The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Lecture II

In the previous lecture we discussed the activity of Dr. Steiner up until October 1910, insofar as it had to do with the Bodhisattva question. This effort at clarification was carried on through the winter of 1910-11. Then in June 1911, the lectures on The Spiritual Guidance of Mankind were given. At the time the lectures were given, they were for members only. But only two months later, Dr. Steiner let them appear as the well-known booklet by that title. There he speaks of the two Jesus children, about the Bodhisattva, and also about the Etheric Christ. He published this in book form despite the enormous work the Mystery Dramas demanded of him in preparation, writing, rehearsal and performance. (The Soul's Probation was then being performed for the first time.) And then there was the cycle of lectures held subsequently in Munich. In spite of all this work, Dr. Steiner found it necessary to revise the transcript of the three Copenhagen lectures to make them ready for printing, and the booklet appeared in August 1911 — right at the time of the Munich cycle. Here, for the first time, was something appearing publicly that told of the two Jesus boys and the future coming of Christ. Dr. Steiner says himself in the preface to this edition that he “has reasons for publishing this work precisely at this moment.” If we, in turn, ask ourselves why this had to happen, we come upon the Theosophical Congress, which was to be held in Genoa in September of that year, 1911. It was intended that Dr. Steiner would again attend this congress. Annie Besant also had agreed to come, and it was known that she would bring 4Alcyone1 — that is, Krishnamurti — with her.

The representatives of two spiritual streams would thus have confronted each other there in quite a different manner than two years before in Budapest. A clash was expected from all sides. It was in order that there would be a clear public expression of his teaching — a basis, so to speak, for a possible serious discussion — that Dr. Steiner had put The Spiritual Guidance into print so soon. The congress, however, was cancelled at the last minute Annie Besant had wired that she could not come. The General Secretary of the Italian Section, who was in charge, took this to be a cancellation of the whole congress. There followed all sorts of confusion, about which we do not need to speak here; but the altercation was avoided. Dr. Steiner then held lectures in various places (Milan, Lugano, etc.) in which he went on speaking about the Bodhisattva question. In Herr Arenson's presentation you will find some quotations from these lectures in particular. Dr. Steiner spoke especially eloquently and extensively on this theme, as well as about the Etheric Christ, in the lecture that will be familiar to many of you. It was held in Basel on October 1,1911, and usually bears the title: On Self-Knowledge. Immediately afterwards there was the Karlsruhe cycle, From Jesus to Christ, of which we will speak later.

I want to also mention the Leipzig lecture of November 4, 1911, because Herr Arenson attributes special significance to a passage from it. He says: “Here it is clearly expressed that Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner's creation, has the mission of proclaiming the Christ in etheric form.” [And then follows a quotation from the above-mentioned lecture:] “It is the task of Anthroposophy to proclaim the Christ in etheric form.” [My italics] And: “Anthroposophy is here in order to prepare for this.”

Now the transcript that exists of this lecture is quite deficient, as anyone who reads it can see. [In another, fuller version of this lecture that has come into my hands since then, the sentence bears more or less the same meaning, but has a slightly different wording: ^Specifically for our time it is necessary that Christ be proclaimed. Therefore, Theosophy also has the task of proclaiming the Christ in etheric form.”] But even if you take literally the transcript from which Herr Arenson quotes, you find that Dr. Steiner said, “It is the task of Theosophy to teach about the Etheric Christ.” And: “Theosophy is here in order to prepare this.”

I do not wish at this point to enter into the occasionally rather difficult question as to how far one should now go to always write ‘Anthroposophy’ wherever Dr. Steiner said ‘Theosophy’. Certainly it is justifiable or even necessary to do so in most cases. But particularly in this situation, and from the whole context of the lecture [which regretfully I did not hear myself], my sense for the passage would be: “It is the task of Theosophy to teach about the Etheric Christ” — with the stress on ‘etheric’; i.e., not to teach about the Christ as reincarnating in the physical realm. Then the word 'Theosophy' would indeed refer also to the stream flowing through Annie Besant and her colleagues, for it is they who specifically teach about the Christ as appearing in the physical realm — and not about the Etheric Christ! This shows just how carefully we have to proceed in this direction; and for this reason I would like to tell you of my own impressions and experiences from this period.

In December 1911, the General Meeting of the German Section of the Theosophical Society took place. It was on this occasion that the members discussed for the first time whether they should found their own Society, for they no longer wished to be wrongly identified with the Theosophical Society. At that time, too, an association was provisionally formed which has subsequently developed into the Anthroposophical Society. Thereupon, Dr. Steiner immediately warned us of the consequences such a step would bring in its train. I do not wish to speak about much that happened then; but I would point to the fact that — for the first time — the members made it evident to Dr. Steiner that they, in a sense, officially agreed with him. They declared their will to support him and not the false doctrines of Annie Besant It was as if this were the fruit of all of Dr. Steiner's wonderful work of the previous two and a half years, which I have tried to recount to you in chronological order. For him this was proof that he would be able to carry his movement further, proof that sufficient insight and understanding existed.

And it did actually seem, after that conHrmation of his work, as if it were no longer necessary for Dr. Steiner to repeat so strongly what he had almost continually repeated for two long years. You will find already in the lectures of 1912 that he speaks less often about the Bodhisattva question, and then only on those occasions when the Society affairs are directly concerned with it. Again, Scandinavia forms an exception. There, in Christiania (as it was then still called), Dr. Steiner again raises the question strongly in the cycle Man in the Light of Philosophy, Theosophy and Occultism (1912). It was there, too, that he spoke for the first time about the fact that Buddha was directed by Christian Rosenkreutz toward Mars in order to fulfill his peace mission there. And in the cycle in Basel on the Gospel of St Mark, in September 1912, Dr. Steiner again speaks quite clearly about the nonsense originating in Adyar that had been put into the world. [In the preface to the printed cycle which, however, was not published until 1918, Dr. Steiner even mentions Mrs. Besant by name.] From then on the subject is hardly spoken about again. During the Munich cycle in August, the still loosely constructed ‘Association’ was re-named the ‘Anthroposophical Society’ by Rudolf Steiner. The name came as a surprise to us. We really only knew the word from the 1909 lecture cycle that is now printed in Die DreL But in any case, the continued existence of Dr. Steiner's work was now guaranteed.

You know that the severance from the Theosophical Society occurred in the year 1913 at the General Meeting in Berlin in February. You probably know too that the direct reason why we resigned [we would have been excluded otherwise] was that at the Grand General Meeting, always held by the Theosophical Society around Christmastide in India, and in front of an audience of several thousand members, Annie Besant had described Dr. Steiner as having been educated by the Jesuits, saying also that "because he is incapable of freeing himself from this fatal influence, he cannot allow room for freedom in his Section." The news of this reached us shortly before the German General Meeting, and Dr. Steiner stated with great emphasis that he would not have anything more to do with a personality capable of speaking such an untruth in such a place. With this the severance was completed.

I have to mention this matter here in this manner, because it is connected with statements of Rudolf Steiner's to which Herr Arenson particularly refers, and which I myself have to attribute to something quite different. I am referring to the General Meeting where Dr. Steiner told us about his life-story, and spoke of himself all the time in the third person: “Rudolf Steiner did this or said that,” etc. And Herr Arenson finds proof in this that it is the Bodhisattva individuality who, through Rudolf Steiner, is in some measure telling the story of Dr. Steiner's youth.

We have to consider, now, that never before had Dr. Steiner spoken to members about his own life, except perhaps to a very few who had heard a few details from him over the course of years. He had regarded it as a basic rule of the occultism that he represented — Rosicrucianism — that the personality of the teacher, as such, be allowed to recede into the background. He also behaved in such a way that a question in that direction never even arose. Only once, in a foreword to a work of Eduard Schuré's Divine Evolution, there appeared a sort of life-description. This indeed had its origin in indications by Dr. Steiner, but seemed in a way to remain in the air, giving one the impression that Dr. Steiner basically did not approve of it. There was actually no possibility available for members [even if they were acquainted with the Schuré description] of judging whether what Annie Besant stated at the General Meeting was true or not. The evidence was lacking for an objective judgement. Indeed I remember that I myself, before this General Meeting, was so incapable of seeing this matter as being completely fabricated that — before Dr. Steiner had spoken — I had formed the somewhat naive thought: Well, perhaps at sometime or other the Jesuits, because they noticed that here was an especially talented child, had paid for his education, and Annie Besant had blown that up into a ‘Jesuit education’. Of course this was naive thinking, for if that had happened, the Jesuits would not have allowed Rudolf Steiner to just go his way, so to speak, but would certainly have held on to him for themselves! I only mention this in order to show how lacking in a basis for judgement we then were. You must remember that his autobiography, The Story of My Life, was not yet written.

[I remember, too, how once during a question period such as Dr. Steiner was used to holding after his lectures in the Architectenhaus, he suddenly said: “As the son of a junior railway official, I could often experience this or that...” For me, that was a moment when Dr. Steiner seemed suddenly to be standing on Earth in the midst of common human situations.]

Dr. Steiner, out of his tremendous objectivity and sense of propriety, could not feel otherwise than that he could indeed break off relations with Annie Besant in response to the Jesuit accusation, but that first he was obliged to tell us about his life. Thereby he was forced to break with the principle of keeping his personal circumstances in the background. What he resented was being forced by outer lies into action which he would not otherwise have willed to take at this time. This rings through his question at the General Meeting as to whether the members wished to listen to his life-story. He asks this because he believes it to be something that does not belong at a General Meeting — namely, the story of his youth, which he would have to tell in order to disprove slanderous statements. You can find this situation described in these words in the Newsletter of that time:

Because of this, and since truly objective matters are mixed up here with what is personal, I now have to approach you with a question. I cannot convey everything to you right now that could show you how this reproach is constructed out of nothing, how untrue and foolish it is. I ask you, are you willing during the coming days to listen to a short sketch, a short extract from my life-path? There is no other way that I can give you proof of how foolish and untrue such an accusation as Mrs. Besant's is. Neither, however, do I want to force it on you, and so I am asking you to tell me whether you agree to hear an abbreviated synopsis of my memoirs at some suitable moment during the coming days.

[The meeting accepts the suggestion.]

Mrs. Besant knows very well that all such accusations leave behind them a residue. And now . . . I pause, for no words suffice to characterize what has happened. That I should be forced to the point of having to describe my life-path is unheard of!

My ears can still hear the energy and the indignation with which Dr. Steiner hurled these last words into the meeting. The meeting, it is recorded, "accepted the s*u*ggestion. And when Dr. Steiner, after two days, was ready to tell his life-story, he began with a sort of protest, his first words being:

It is my honest conviction that what I now have to describe is more than one should ask a group such as this to listen to. You can definitely rest assured that, feeling this as I do, I resort to this description only for the reasons that came up in the last few days. These reasons require — to a certain measure it is a duty — that for the sake of our endeavors, suspicions and distortions should be put in the right light — that is, be rejected.

Then, only after having first said these few words in preface —

My dear theosophical friends, please regard the manner in which I shall couch my description not as affected, but as something which in many ways seems to me the most natural form.

—Rudolph Steiner begins to speak of himself in the third person. His manner of speaking could be interpreted as the final protest against the enforced deed, as a last rejection of having to allow the personality of the occult teacher to come into the foreground. Then he was able to raise himself above the situation with the help of what is, after all, the freeing element in spiritual life. And that is humor. Indeed, he told his life-story in such a way that we often had a good laugh. There was, for example, the delightful incident with the stationmaster who had a toothache. Someone telegraphed the dentist to come and help. Being always a very busy man, he wired that the stationmaster should wait on the platform, and the train would stop for a moment on its way through. The dentist pulled out his tooth and the train moved on immediately. The stationmaster stood there, quite stunned, inspected his tooth and said, (unfortunately I cannot repeat it to you in Austrian dialect as Dr, Steiner told it) “Well, actually he pulled out a perfectly healthy tooth, but now the other one doesn't hurt anymore either!”

It was in this manner that Rudolf Steiner told his life-story, notwithstanding that it was in the third person! This, too, belongs to an examination of the Bodhisattva question in the light of anthroposophical history.

We now come to the important point in the inner transformation that takes place in the Bodhisattva-being between the 30th and 33rd year of his life. You will all know the passage in which Dr. Steiner speaks of the fact that he who is the bearer of the Bodhisattva-being is, in his youth, of such a nature that no one around him can know what will be working in him in the future. He is a child with no more or less talent than another until, at the above-mentioned age, the Bodhisattva takes possession of him, and thereby a complete transformation of his life takes place. This oft-repeated statement of Rudolf Steiner's is brought into connection here with what provoked it historically.

Annie Besant, we know, had appeared on the scene with a boy whom she maintained was the Bodhisattva. The highest reverence was paid to this boy. He wrote a little book at the age of 14 or 15 — At the Feet of the Master — which, for someone who reads it without prejudice, does not seem to contain anything very important; and yet it was actually taken very seriously as proceeding from the future World Teacher. In the Karlsruhe cycle, however, Dr. Steiner said, when speaking of the transformation of the soul of the Bodhisattva:

This transformation occurs particularly between the 30th and 33rd years. It can never be known beforehand that this body will be taken possession of by the Bodhisattva. The change never shows itself in youth. The distinctive feature is precisely that the later years are so unlike the youthful ones.

Compare this with the passage from the Milan lecture (September 21, 1909) that was also quoted by Herr Arenson:

And one would best recognize that somehow the right thing was not being done if it were said of a young person — when he was not yet 30 years old — that the Bodhisattva was manifesting in him. This would be a sign of error.

As you can see, the nonsense that was being spread about over there was being clearly indicated. This nonsense went so far that Krishnamurti, as a half-grown boy, was taken by Leadbeater to Sicily and there, as he tells, was ‘initiated’. It is purported that he had lain for three-and-a-half days in an initiation sleep resembling death — in Sicily of all places! Dear friends, read the cycle, Mysteries of the Occident and of Christianity, held at precisely that same General Meeting in Berlin (February 1913), and you will find Sicily indicated as that place on Earth where the anti-Grail impulses dwell. It is stated further that in the spiritual aura of Sicily, to this day, the evil consequences of the works of the Grail-antagnonist, Klingsor — the black magician — can be perceived. This was the light thrown by the spirit-investigator, which was dressed, one might say, in the chaste garb of a communication of knowledge, about what was supposed to have taken place there as a quasi-initiation of an immature young person. It is exactly in this manner that all communications of Dr. Steiner in that period 'fit' into the happenings in the Theosophical Society.

Thereby, without mentioning any names, Dr. Steiner had actually pointed to the fact that Annie Besant and Leadbeater were basically not spiritual scientists, for otherwise they would know that in the boy, Krishnamurti, the future Bodhisattva could not yet be visible. Dr. Steiner had left it to the free insight of the members to recognize the truth through his teachings. We need today to see these things in this light; in the aura, so to speak, in which they are situated.

Now Dr. Steiner had also mentioned in connection with these things, during the Leipzig lecture, that the Bodhisattva was already reincarnated: “He is already incorporated, and he will be the actual proclaimer of the Etheric Christ.” [If we want to take just this message in the transcript literally, we must notice that the first fact is spoken of as in the present, the second as in the future.]

Herr Arenson feels this to be a contradiction of the previous quotation, which said that one could never know before the 33rd year had been reached that a particular body was going to be taken hold of by the Bodhisattva. By this reasoning. Dr. Steiner could not know that the Bodhisattva had already incorporated, unless one sees Dr. Steiner himself as the Bodhisattva-bearer. I can only say that I, having heard nearly all the lectures of that period, did not experience a contradiction. For I did not doubt that Dr. Steiner could know this, even though he had explained to us in manifold ways that, Annie Besant in any case, could possess no such knowledge — since otherwise she would not have brought the boy forward in that manner. Indeed Dr. Steiner had wanted to say, previously, that from outer things [as, for instance, from the writing of a little book in childhood years which is proclaimed as significant] or from any behavior whatsoever of a person before the 33rd year on the physical plane, one cannot conclude that he is the Bodhisattva. However, it is precisely this that Mrs. Besant had referred to, and therefore one could have no confidence in her spiritual proclamations about the World Teacher, for this basic fact of the inner transformation in the 33rd year of age was obviously not known to her. Yet from the spiritual aspect, from a real knowledge, for instance, of the Jeschu ben Pandira individuality, Dr. Steiner could well know who was to be the Bodhisattva-bearer.

I do not wish to pursue this much further. Many have given thought to this problem, and among members it has been much discussed, but it is questionable whether there have been results of value. I do not regard it as helpful the way Herr Arenson, in this connection, pays attention to rumors (private communications being circulated) which in any case could have been verified, in part, by asking questions. Herr Arenson supposes that if Dr. Steiner, by means of his spiritual investigation, could have known the identity of the incorporated Bodhisattva, he would not have mentioned it; for if he had done so, he would have broken a rule of the spiritual world. Therefore, those rumors could not be based on truth which said that Dr. Steiner had indeed given indications about this to certain people, for the initiate does not infringe upon a law that derives from the spiritual world.

It seems to me, however, that one cannot absolutely express as being a ‘law’ what the occultist may or may not communicate to other people. Dr. Steiner always responded very deliberately in accordance with what the individual human personality was able to bring toward him in such situations; whether, for instance, there was present a deeper capacity for understanding occult things, or else perhaps a more purely natural one. To questions asked him, especially in private conversations, he gave very different answers in respect to the concreteness, the positivity of the answer, etc. One might even say that on occasion he went astonishingly far. And one cannot avoid the impression that actually Dr. Steiner was glad when the karmic opportunity was offered to him, as it were, to say more about certain things than was possible in the general lectures.

As regards the infringement of a ‘law’ that Dr. Steiner is supposed to have perpetrated concerning a communication about the Bodhisattva, I would certainly like to say that a ‘law’ in the spiritual world is not a thing of paragraphs and subsections, which would operate for the initiate just like an outer law whose violation would incur an outer punishment. Rather, it is a question of knowledge that the initiate has gained, and out of which he can judge what is helpful for human evolution and what is not [for instance, as regards the communication of spiritual facts]. How he handles this is certainly paced in the freedom of the initiate, who himself can know what karmic consequences will follow any infringement of the ‘law’. Often, however, such consequences have to be taken on because the situation, or world-development in general, requires it. Here we can remind ourselves of a simple example which will be familiar to you all. In Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, Dr. Steiner tells of how all blaming and criticizing has a hardening, disturbing influence on the soul of the student. That is certainly a law. But he immediately adds that of course the circumstances of life may entail — and not only for the ‘ordinary person’, but also for the spiritual investigator — having to find fault often. [The need to criticize can even belong to one's profession.] The initiate, in spite of all, must at times adversely criticize. The law simply expresses what the consequence will be. One must, then, simply bear this consequence. What an occultist does is indeed largely determined by a right balancing of what would be ‘correct’ according to spiritual law, as well as what one is often required to do in the face of the circumstances presented. In this sense I wish to mention the following:

Dr. Steiner spoke once in Stockholm [and then later also in other places] about the strict law for Rosicrucians: they were not to speak about secrets pertaining to the leading personalities of Rosicrucianism until a hundred years had passed after their deaths. [One could perhaps ask whether this law had not been infringed upon!] Dr. Steiner also said that one should not point to a leading personality who will come or who is already there; i.e., not awaken expectations for the future which are attached to personalities as indeed had been abundantly practiced by 'the other side — for such a thing contradicts true contemporary occultism.

As Dr. Steiner spoke in the way described above about the coining of the Bodhisattva whose work it is to proclaim the Etheric Christ, there arose a quiet thought in my mind, because I had become accustomed test everything — as he had demanded of us. “Well,” I thought, “is this not an infringement of the ‘law’ that requires that the future must not be indicated concretely? And even if it is possible to say, ‘The Bodhisattva — or his bearer — is already incarnated’ a future expectation was indeed being spoken about at that time (1910, 1911), speciHcally in regard to the appearance of Christ in etheric form.” And then there occurred something that especially struck me, since it was like an answer to this unspoken question. [Perhaps it was called forth by the unspoken question. Such things often happened with Dr. Steiner.] One day, in an ‘esoteric lesson’, he was again speaking of these things. In these lessons he was accustomed to approach things very concretely at times. He said, as if in passing (but in me, for the reasons I have described, these words struck a strong note):

One could perhaps think that to us it had also occurred that a future event had been indicated. But this had to be, for the reason that false things were said by others. Therefore what was right had to be placed beside them. The mischief that 'the other side had attempted to cause had to be disposed of through confrontation with clarified concepts.

In a similar way, Dr. Steiner had to recount his life because others had spread lies about him, although for occult reasons he did so extremely unwillingly. Consider that before 1909, Rudolf Steiner had hardly ever spoken about Bodhisattvas, and after 1913 actually never did again, with one single exception. [That was in Penmaenmawr in 1923. There it was probably called forth by the fact that a few theosophists were taking part in that public lecture-cycle.] We can imagine that this frequent and extensive speaking about the Bodhisattva question in the years 1909–1913 was evoked solely by the misrepresentations issuing from Adyar. We can also imagine that if Dr. Steiner had been able to just take his own path, he would hardly have touched on this theme and the prophecy of the coming Bodhisattva. [Therefore we can say that this speaking about the Bodhisattva was, to a certain extent, against his will, against 'the law', and that for this reason the Bodhisattva affair does not belong so much to the good karma of our Society as do the other teachings of Dr. Steiner. We can see, too, that in places where it crops up again, confusion and uneasiness are created.]

As regards the Appearance of Christ in the Etheric World, I believe that even if all the rest had not taken place, Dr. Steiner would certainly have spoken to us about this. It may have been at a slightly different time or in other circumstances, but I believe he would not have withheld this knowledge from us. Also later on, in contrast to how he dealt with the Bodhisattva affair, Dr. Steiner spoke repeatedly, if not especially frequently, about the Etheric Christ. When he mentioned the Bodhisattva in Penmaenmawr, he said that it is not that people have to wait for the Bodhisattva, but rather that the Bodhisattva has to wait for their understanding before he can speak to them in his language. This was, actually, a renewed rejection of the passive expectancy that had been fostered since 1911 in the ‘Star of the East’. One should wait actively, Rudolf Steiner was trying to say, and this active preparation does indeed consist in learning the language of Spiritual Science. Then one will also comprehend the language of the Bodhisattva. You can look this up in the cycle that has been printed with the title Initiation Knowledge.

Of the etheric Christ-Appearance, Dr. Steiner said too that although it will take place no matter what the circumstances, human beings can miss it through remaining asleep. What effect the Appearance will have depends very strongly on people's attitude. And having recently experienced with what enormous interest modern-day humanity follows a boxing match, we can understand that, even though Dr. Steiner was the first to speak about this Appearance, mankind will need much clarification and instruction in order to comprehend it when it does begin to manifest for us. That is why it is said of the Bodhisattva that he will lead us to an understanding of the Etheric Christ. Who can now say that this mission has been entirely fulfilled (i.e., completed) by Rudolf Steiner? Precisely when one reads, for instance, the Basel lecture of October 1, 1911, The Etherization of the Blood, about the future working of the Etheric Christ in the life of mankind, one can feel that there is still much that can be taught about this subject in the future, in spite of the lofty prophecies through Rudolf Steiner. But particularly if one has known Dr. Steiner as a teacher, one will have no desire to talk much about these future perspectives. In Rudolf Steiner we had the first fully outward-going, public-oriented human teacher of the supersensible worlds, whereas in earlier epochs access to this knowledge was more a matter of inspirations. In him one felt, in a sense, all the streams of the past flowing together. One could feel too, how a great Past, probably his own earlier incarnations, had reached a climax in this life. In whatever manner a World Teacher, a Bodhisattva, might work in the future, in that which was given to mankind by Rudolf Steiner in his Anthroposophy, his 'Wisdom of Man', we have something truly unique. Like no other person on Earth, Rudolf Steiner could say of himself: Not I, but Christ in me.

When one presents this view, dear friends, it can happen that, in a kindly manner, one is met with reservations from others. This has already occurred. It is then perhaps said: Yes, but if Dr. Steiner had been the Bodhisattva, would he not have had to speak as he did when disproving Annie Besant? My friends, it is quite certain that one cannot simply push aside such objections with refutations and contrary proof is. This situation demands that we demonstrate a special tolerance. And yet it is necessary that we develop a feeling for what stream of human culture we encounter here, and what lives in the deeds and intentions of a certain personality, etc. In short, one has to be capable, actually, of a bit of karma investigation —not, of course, in a high-flown manner, but with the means which Rudolf Steiner himself entrusted to us. I have already said that through the years one could gain the impression that, although he had connections to all spiritual streams, Dr. Steiner belonged to quite another stream than that of the Bodhisattvas, which is related to oriental spiritual life. Having said this, we can now return to our historical perspective.

In the Spring of 1913, the severance of the Anthroposophical Society from the Theosophical Society was completed. For Dr. Steiner it was a matter of satisfaction (he even expressed this verbally at the time) that this transition had taken place without any further disturbance. We, as 'Anthroposophical', had simply withdrawn from the Theosophical Society. I will not now pursue the question as to whether all that Dr. Steiner visualized as possible consequences of this liberation was actually realized. In many respects, we simply continued onwards in well-accustomed ways. But it does seem significant that Dr. Steiner, in May 1913, i.e. shortly after the severance, held two lectures here in Stuttgart which have been entitled From Gabriel to Michael. At that time it was a novelty to hear of Michael, to think of Michael as a Spirit-Being especially united with our movement. Up to then he had hardly ever spoken of Michael. These lectures were delivered with great power and, above all, with tremendous exhortational earnestness. One could thus experience them as portending a new program. Dr. Steiner spoke there for the first time about Michael the Archangel having risen now to the rank of Time Spirit. From having been the 'Countenance of Jehovah', he has become the ^Countenance of Christ'.

There now arises the question: Who is it who steps into the place of the Archangel? As you know, Rudolf Steiner taught us that there is evolution also in the realm of Hierarchies. One Being rises up, another moves in to take its place. This teaching of evolution, also in reference to the spiritual worlds, is a basic pillar of Dr. Steiner's treasure of wisdom. One finds it nowhere else in the world. In the second of the two lectures, Dr. Steiner gives the answer to the question arising at the end of the first: Who has taken the place freed by the ascent of Michael from Archangelic rank to that of Time Spirit? Dr. Steiner tells us that it is the Angel of Buddha who has risen to be an Archangel in the place of Michael. This Angel was freed, so to speak, from his office of accompanying a human being from incarnation to incarnation, for of course a Buddha does not again incorporate! When we now consider on the one hand the relationship of Michael to our movement, and on the other the fact that Buddha himself received his mission on Mars through Christian Rosenkreutz, then we cannot avoid the feeling that what is being shown to us here is a point of origin, as it were, of our own independent Society. (Indeed, our movement is also closely bound together with the stream of Christian Rosenkreutz.) SpeciHcally, it is that the previous Buddha line is connected with our own stream, and that through the being of Christian Rosenkreutz and of Michael, that line flows into our — i.e. Dr. Steiner's — movement.

We have only to remember the Christmas Foundation in order to indicate how strongly Rudolf Steiner brought our movement into union with the Michael stream. Thereafter he spoke, during the unforgettable months that followed the Christmas Foundation, of the supersensible Cult that took place in the spiritual world around Michael and his hosts in the 18th and 19th centuries. The souls who took part in this were those who were preparing, on their descent to Earth, to live as Anthroposophists in that incarnation. He spoke of the Michael School in the supersensible world having preceded this in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

Dear friends, I must admit I have never been able to imagine otherwise than that our Teacher himself was there taking part! Only recall what I mentioned once already, that the mighty imaginations of the supersensible Cult of the end of the 18th century were reflected as though in miniature pictures in Goethe's 'Fairy Tale', and how Rudolf Steiner's Mystery Dramas themselves are again a metamorphosis of Goethe's Fairy Tale. For me the moment has always been especially moving when Dr. Steiner, in a member's lecture in Arnheim, spoke of the fact that Michael admonished those souls who imbibed his impulses in the supersensible school which led to Anthroposophy, to work during their incarnations on Earth as much as possible through the spoken word; not primarily through writings, through the printed word. Who more than Rudolf Steiner, the creator of Anthroposophy, has fulfilled this mission! He did not mean, obviously, that amongst us nothing should be written or printed, for then we could not be a really contemporary movement But through lectures, through the countless individual conversations, he was pointing to the manner of his own working. Regarding all this, one needs to ask, where does the Bodhisattva come in? I think one really could develop a feeling for how different the Bodhisattva stream is from ours.

Here I must again touch upon what has been said about the transformation that takes place in the present Bodhisattva between the 30th and 33rd years of age. One would have to be able to indicate this transformation in Rudolf Steiner himself. Dear friends, if one thing is certain it is this: Dr. Steiner himself denied in the strictest manner any such impulse of transformation in his life. He very energetically repulsed such an assertion made by antagonists. He always pointed to the homogenous progression going through his whole spiritual life. Herr Arenson thinks he can find a spiritual transformation indicated in Dr. Steiner's The Course of My Life, but that was by any reckoning not until the 36th year of his life — not in the 33rd. And Dr. Steiner describes there, not how he was spiritually transformed, but how for the first time he achieved an inner relationship to the physical world. The fact that what happens for other people much earlier in their lives takes place in him so late, fits exactly into the whole tendency of his life. [When as a natural scientist one is commissioned to work out of Anthroposophy, and then has to turn repeatedly to the 'Introductions' to Goethe's natural scientific works written by the twenty-two year old Rudolf Steiner in order to progress also in one's own Anthroposophical studies, then one experiences no upheaval, but rather a tremendous logical consistency in this spiritual biography.]

If it were not until a Bodhisattva had given Rudolf Steiner his mission> how could the twenty-four year old have developed his life's program in the way Rudolf Steiner did in the letter he sent to Friedrich Theodor Vischer, together with his book on Goethe's Theory of Cognition? We find the most important passage of this letter reproduced in facsimile in The Literary Lifework of Rudolf Steiner by Picht:

As regards Goethe's world conception, it was not the solidly-based conclusions that were of decisive importance for me, but rather the tendency of his manner of viewing the world. Goethe's and Schiller's scientiHc results are for me a center to which beginning and end have to be sought: the beginning, through describing the basic principles upon which we have to conceive this world-view as resting; the end, through discussion of the consequences which this way of looking at things has for our own view of the world and of life.

My dear friends, one who is so capable of foreshadowing his spiritual life-path can honestly say of himself that he has always possessed a unified outlook on life. In these words we can already see the creator of Anthroposophy, and of the Goetheanum. He fulfilled to the end what he had announced in his 25th year.

I wanted to describe all this, my friends, because I think it good to reconsider often how it was that Dr. Steiner led us out of the old Theosophical and into the new Anthroposophical Society. [Perhaps in one or another person the question may yet arise: Can we therefore expect the coming of the Bodhisattva? One can only say that certainly no one should be prevented from directing his expectancy and hope wherever he likes. Only he should not insist on making these a constituent part of the Society. Instead, for such a person, 'active waiting', which consists in learning the language of Spiritual Science, should continue to be the guiding principle. All else should be left to the wise Cosmic Guidance of the world, who will surely not send superfluous teachers to mankind, but will send them at the right time and to the right place. We should not speculate about these things, but try to keep silent. This would most befit a truly occult bearing toward life. On this point, as you can see, the wishes of Herr Arenson coincide in a certain sense with my own.]

Perhaps an anxious question may still haunt many a soul. What then is right, and what is false? Doubt might creep in and could cause soul-struggles as it did in those days when, for many souls, the question was: Who is actually in the right, Dr. Steiner or Annie Besant? Dear friends, Dr. Steiner himself was the first who could fully understand such soul-struggles. In between the two Stuttgart lectures of which I have just spoken, he said very sternly that in regard to the whole Annie Besant - Krishnamurti affair one should not give more weight to personal friendship than to truth. [This was when events had already made it clear where the untruth lay.] Yet Dr. Steiner nevertheless always showed the greatest tolerance regarding all that gave cause for such doubts. If differences of opinion are now present amongst us, they can be an impulse for us to practice that true inner tolerance which must, of itself, flow out of spiritual knowledge.

In conclusion, I would like to read to you the beautiful words of comfort which Dr. Steiner spoke once during the time when we were standing in the midst of battle. It was in Copenhagen in 1911, when he was giving the lectures which were then printed in the little book, The Spiritual Guidance of Mankind. The three lectures that were then used as a basis for the book were preceded by his introduction, which, however, was not included in the printing, and which indeed also would not have fitted there. I would like to read to you the conclusion from this lecture. It is my own transcription, I do not have any other; and it is regrettably incomplete in places. But even if it were complete, it could hardly convey the immeasurable love, forgiveness, and comfort that streamed from Dr. Steiner to his listeners in this lecture. These were approximately his words:

A period of time such as ours, portending such tremendous events of soul, presents a special opportunity for us to enter profoundly into ourselves. In addition to the many duties that flow out of the Theosophical Movement, we must also draw into our own hearts, our own souls, so that we may clearly appreciate that only through sacrifice are we able to follow the way which can bring us certainty in regard to the Mystery of Golgotha. Significant times such as these must necessarily bring us something confirming the truth of the old saying, 'Where there is a great light, there is much shadow — shadows that arise along with those gifts of which we have spoken here. This possibility of error necessarily exists in combination with the outpouring of great truths. Thus, more than in other times the human soul is at present open to error. It is also true that in the coming days of enlightenment, the greatest possible errors may occur. Error is easily possible for the weak human heart precisely because we shall be experiencing enormous events.

In consideration of what the occultists of all ages, with clear warning voices, have spoken about this possibility of error, we must learn to practice the tolerance of which we have spoken here. A blind subjection must, on the one hand, be avoided, for that can actually foster the possibility of error. On the other hand, it is also necessary to have an open heart for the New that wills to flow now from spiritual worlds into mankind. Whoever is a good theosophist knows that if we wish to foster the Light that is now wanting to stream into mankind, then we must also recognize the errors that will flow into us along with the light.

Let us take confidence in knowing that there has never been a movement in which such open, loving hearts could be fostered as in our present-day movement. May we realize that it is better to be attacked by those who believe they have the only truth, in their own opinion, than it is to attack them ourselves ... Between those two extremes there lies indeed a long path. Despair may descend on us with the thought: In these difficult times how can I distinguish truth from error? In our striving, let us try to live in such a way that we can be strengthened by the idea that the truth will indeed be what can provide the highest impulses for mankind: the truth shall be closer to me than I am to myself. If I have this relationship to truth, and if I should err in this incarnation, then in a next incarnation the truth itself will lead me back to what is right. It is better to err in this frame of mind than to cling to dogmas.

With this in mind we can feel that if we should turn out to be too weak ourselves to rise up to the truth, then may that which we have embraced perish, for it would not have the strength to live on, and therefore it should also not be allowed to remain in existence. If we honestly strive for truth, then truth will be the victorious impulse in the world; not through us, but through its inherent power. If what we have embraced be an error, may it pass from existence. If we feel this, if this is our guiding principle, then we can also say, 'We may trust that error will cease to exist, and truth will continue to live — no matter what our antagonists may say.' This feeling can live in every theosophical heart.

If the communications of spiritual truths can awaken such feelings in the human soul, then there will be fulfilled in these souls the mission of the new spiritual revelation which has come into mankind — and will come ever more strongly in the future — in order to lead us up into spiritual worlds.

With this I would like to bring these lectures to a close.