a fourfold being, and you must always be aware of this. We have before us the ego, the so-called astral body, the etheric body, and the physical body. The fact that we have these four members of the human being before us every time a human being stands before us, so to speak, means that from the ordinary human perspective of today, we do not really know what we have before us in a human being. We really do not know. One thinks: what one sees standing before one, filling the space, is the physical body. But what is physical about it would not be seen as one sees it with ordinary eyes if it were standing before us only as a physical body. We see what stands before us as a physical body with ordinary eyes, just as it is, only because it is permeated by the etheric body, the astral body, and the ego. What is the physical body, strange as it may sound, is also a corpse as long as we live between birth and death. And actually, when we have a human corpse before us, we have in truth the physical body of the human being before us. When you see the corpse, you have the physical human being without it being permeated by the etheric body, astral body, and ego. It has been abandoned by these and shows, in a sense, its true essence.

You therefore do not present yourself correctly when you believe that you are carrying what you think of as the physical body of the human being around with you through space; you would present yourself much more correctly if you thought of yourself as a corpse and understood that your ego, your astral body, your etheric body carries this corpse through space.

This awareness of the true nature of the human being is becoming increasingly important in our time. For you see, the way things are today in the current cycle of human development, and have been for a long time, has not always been the case. Of course, the things I am telling you now cannot be verified by external physical science, but spiritual scientific knowledge provides precisely this fact. If you go back beyond the eighth century BC, which, as you know, marks the beginning of the fourth post-Atlantean period, you would arrive, as you also know, at the Egyptian-Chaldean earth period. Yes, human bodies were different then than they are today. The human bodies that are now shown to you in museums as mummies were not really of the same fine constitution as today's human body. They were much more permeated by plant life; they were not as completely corporeal as today's human body is corporeal. In a sense, as physical bodies, they were more similar to the nature of plants, whereas today's physical human body — and this has been the case since Greek-Latin times — is more similar to the mineral world. If, through some cosmic miracle, we were to acquire the same bodies that the Egyptian-Chaldean population had, we would all be sick. That would mean illness for us. We would carry around proliferating tissue in our bodies. And some illnesses simply consist of the human body atavistically regressing in part to conditions that were normal during the Egyptian-Chaldean period. Today, there are ulcerous formations in the human body that simply result from a part of the body in this or that person developing a tendency to become like the whole body was in the Egyptian-Chaldean population.

Now, what I have just said is very much connected with the development of humanity. As present-day human beings, we carry around a corpse. The Egyptians did not yet; the Egyptians carried something plant-like around with them. The consequence of this was that their knowledge was different from our knowledge, their intelligence worked differently from our intelligence. Now consider very carefully: what does man actually recognize with what he today calls his science, and of which he is so immensely proud? Only what is dead! It is always emphasized in science that life cannot be understood with ordinary intelligence. Although some researchers believe that if they continue to experiment with chemistry, a state will eventually be reached where the interplay of life will be understood through complicated combinations of atoms, molecules, and their interacting forces, this state will never be reached. Chemical and physical methods will only enable us to understand mineral death, that is, we will understand as much about living things as we understand about the living things that are now corpses.

But what is intelligent and cognizant in human beings is nevertheless this physical body, that is, the corpse. What does this corpse that we carry around with us actually do? It goes furthest in mathematical, geometric knowledge. There, everything is transparent; then it becomes more and more opaque the further one moves away from the mathematical-geometric. This stems from the fact that the human corpse is the real knower for us today, and that only the dead can recognize the dead. What the etheric body is, what the astral body is, what the I is, is not recognized in human beings today; it remains, so to speak, in the dark. If the etheric body could perceive in the same way as the physical body perceives the dead, then the etheric body would first perceive the living in the plant world. But what was peculiar was that in the plant-living body of the Egyptians, these Egyptians perceived the plant world in a completely different way than we do today. And some instinctive knowledge of the plant world can still be traced back to the Egyptian insight into what was incorporated into Egyptian culture out of an instinctive consciousness of knowledge. Even what is known today in botany for medicine is still based in many cases on traditions of ancient Egyptian wisdom. That is why it so often seems amateurish to the layman that people are all too happy to refer to something Egyptian when they want to convey knowledge that is not very valuable to people today. You know how some so-called lodges that are not based on proper foundations call themselves “Egyptian lodges.” But this is only because traditions of the wisdom that could be attained through the Egyptian body still live on in these circles. You see, one can say that with the gradual entry of human beings into the Greco-Latin era, the living human plant body died, for even in Greek culture the living plant body had already died, or at least was gradually dying. We already carry a very dead body within us, and this deadness is particularly true of the human head — as I have explained to you from another point of view, that the human head is generally perceived by the science of the initiates as a corpse, as something dead, as something that is constantly dying. Humanity will become more and more aware of this: that it actually only perceives with the corpse and therefore perceives the dead.

The further we move toward the future, the more intense will be the longing to recognize the living again. But this living will not be recognized through the ordinary intelligence that is bound to the corpse. Many things will be necessary so that the human being who has lost the ability to enter the world in a living way may once again come into the world in such a way. We must already know today what human beings have actually lost. When human beings came over from the Atlantean era into the post-Atlantean era, there were many things they could not do that they can do today. You see, each and every one of you, if you think about it, has been able to say “I” to yourselves since a certain time in your childhood. You say this ‘I’ quite disrespectfully. This “I” was not always said so disrespectfully in the course of human evolution. There were earlier times in human development, even if they had already been partly forgotten in Egyptian times — there were earlier times when a name was used for what the I expressed, a name which, when spoken, stunned people. Therefore, people avoided pronouncing this name. If the first population immediately after the Atlantean catastrophe had experienced the name for the I, which was valid for them and known only to the initiated, being pronounced, the whole assembly would have been stunned, would have fallen down, so strong would the name for the I have been. An echo of this fact can still be found in ancient Hebrew times, where there is talk of the unpronounceable name of God in the soul, which could only be spoken by initiates or was eurythmized before the congregation. The unpronounceable name of God has its origin in what I have just told you. Gradually, this has been lost more and more. In return, the deep effects that emanated from such things have been paralyzed. In the first post-Atlantean epoch: the profound effect of the ego; in the second post-Atlantean epoch: the profound effect of the astral body; in the third post-Atlantean epoch: the profound effect of the etheric body, but now already a tolerable effect, an effect that — as I explained to you yesterday — brings human beings into connection, into kinship with the cosmos. Now we can express the ego, we can express all kinds of things, but things no longer have an effect on us because we perceive what we grasp of the world with our corpse. That is, we perceive the dead, the mineral aspect of the world. But we must lift ourselves up again, return to those regions where we perceive the living. And while the Greek-Latin period from the 8th century BC to the middle of the 15th century AD was primarily designed to create more and more dead knowledge for the corpse, our intelligence is now following the path I spoke of yesterday. Therefore, we must resist mere intelligence. We must add something else to intelligence.

And it is characteristic that we must take the right path back, that we now, in the fifth post-Atlantean period, recognize the plant world in a certain way, in the sixth the animal world, and only in the seventh the truly human world. So it becomes a task for humanity to go beyond the mere recognition of the mineral world and to recognize the plant world.

And now, after you have understood this from a deeper context, consider who is the characteristic human being for this search for plant knowledge. It is Goethe. For by approaching the living, the metamorphosis, the becoming of plants from the dead, contrary to all external science, he was the man of the fifth post-Atlantean period in its elementary beginnings. If you read Goethe's short treatise from 1790, “An Attempt to Explain the Metamorphosis of Plants,” you will find in this treatise how Goethe gradually attempts to grasp the plant in the process of becoming, not as something dead and finished, but as something becoming from leaf to leaf. There you will see the dawn of the knowledge that should be sought in this fifth post-Atlantic epoch.

Goetheanism thus sets the tone for what should be sought in this fifth post-Atlantic epoch. In a sense, science in the Goethean sense will have to awaken, to move from the dead to the living. This is what I mean when I say again and again that we should learn to move away from dead, abstract concepts and into living, concrete concepts. And what I said the day before yesterday and yesterday is basically the path into these living, concrete concepts.

Now, it will not be possible to enter into these concepts, these mental images, if we do not make the effort to develop what we call our worldview and conception of life as a unity. Today, the particular configuration of our culture compels us to allow the various currents of our worldview to run alongside each other in a somewhat inorganic manner. Just think how inorganic the religious worldviews of a person and the scientific worldview often run side by side. Some people have one and the other, but they do not build a bridge between them. Indeed, they have a certain aversion to it, a certain fear of building a bridge. And we must realize that this cannot remain so.

Now I have drawn your attention to one thing during my stay here, namely how selfishly people today actually shape their worldview. I have led you to the fact that people today are primarily interested in the life of the soul after death. Out of pure selfishness, they are interested in this life of the soul after death. I have told you that we must move on to an interest in the life of the soul from birth, insofar as this is a continuation of life before birth or before conception. If we were to view the development of the child as it grows into the world as a continuation of its pre-birth spiritual and soul existence with the same longing, the same inclination, and the same tendency, our understanding of the world would take on a much less selfish character than it has today. But this selfish character of our worldview is connected with many other things. And here I come to a point where people of the present must become clearer and clearer about the real facts that underlie it. In the period leading up to our time, selfishness has developed predominantly in human beings; the ego has permeated our worldview, and the ego has also permeated our will. We should not delude ourselves about this. Above all, religious beliefs have become selfish. You can already see from outward appearances that religious beliefs have become selfish. Just think how today's preachers are instructed to reckon with people's egoism. The more they reckon with people's egoism, the more they can make promises to people about the life of the soul after death, the more they achieve their purpose. After all, there is hardly any interest in other things in today's humanity. And people are not very interested in that spiritual weaving and life that announces itself so wonderfully after birth, or rather after conception, with the soul that was previously in the spiritual world.

One consequence of this is the way people today think about the divine in different religious denominations. The fact that we imagine God as the Supreme Being does not mean anything special. In this regard, it is important that we dispel all illusions. What do most people who say “God” today actually mean? I have already mentioned this here once before: What kind of being do they mean when they speak of God? It is an angel, their own angel, whom they call God! It is nothing else! People just about sense that a protective spirit follows their own lives, they look up to it, they call it their God. Even if they do not call it an angel, even if they call it God, they only mean the angel. And that is basically the selfishness of religious belief, that with the idea of God one cannot rise above the angel. The reason for this is the narrowing of interests caused by selfishness. We see this narrowing of interests very clearly in our public life today.

What do people ask about a lot today? Do they ask a lot about the general fate of humanity? 'Oh, in a sense it is quite sad to talk to humanity today about general human destinies. One has no idea how much things have changed in this respect in a relatively short time. You see, today one can say to people: The armed conflict that has engulfed the earth for the last four to five years will be followed by the most powerful spiritual struggle that has ever swept across the earth, one that has never been seen before in this form, one that stems from the fact that the West calls maya or ideology what the East calls reality, and that the East calls reality what the West calls ideology. Today, we can draw humanity's attention to this serious matter, and they are not even aware that if the same thing had been said only a hundred years ago, it would have gripped their souls so deeply that they would not have been able to let go of it!

This change in humanity, this indifference of humanity towards the great destinies of existence, is the most striking phenomenon. Everything bounces off humanity today. The most comprehensive, most incisive, most intense facts are taken in as a sensation. They do not have a sufficiently shattering effect. And this is only because the ever-increasing intelligent egoism is narrowing people's interests. Therefore, even though people today may have democracies and parliaments, when they come together in parliaments, the destinies of humanity do not blow through these parliaments, because the people who are usually elected to parliaments are not blown through by the destiny of humanity. What is affected are selfish interests. Everyone has their own selfish interests. Outward, schematic similarities in interests, often caused by profession, cause people to group together. And when the groups are large enough, they become majorities. And then it is not human destinies that pass through the parliaments or through the representatives of the people, but only selfishness, multiplied by so many people. Because only selfishness lives in human beings, even religious belief has moved into the sphere of selfishness. Religious belief will undergo the necessary renewal when people's interests broaden, when they become such that people can once again look beyond their personal fate to the fate of humanity, when people are once again moved, deeply moved, when they are told: in the West a different culture is flourishing than in the East, and in the middle again a different culture than at the two poles in the West and in the East; when they are told: in the West, the great goals of humanity are sought — if they are sought at all — by turning to mediumistic people and putting them into a kind of trance, thereby consciously connecting them underground, as it were, with the spiritual worlds, and then having them reveal great historical goals through mediumistic means. You could tell people in Europe this as often as you like — they will not believe that there really are societies in American and English-speaking countries where attempts are made to put people with mediumistic abilities into a kind of trance in order to find out, by asking them clever questions, what the great goals of humanity's destiny are. People don't believe that Easterners also receive knowledge about these great goals of humanity's destiny — not through mediums, but through mystical means. Today, this is almost tangible, because Rabindranath Tagore's beautiful speeches are available everywhere, in which one can read how an Easterner thinks about the goals of humanity in the grand scheme of things. These speeches are read like the arts section by any hack writer, because today there is little distinction between hack writers and people of great spirituality, such as Rabindranath Tagore. People are not aware that different racial substantialities, so to speak, exist side by side. What applies to Central Europe has been said by me for many years in public lectures. But it was not taken as it should have been taken.

However, I only want to point out that one can become aware of something that transcends selfish human destiny, something that is connected with the destiny of groups of people, so that one can differentiate in a concrete way across the earth. If one raises one's soul's gaze to such a grasp and understanding of human destinies in the earthly realm, if one takes an intense interest in that which goes beyond personal destiny, then one attunes one's soul to comprehend something higher and more real than the mere angel: namely, the archangel. Thoughts about what the archangel being means do not occur to one at all if one remains only in the regions that concern the selfish human being. If preaching takes place only in the regions of the selfish human being, then no matter how much the preachers talk about the divine, they are only talking about the angel. For to call it something else is only a falsehood; it does not make the thing what it is. Only when one begins to take an interest in the fate of human beings in space does the soul begin to enter into the mood of rising to the archangelic being.

And now move on to something else. Feel within yourselves what I have indicated in these lectures about the successive impulses of human development! Feel that a large part of our leading people are educated in the years when the human soul is accessible to a certain flexibility, in the high schools; in the high schools that are not born out of our contemporary culture, but which, as they are, are still born out of the past culture of the Greco-Roman, the Greco-Latin era. You see, if these Greeks and Latins had done the same as we do, they would have established Egyptian-Chaldean secondary schools. They did not do that. They took their teaching material from immediate life. We take it from the previous period and educate people accordingly. This has great significance for people, but we have not recognized this significance. If we had recognized this significance, there would have been a tone within the women's movement that did not exist, a tone that would have sounded like this: The male world, precisely when it should be trained in the special handling of intelligence, is sent to antiquated schools. This hardens their brains. We women have been fortunate that we were not allowed into high schools. We want to put our intelligence on an original note; we want to show what can be developed for the present if one is not dulled in one's youth by Greek and Latin high school education.

This note has not been heard. On the contrary, some notes have sounded: Men have crawled under the Greek-Latin high school education, let us women crawl in too. Let us also become college students.

So little understanding has taken hold with regard to what is necessary. We should know that in our present we are not being educated for this present, but are being educated for Greek-Latin culture. That is therefore part of our lives. One must feel it. One must feel what is happening in Greek-Latin culture in the present, especially among the leading people, among the so-called intelligentsia, among the intellectuals; that is the one class that is with us. We actually carry it within us in our entire intellectual education. We cannot read a newspaper without encountering Greek-Latin education, because we actually write in Greek-Latin form, even when we write in our national languages.

And with regard to our view of law, as I have already explained, we live within Roman culture — again, something antiquated. Roman culture lives within the law. Sometimes the old state laws argue against Roman law, but they do not prevail. And one must feel again how, in what people call right and wrong in public life, a bygone era lives on.

Only in economic matters do we actually live in the present. It says a lot that we only live in the present in economic matters. Therefore, something will probably change significantly. If I may add this as a parenthesis: some women naturally preserve the concepts of the present – only for cooking, that is, for housekeeping, and thus they are the true essence of the present; the other is something antiquated that we carry into the present. I am not saying that this should be presented as something particularly desirable; but the other is certainly not the most desirable, that we now go back from the present, through the souls of women, to antiquated cultures. By looking at what lives in our cultural environment, we see not only what is at work in the present, but also the influence of ancient times. And if we acquire a feeling for this, it is not only the past that influences us, but also the future. Yes, it is our business to let the future influence us. For if there were not in every human being, quite subordinate to consciousness, a kind of rebel against the Greekness of education and the Romanity of law, and if the future did not shine in, we would be sad fellows, really quite sad fellows.

In addition to space, we must also consider time for what lives in our culture: that which protrudes into our present from ancient history and from the future. We must be clear that, as people living in the present, we have brought the past and the future into our human soul. Just as we have brought in America, England, Asia, China, India, the East, and the West by being Europeans—as already mentioned—because these are the two poles, so we have Greece, Rome, and the future within us. And by allowing ourselves to contemplate the latter, by becoming aware of how the past, the becoming, and the emerging live in our soul, another mood arises in this soul about the human destiny that transcends egoism, a mood different from that which arises from the mere observation of space. And when we develop this mood of the soul, only then do we develop the ability to form concepts about the sphere of the spirits of the age, the archai. That is, we come to the third divine in the hierarchy. It is good if human beings first allow themselves to present these three hierarchies in concepts and ideas using the means I have just mentioned. For the form spirits that then come are infinitely more difficult to grasp. But it is enough for the present human being to make the attempt to penetrate beyond egoism into the sphere of the unselfish, and to penetrate again and again, to occupy himself with what I have now characterized! In particular, I must say again, what I have now discussed should be included in teacher training. Teachers should not be allowed to teach and educate without gaining an understanding of egoism, which strives toward the next god, that is, toward the angel, but also without gaining an understanding of the unselfish, fate-determining powers that exist side by side in the space above the earth, of the archangelic beings, and without them gaining an understanding of how the past and future, Roman law, Greek intellectual substance, and the undefined rebel of the future who will save us, all intrude into our culture.

But humanity is currently not very inclined to engage with these things. Some time ago, I repeatedly emphasized in lectures that one of our social tasks is to take our educational resources for the time that people spend in high schools today from the present, to do as the Greeks themselves did: they took their educational material from the present.

It is — at least in terms of time — in the same place where I have repeatedly spoken about this issue as an important social issue — shortly afterwards, I do not want to construct a causal connection, but that is irrelevant, the matter is of symptomatic significance – advertisements appeared en masse in all the newspapers of the place in question, promoting the current high school system. I gave lectures in which I characterized high school education as I have just characterized it to you—and advertisements appeared everywhere in the newspapers: what German culture owes to high school education for its youth, for the “strengthening of national consciousness,” “national power,” and so on, a few weeks before the Treaty of Versailles! These advertisements were signed by all kinds of local dignitaries from the schools and the education system. The fact is that what we have to explain today from the truly objective foundations of human development always rebounds. People let it rebound—it does not touch the depths of the soul.

This is the basis of the difficulty of working on the social question. For with the superficial approaches that are usually taken to the social question today, it will never, ever be solved. The social question is a deeply significant question, a question that cannot be solved unless one is willing to look into the depths of human and world existence. Precisely because this is the case, one can see how necessary certain arrangements are, which are precisely what the threefold social organism provides.

But we must acquire an organ for what is necessary in our time. It will be difficult to acquire this faculty in the spiritual realm, because – as I believe I have already indicated here once before – the spiritual education in the school system, which has gradually been absorbed by the state, has really distilled out of people their active, energetic striving, and has made them devoted members of the state structure. I believe I have already said here: how does a large number of people actually live? Exceptions aside, of course. Well, until the age of six, people are allowed to live unhindered, because at that age humanity is still too dirty for the state. They do not want to devote themselves to the tasks that must be devoted to in the early years of childhood; because the state still leaves people to the non-state powers. But then people are called upon, trained to become suitable for the state economy, to fit into the mold, to cease being human and become what the state stamps on them. Then they become something to the state. They strive for this because it is drummed into them; after all, they not only receive their sustenance from the state while they work, but also beyond their working life, in the form of a pension. For what an ideal a pensionable position is for many people today! In addition, religious beliefs provide for retirement beyond death. The soul becomes eligible for a pension; without having to do anything, it receives eternal bliss through the work of the church itself. The church takes care of that! It is certainly uncomfortable to hear that salvation lies in free spiritual striving, which must be independent of the state; that the state should only be a constitutional state. Yes, there will be no pension entitlement in a constitutional state! That is already a reason for many to reject it. One notices this again and again.

And with regard to the most intimate spiritual life, religious life, the worldview of the future will indeed require people to work for their immortality, to let their souls be active so that in activity they take in the divine, the Christ impulse.

I have received many, many letters in my life, again and again from church people who say that anthroposophy, or whatever they call it, is basically a beautiful thing, but it contradicts the simple, plain Christian creed that Christ redeemed the soul, that one can be saved in Christ without the soul doing anything. They cannot let go of the “simple belief in salvation through Christ.” When people say or write such things, they believe themselves to be particularly pious. They are selfish, fundamentally selfish; they want to do nothing in their souls and let the divine take care of it, carrying the soul out through the gate of death as if it were retiring.

This is not so convenient in that worldview in which the religious must be created for the future. One must understand that one must work to attain the divine in one's soul. One cannot simply passively surrender oneself to the churches, which promise to carry one's soul across – what once caused offense has now been abandoned – for money, although in secret this still plays a role, even in becoming blessed. But this transition to inner activity, this life with a view to the world to which one must belong, is what humanity needs and does not yet love very much.

In order to acquire a feeling for what is necessary in this area, things such as those I have mentioned again today must come before our soul: this metamorphosis of humanity since ancient Egypt, where even the body was still more plant-like in nature, so that when it degenerates in the present, it becomes ill, ulcers develop in some areas, and so on, and we carry around a corpse that actually recognizes. Through these things, one acquires a feeling, a sense of what is necessary for humanity: to really move forward in the direction in which we must currently move forward in the social question. We can no longer allow ourselves to view something like the social question in the simplest possible terms.

You see, that is precisely what is so extraordinarily difficult at present, and you must realize this difficulty, that people want to be enlightened about the most important matters of life with a few abstract sentences. When something like “The Key Points of the Social Question” contains more than a few abstract sentences, when it contains the results of an observation of life, then people say they don't understand it. It even seems confusing to them. But that is the misfortune of the present day, that people do not want to engage with what they should be engaging with. For it is true that abstract sentences, which are completely transparent, refer to the dead; but the social should be the living. Flexible views, flexible sentences, flexible forms must be applied. That is why it is necessary, as I have often said, not only to think about the transformation of individual institutions, but also to bring ourselves to really rethink and relearn with regard to the innermost structure of our thinking and our senses.

This is what I would like to leave you with today, as I take my leave of you again for a few weeks — now that we must feel ourselves under the sign of the cooperation between our anthroposophical and social movements. I would like you to understand more and more deeply how anthroposophically oriented spiritual science must flow into people's souls if anything is to be achieved in the social sphere. And here I would like to urge you to take to heart something that I have already repeated many times in various forms: It is really a matter of recognizing what we can acquire through anthroposophical knowledge as a true guideline for the work and striving of the present, of having the courage to want to permeate everything with anthroposophy. The worst thing is that people today have so little courage to really want to permeate everything with something that is necessary. They allow their best powers of will to be broken, so to speak; they do not want to carry them through, however necessary this may be.

Learn to courageously stand up for the fact that those people who view this building, the representative of our spiritual striving, with interest, are well received by you; rejoice over every single person who shows even a little understanding, meet them halfway, but do not build on anything other than rejecting them accordingly when people approach the matter with ill will or, as is even more common today, with a lack of understanding. It is a matter of courage to carry these things through. Let us see ourselves as a small group of people whose destiny is to know and to communicate to the world what it needs most today. People may laugh at us and say that it is presumptuous to believe this, but it is true nonetheless. And to say to ourselves, “But it is true,” seriously, so that it fills our whole soul, requires an inner courage that we must have. May it permeate us as the anthroposophical substance. Then we will do what we are supposed to do, each in his or her place. I wanted to say that today.

The fact is that we already long for every day that brings us closer to working for the world through this building, which is now very difficult. After all, this building is the only thing that takes into account the great destinies of human beings, even in its forms. And it is gratifying that attention is already being paid to this building. But something else is necessary for a prosperous continuation of the social question. That is, precisely through something like this building, in its stronger forms than other architectural forms today, an effect should be made on the spiritual improvement of the forces of humanity; that people should once again become more receptive to that which one would like them to know, so that it elevates them, not only to the angelic, but to the archangelic, to the spirit of the times.

With these words, I would like to take my leave of you again for a few weeks. I hope that we will be able to continue these reflections in a few weeks and that, especially during these times of lively activity, we will also move toward our own building. For, my dear friends, it is rightly emphasized from all sides in the world outside: the desire to work, the willingness to work, is once again necessary among people. This will not come about unless people are convinced of great goals. I believe that if people can be convinced that they can achieve a dignified existence through the threefold social organism, then they will start working again. Otherwise, they will continue to strike. For people need such motivation, which touches them in the depths of their souls in our present time. This applies to the field of physical work.

But it is also only by showing how our work is fruitful, at least in one area, and how it radiates out into the world, that we will be able to give humanity the impetus to spiritually overcome what is merely dead in our time. Let us think about this, my dear friends, until the time when we meet again here to talk. Goodbye!