The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Today I shall have to continue with some of the topics I discussed the last time I was here. It is particularly important, indeed necessary, to stress the connection between what I have said before and what I wish to add today. I have explained that the road to spiritual science calls for recognition to be given to two facts. One fact is that it is impossible to imagine that matter, physical substance, can be found to the outer world of our human environment. This can be clearly understood on the basis of many different things that can be learned through spiritual science. Our eyes behold the outside world, our ears hear the outside world, and we come to understand nature in a way when we use the intellect to combine the things we see, hear and Perceive with the other senses. We then think we know something about outer nature. Yet we are in error if we think and believe some form of science will help us to find physical matter and the laws pertaining to it in that outer nature. Materialism was in error not because it was speaking of physical matter but because materialists thought they could find physical matter and the laws of physical matter, its infrastructure and essential nature, in the outside world. People saying they do not want to know about the outside world because it is a material world, and that they want to follow the inner mystical path to a world of the spirit, are therefore materialists just as much as people who simply interpret the outside world in materialistic terms. Their search along the path of mysticism shows that in their view, too, Physical matter is to be found in the outside world. The people of more recent times are in error when they look for the essential nature of matter in the outside world. To put things right essentially means that we must no longer look for the nature of matter in the outside world and be very clear in our minds that however far we extend our sensory perceptions we shall never discover the nature of matter and its infrastructure, its laws. It has to be understood that all that exists in the outside world is Maya. It is the world of phenomena. Look as we may we shall never find anything material in that outside world.

On the other hand we must grasp a second, quite different fact. It is that the nature of matter, which materialism is erroneously looking for in the outside world, may be found within ourselves. We shall find it particularly if we become one-sided, abstract mystics. The contents of a certain mysticism coming to our awareness—experiences we think we are having—are nothing but the flame, I would say, that is lit within us by processes involving our physical organs. Considering the mysticism of Tauler and of Meister Eckhart, one is right in thinking that these men had a special faculty for experiencing these things and interpreting the physical matter in their bodies when the flame of awareness was ignited. They found the material world through mysticism. Until we know that external observation reveals only the world of phenomena, Maya, and that inward observation reveals only physical matter and its flame, we cannot get a clear, true picture of the nature of the world and the way human beings relate to this world. Physical matter is not to be found by applying science to the outside world, it must be sought within us, through mysticism. There we shall find its laws. The essential nature of gravity is not to be found with the aid of Atwood's machine.⁵¹ Instead we can try—in our thirty-second year, or perhaps at another time in our lives—to become inwardly aware of gravity, so that we know from inner experience what it really means to experience gravity. Concrete inner experience should show us that between the thirtieth and fortieth year we grow heavier and heavier inside. We can gain inner experience of a property of matter that merely comes to expression in mystical experiences. I have tried to demonstrate the essential point by saying that anyone finding himself in the midst of the chaos of the planet, the way modern scientists do, cannot get a clear idea concerning these things. We see the plants, the animals, the cloud cover; we see the glittering light of the stars, we see rivers, hills and valleys and so on. Yet if someone were to observe the earth from Mars, for instance, none of these would matter. An inhabitant of the planet Mars observing the earth through some instrument or other—we may well imagine, and it would be in accord with the truth, though in a different way, that those who inhabit Mars have the kind of organization that enables them to observe the earth—would perceive nothing of the cloud formations, rivers and mountains we see, nothing of the phenomena relating to the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms. He would only perceive what goes on inside the skin of the human beings living on earth. Everything else would vanish before the eye of an inhabitant of Mars. He would perceive only what goes on inwardly in the organic life of human beings and for him that would be the material world of the earth. When we grow aware of a mystical element within us it is not what many mystics think it is but the flame that is cooked inside us. That is the place where we can find out about the physical matter of the earth. This form of self-perception takes us into the sphere of matter and of energy, an area where the people of the Western world have arrived at exactly the opposite view over the last centuries.

This gives an indication of the extent to which we have to change our thinking if the decline is to become an upward movement again. People think they are materialists or idealists or spiritualists because they follow a particular philosophy. That is not the case. We are far from being spiritualists when we say we contemplate the inner and not the outer life. It could indeed happen that someone is concentrating on his inner life and exactly by doing so comes to observe matter; the way it turns into a flame inside us. To find the right path it will be necessary to grasp what I mean, and to do so with the right inner attitude. The outer world as we perceive it with the senses offers only phenomena; it does not reveal the root and origin of the phenomena. Their root and origin lies inside our own skins. Anything we see outside should be regarded in the same way as we regard a rainbow. Anyone who believes a rainbow to be more than merely a phenomenon, thinking it to be something material spanning the heavens, is taking the wrong view. In the same way we are in error If, due to the fact that our sense of touch is also involved when we perceive the world around us, we believe we are surrounded by material things and not mere phenomena. The only difference compared to a rainbow is that other senses are also involved. Materiality cannot be found there, however, just as it does not exist in a rainbow. Everything outside us is phenomenon. The root and origin of the phenomena therefore is inside the human skin. The processes that carry the affairs of the earth from one age to another take place inside the human skin.

It may seem highly improbable and paradoxical to modern minds but it is nevertheless true that the phenomena which surround us today, and the laws apparent in these phenomena, are not the outer consequence of material events that occurred three thousand years before the Mystery of Golgotha. They are the consequence of what went on inside the bodies of Egyptians, of Chaldeans and others three thousand years before the Mystery of Golgotha. Those inner events have become outer ones. The outside world of those times has vanished, disappeared. Human bodies hold the germ for a future that may be reckoned in thousands of years. It is possible to see this by considering the natural phenomena of today, drawing a conclusion that may be bold but nevertheless revealing. People talk about the properties of the element radium. To someone able to perceive the reality of the spirit this sometimes sounds like children talking about something adult minds have long since come to understand on the basis of different facts. Modern physicists know that the radium which existed on the earth's surface up to AD 140 has since disappeared and no longer is radium. The radium that is found today has only formed since AD 140. Physicists are actually teaching this now. These things present themselves to human minds to force them, as it were, finally to give up the erroneous ways of thinking which had to be pursued for centuries for the sake of human freedom.

All this shows that it is necessary to consider the things spiritual science working towards anthroposophy presents to human minds in a totally different way from the way we usually look at things. It is necessary to abandon mere theory and consider the reality: to progress at all levels from abstract intellectual knowledge to active perceptiveness, to doing things, really doing something in relation to the world. As I have said before—but it is essential to make this point with real forcefulness—people think that some are materialists nowadays and others are spiritualists. A spiritualist will say: ‘He's a materialist and has to be opposed because it is not true that the soul is the product of physical matter. What the materialist says is wrong and we have done enough when we have refuted his arguments. The materialist is in error and therefore must be opposed.’ That is not the point, however. It is not a question of logic, of theories. Yet people always think spiritual science is all theory. Spiritual science working towards anthroposophy always bases itself on reality, sometimes of course seeking it in the place where it is to be truly found: in the true realm of the spirit. People who look to the outside world and seek to find matter everywhere by the methods now used in molecular and atomic theory—it makes no difference if they see matter as point sources of energy or as tiny building stones—are not merely subject to an error in logic that can be refuted. True spiritual science has nothing to do with purely theoretical concepts. It is concerned with reality. Anyone looking for more than phenomena in the outside world Is on the road not only to logical error but to organic illness affecting the whole of his person. We should not say that to follow this road Is an error in logic. We should say that anyone searching for truth In that direction is on the road to organic illness, on the road to feeblemindedness. Spiritual science working towards anthroposophy often has to change theoretical views into views that relate to reality. The search for clarity of ideas and concepts has nothing to do with merely agreeing or disagreeing with the views of others; it has to do with sickness and health, very real things in our lives. It therefore has to be said that a seeker who looks to phenomena for more than mere phenomena, for physical matter, is on the road to feeblemindedness, to organic illness. This is entirely within the sphere of reality.

In the same way we cannot simply oppose people who look to find abstract spirituality within themselves. Someone looking for the spirit by following the path of mere one-sided inner mysticism, failing to realize that when he comes to see through the tissue of this mysticism it is materiality he finds, is on the way to becoming infantile, to developing an organic illness taking the form of childishness. (I have given it the name that may well be given when one perceives this from beyond the threshold.) If we call this the threshold from the Physical to the non-physical world, with the Guardian of the Threshold standing there, the quality we call inspiration, or genius, on this side may justifiably be called childishness on the other side of the threshold. Childishness goes the wrong way in the physical world if it persists throughout life. Genius on the other hand means that a certain childlike quality persists in the background throughout life. Genius is achieved when we are able to retain into ripe old age a quality of soul that normally belongs to childhood. This is seen in its true form from beyond the threshold. If however that childlike soul quality persists one-sidedly into subsequent life stages, then this element, which in its rightful place in the human sphere is genius, becomes childishness instead. Once again we see that purely logical ideas must be replaced with ideas relating to reality as soon as we enter the sphere of spiritual science. They must be replaced with concepts that not merely change our views but produce inner organic changes.

Spiritual science working towards anthroposophy is a very serious matter. The seriousness of it is not given full recognition when people approach the work of spiritual science with their ordinary mental attitudes. They want to agree or disagree the way they usually do in the outside world; they want to continue in their habitual ways as they approach spiritual science. Spiritual science working towards anthroposophy can however only be taught by speaking in the terms of the world beyond. There words have entirely different meanings. Gravity, which exerts a downward pull here on earth, exerts an upward pull in that world. In the spiritual world we have to speak of what draws us down in a way that makes it the exact opposite. It is not surprising then that anyone taking spiritual science seriously is, to begin with, completely misunderstood by people who want to proceed in the customary way—a way that was inevitable in the age of materialism—when they approach spiritual science. The inevitable result is that things like those I dared to put to you yesterday are misunderstood.

Someone presenting his own views in opposition to Oswald Spengler would simply refute him. A spiritual scientist finds himself obliged not to refute Spengler's view in the usual way. He has to assume points of view rather than follow a rigid line; he will have to say that Oswald Spengler speaks from a different point of view, one that offers no prospects for the immediate future. We do justice to such phenomena if we do not simply refute them but show the genius that is in them, speaking with inner concern about the things one would like to see overcome. Spiritual science has much more to do with the way in which we deal with these things than with bald statements, with the kind of mystical platitude that the person who produces it even believes to be a particularly inspired truth. We have to consider these things, for we are moving into an age where we have to get beyond the mere contents of intellectual life. This is something I want to stress over and over again: we must get beyond the mere content of intellectual life.

Going just by the content, even a fool would find it relatively easy to refute Oswald Spengler's ideas. That is by no means difficult, but it is not what matters. What matters is to establish the concrete reality of Spengler's work and show how it can be overcome in a real and concrete way. In future the essential point in characterizing a person Will be more and more to consider what they are actually saying rather than to respond in sympathy or antipathy to what he or she has to say. We should not consider whether certain contents please or displeases us, but whether there is a spiritual quality to them. It is more important for the overall outcome of world evolution that there is someone who is an inspired materialist, a genius in representing materialism, for that calls for a brilliant mind whilst it often needs very little intelligence to represent platitudinous mysticism. A platitudinous mystic may on occasion do more to make the world materialistic than an inspired materialist. It is the quality of mind that matters. Recognition of this fact will count for much more in future than the actual content. This is something we have to learn. We must not seek for the spirit as though it were a system of logic; we must look for its reality. Let me ask you this. Would it not be possible for You to see that more of the spirit is alive in an inspired materialist than in a spiritualist full of platitudes? These are the things spiritual science working towards anthroposophy must come to see clearly. It is the reality of the spirit that matters, not the abstract statements made by one person or another. People fail to realize how important it is to consider realities and not theories!

Some of the things we see in ordinary life simply must be considered from the point of view of spiritual science today if we are to get them clear in our minds. Consider the parties which have formed in public life in our everyday world. Let us first of all consider the ordinary political parties. You know that the most miserable, sterile cliches are to be found in party politics. Yet to some extent we are all part of this, willy-nilly, unless we want to withdraw completely from public life or perhaps cannot have a vote because we are stateless and have not been given the right to vote anywhere. Everybody who has the right to vote is forced to support one line or another, i.e. to work along party lines. Parties are a fact of life. They go back to better times, to the English see-saw system when there was the Conservative Party on one side and the Liberal Party on the other. It may be said that all the parties that now exist are different combinations of those two shades. Sometimes the liberal element which is to the left takes on some colour from conservatism on the right, and conservatism is coloured with liberalism from the left, as in the case of the Social Democrats, or conservatism turns radical, as we have seen in the present time. All in all it can be said that the conservative-liberal seesaw is the pattern on which all our parties are based. That is the picture one gets when looking at this in an outer way. The most dreadful things are happening in those party organizations—everybody would admit this. The thing exists, however, and the question is why it exists. What does it rally represent? What in fact are parties?

Everything that presents itself in the physical world is an image of the non-physical world. What is it that exists in the non-physical world with the result that in the physical world we have parties as an image of it? The matter can only be properly understood if we grasp the conditions which apply when we go across the threshold to the spiritual world. There we arrive at something very different, at the real nature of things. Here in the physical world we are idealists, sceptics, realists, spiritualists or any other kind of -ists. We are something that can be summed up in a manifesto, as a political or sociological system. In short, we are something-ists. We base ourselves on an abstract notion, for parties always base themselves on manifestos, systems and the like, i.e. on abstract notions. As soon as we cross the threshold to the spiritual world we are no longer dealing in mere logic and abstract notions, we are dealing with realities. It is merely that this is not usually taken seriously. You cannot give your allegiance to a party programme when you have gone past the Guardian of the Threshold, you can only hold to the essential spirit of things, for there everything has to do with the essential spirit. You can merely hold to a spirit of the higher hierarchies and say: That is the one I follow, the one I unite with. Let others present their affairs in their own way, I am uniting with that one, I take his side. The term 'to side with one or another' achieves very real significance then; it is no longer merely abstract. Being human we are inclined to say that as soon as we look beyond the threshold we find three essential spirits: the Christ, Ahriman and Lucifer. It is of course possible to prepare oneself carefully to gain comprehension of the spiritual world and then to say: I choose Christ's party, or Ahriman's or Lucifer's Party. It is however also possible to obscure the issue, being badly Prepared, and choose Ahriman but call him Christ. We follow a spiritual entity, however—everything is of the essence beyond the threshold! We are always dealing with realities there, not with anything by way of a programme or system.

These words I say to characterize the relationship of the human being to the non-physical world are weighty words. In one particular respect it is not yet possible to say the final word on the subject, because that would be too provocative. Very few people on this earth however are aware that basically it is an illusion to follow party lines, to accept the abstract notions of parties. There is no reality to it and when we begin to follow something that is real we must in fact follow something that lies in the spiritual world beyond the threshold. There is however one party that may immediately be characterized as being well aware of this secret and indeed acting upon it. This was said in public in the course of lectures given at Karlsruhe in 1911⁵² and has brought me the hatred of the party in question. These are the Jesuits. They know very well that to follow a party programme—forgive me for using a term commonly used in Germany—is nonsense. One follows a spiritual entity in the non-physical world! That is why their exercises start with the Jesuit having to visualize the spirit whom he is to follow in the Society of Jesus, forming a military corporation for him. When I say that the last word cannot yet be said, I want to hold back concerning the nature of what is called 'Jesus' there. The point is to show that Jesuitism forms a party that follows a spiritual entity and that Jesuits are very well aware that to follow some party or other that goes no further than a programme to be followed in the physical world is a nonsense. The effectiveness of the Society of Jesus is due to the fact that it trains its followers to be the soldiers of a spiritual entity. The do not say this is right and this is wrong. They say: ‘It is part of the mission of the spiritual entity I am following; I shall defend it. I shall oppose anything that is not part of the Mission of the spiritual entity I am following, even if it is logically defensible; it is just as possible to defend what Lucifer and Ahriman are about as it is to defend the things Christ is about. There are exactly three logical defenses and they are all equally valid.’

We therefore have the strange phenomenon that the Jesuits are of course aware that anthroposophy is taking a spiritual line that is wholly defensible and yet they oppose it. They know full well that logical argument is no effective opposition, for it merely means playing with logic. They know that they are facing an adversary in this battle of minds and they will use all available means. It is therefore pointless to join battle by refuting the refutations of the Jesuits. They know exactly what objections we can raise; the fact that they know them and consider them to be fair makes no difference, however, for they follow another spirit than the one anthroposophy must now follow for the weal of humankind. As soon as one is in the realm of the spirit it is reality that counts. What counts is that one really gets a clear understanding of the spiritual paths, using the whole human being in arriving at such understanding—which certainly can be achieved with healthy common sense nowadays—and not the human dwarf who tends to be the end product of the kind of educational establishments we have today.

The parties which exist in physical life are therefore caricatures of something that rightfully exists in the spiritual world. That is what is so difficult about it. Things appearing in the physical world may be a reflection of something of genuine significance in the spiritual world. In the physical world it is pernicious and abominable, because every world has its own laws, and today we face the growing necessity to work our way up into the spiritual world again. The first stage consists of caricatures of spiritual life appearing in physical life; of people setting up party banners and following party idols when in fact they should be giving their allegiance to spiritual entities. It is truth and reality when it occurs in the non-physical world, and a lie and illusion when it occurs here in the physical world. You see I am not using empty words when I tell you that what matters is to transform purely theoretical things into the reality whenever we wish to speak of the truths that exist beyond the threshold.

Mere refutation of materialism will not achieve anything, because the situation is like this where the human being is concerned: In their whole make-up human beings are really spirit and soul. This element of spirit and soul exists even before we are conceived, before we are born. It has evolved out of our previous earth incarnation; it has gone through the spiritual world. It now assumes flesh, creating a physical Image of itself that consists of nervous system, skeletal system, blood system. So we now have two things: the human being in soul and spirit and the human being of flesh and bone that is its image. When we are thinking the usual abstract thoughts, what is it that thinks in us? Not the human being of soul and spirit. It is particularly when we think abstract thoughts, above all using earthly logic, that the Physical brain in us is thinking. It is important to know that when materialists say that the brain does the thinking they are quite correct as far as abstract thoughts ar concerned. The physical brain is an image of the spiritual brain, and this image creates an image, abstract thinking being merely an image. It may thus be said that when it comes to abstract ideas the physical brain does the thinking.

This is simply a special case of what I have said before. Materialism has merely found out that the brain is thinking the thoughts that from the middle of the 15th century onwards have become standard in Western civilization. The materialism presented by Moleschott, Buechner and that fat man Vogt cannot be simply refuted by saying it is wrong. It is quite appropriate for human beings who, from the middle of the 15th century onwards, have turned more and more to mere materialism. Human beings of the Western world are in the process of becoming beings that think only with the physical brain. The prophets of such physical brain thinking, Moleschott and Buechner, merely stated what Western humankind was going to be. They were wrong only in so far as they applied this to humankind as a whole. What they said applies only to people living after the middle of the 15th century, and in their case it does apply. People have got used to thinking only with their brains; it is the common way of thinking nowadays. Everything to be found in our ordinary literature, in the whole of modern science, is material thinking, is that kind of thinking. The materialists are quite right, and we could say that Buechner and Vogt would have been unfair to their colleagues if they had said that they thought with the spirit. That is not the case; they think merely with their brains. This cannot be argued against, and it has to be recognized that the road to materiality is not merely a false philosophy but something with a very real effect. That is also the reason why, when something like spiritual science working towards anthroposophy appears on the scene, those people will say: ‘These are thoughts beyond comprehension; they cannot be grasped.’ Well, they want to think with their brains: the thoughts of spiritual science are however thought with a soul and spirit element that has torn itself away from the brain. People must make efforts to tear their soul and spirit away from the brain with the help of thoughts that have been produced in this way; they must think those thoughts through. People must make an effort to think those thoughts through, to use the opportunity that still exists of tearing the element of soul and spirit away from the physical aspect of the brain. This element is on the way to being chained to the physical brain. People must tear themselves free. It is not a question therefore of right views and wrong views but of a process. The thoughts of spiritual science working towards anthroposophy are given to the world in the hope that people who are still capable of handling the old faculty of tearing themselves away that lies in them, will indeed make use of it and try and understand thoughts that are independent of the physical body, so that their souls may grow free of the body. It is therefore a question of having the will to understand anthroposophy; anthroposophy is intended to tear the element of spirit and soul away from the physical body. Our mission therefore is not merely to refute views that are wrong; but we must face the fact that very many people want to slither into them, want to be sheer matter and want to think, use their will and feel out of matter. We want to give spiritual science working towards anthroposophy to the world as something real, so that spirit and soul may be torn away from matter. The aim is to prevent the possibility of people losing their spirit and soul, for they now run the risk of slithering entirely into the ahrimanic sphere. People face the risk of losing soul and spirit and of losing themselves as human beings when the material world vanishes into nothingness, as I have described on an earlier occasion.

It is not a question therefore of replacing the old with the new, but to become active in the search for truth. This saves the soul from slithering into mere materiality; it saves the spirit and soul element from slithering into the ahrimanic sphere, where egoity would be lost. It is not a question therefore of refuting materialism, but of saving humankind from materialism coming true. Materialism is in the process of developing into something that is true rather than false. When People say that materialism is wrong they are not talking about what really matters. No, we have to say that materialism is coming to be more and more right; in our present culture it is coming to be more and more right. We may well find that by the beginning of the 3rd millenium humankind will have developed in such a way that materialism is the correct view. It is not a question of refuting materialism, for it is in the process of becoming right. It is a question of making it not right, because it is on the way to becoming a fact and no longer merely a wrong theory.

Certain people are trying to ignore these things. They want to make It as easy as possible for others, telling them to see how wrong materialism is and inviting them to turn to an abstract mysticism that Will give them everything they need. We could take up such abstract mysticism, but that would encourage materialism to become real and not mere theory. We do not have to overcome materialism because it is wrong, using words that remain theory; we have to overcome it because it is right and we must fight against it being the right thing. This puts another face on things, and this is also where we find ourselves in the reality of the spiritual world—not with theories, but with a living approach to the truth that in the cosmic scheme of things is an active deed. People find it unpalatable to have to listen to such things, yet that is the light in which everything should be regarded, even individual events. Believe me, the old methods of combat are finished with; everything that could be the habitual way in the past Is now finished. We must consider things in the light of the spirit.

What is conservatism? What is liberalism? Here on earth they are caricatures of the spiritual world. Conservatives are followers of Ahriman, liberals of Lucifer. Having passed the Guardian of the Threshold one can see how the whole of conservatism is running after Ahriman and the whole of liberalism after Lucifer. That may seem peculiar to the sophisticated people of today. It is however because this seems so peculiar that spiritual science working towards anthroposophy is so difficult to understand. We shall never understand spiritual science by merely thinking it; we shall only come to understand it if every one of its concepts makes us suffer and rejoice, when we feel lifted up and cast down, when we want to despair over a word, or think we shall be redeemed because of a word, when we see destiny at work in what normally appears as a shadowy theory just as we see it at work in things that are done in the outside world, when what spiritual science working towards anthroposophy has to say goes beyond being mere words and becomes reality. Then, when the inner impulse alive in this spiritual science is understood and felt, it will be rightly seen why things that for a time were maintained as mere theory, because people first had to come to know about them, must now become reality, why we have to be serious about the reality that lives in the words of spiritual science working towards anthroposophy. It will be seen that the necessity arises in our age to make the substantial essence of those words come to reality.

It is still the case that what is really intended with such a Waldorf School is not at all seen in the light of reality, that it is far too little considered in the sense which I have tried to characterize for you. Believe me, this is not to touch your hearts, nor to gain a little more support. Things have been said that had to be said now because humankind must know them. That is why I have said the things I have been saying. I merely wish that the opportunity would arise to say these things to a sufficiently large number of people, so that these people develop an inner impulsiveness where they take words as realities and do not merely listen in the belief that one is speaking theories.

This is what I have wanted to put to you on these two occasions. It will have to happen that outer events follow not on the external contents of spiritual science as it is presented, but out of inner impulses. Fighters like the Jesuits know very well what many followers of anthroposophy still fail to realize: that spiritual science working towards anthroposophy is a reality. Since they have come to realize this—they have done so for some time now, from about 1906 or 1907—since they have come to realize it they are opposing this spiritual science with increasing vigour. Many anthroposophists have no idea of the methods that are used, the sheer ingenuity, because there is a refusal to be really sure in one's mind of the seriousness of the situation. Words will only evoke a little bit of the things one really wishes people to take to heart; I have tried, however, to present just a little of it to you on these two occasions. If we reflect on what has been said, if we progress from reflection to feeling, to letting it become part of the whole of our being, there will be an end to abstract mysticism and to modern science. It will become the essential inner nature of the human being, it will be the power that releases spirit and soul again from physical matter, it will overcome a materialism that unfortunately is not wrong but is indeed true.

• 51. Atwood, George. English mathematician, invented a machine to illustrate the motion of a body falling under the action of gravity.
• 52. Von Jesus zu Christus GA 131. English translation: From Jesus to Christ. H. Collison tr., C. Davy rev. London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1973.

[ 1 ] Through the Leading Thoughts which have been sent out from the Goetheanum during the past weeks to the members of the Anthroposophical Society, the soul has been directed to the Beings of the spiritual kingdoms with whom man is connected from above, just as, from below, he is connected with the kingdoms of Nature.

[ 2 ] True self-knowledge may become the guide through which man finds his way into these spiritual kingdoms. And when such self-knowledge is striven after in the right way, then the understanding will be awakened for what Anthroposophy is able to make known through its insight into the life of the spiritual world. But self-knowledge must be practised in the true sense, not as a mere rigid gazing into one's inner being.

[ 3 ] By means of such a true self-knowledge one arrives in the first place at what lives in memory. In thought-pictures, the shadow of what was a direct and living experience in the past is called up into consciousness. Anyone seeing a shadow will, out of an inner impulse of thought, be guided to the object which threw the shadow. He who bears a memory within him cannot in this direct way turn the eye of his soul to the experience which lives on in the memory. But when he truly reflects on his own nature he will be obliged to say to himself: that he himself, in his soul-being, is what his experiences have made of him—those experiences which throw their shadows into the memory. The memory-shadows appear in the consciousness; in the soul there shines what in the memory is shadow. Dead shadow lives in the memory; living being lives in the soul in which the memory is active.

[ 4 ] It is only necessary that this relationship of the memory to the actual soul-life should be made clear; and in this striving for clearness in self-knowledge a man will then perceive that he is on the path to the spiritual world.

[ 5 ] Through memory, man is looking at the spiritual in his own soul. But in the ordinary consciousness he does not arrive at a real grasp of what he thus looks upon. He looks in the direction on something; but his look meets with no reality. Anthroposophy, out of Imaginative Knowledge, shows the way to this reality. Through it we are referred from the shadow to that which gleams and shines. Anthroposophy does this, in that it speaks of the etheric body of man. It shows how the physical body is active in the thought-shadow pictures; but how in the gleaming and shining the etheric body lives.

[ 6 ] With the physical body man is in the sense-world; with the etheric body he is in the etheric world. In the sense-world he has his environment; in the etheric world also. And Anthroposophy speaks of this latter environment as the first of the hidden worlds in which man is living. It is the kingdom of the Third Hierarchy.

[ 7 ] Let us now approach speech in the same way that we have considered memory. It issues from within man just as does the memory. It connects him with a certain state of being, as memory unites him with his own experiences. In words, too, there is an element of shadow. This is deeper than the shadow of the thoughts of memory. When man inwardly casts the shadow of his experiences as his memories, his own hidden self is active in the whole process. He is there when the light casts the shadow.

[ 8 ] In speech there is also a process of shadow-casting. The words are the shadows. What is it in this case that shines? Something stronger shines, because words are stronger shadows than are the thoughts of memory. The element in the human self which in the course of an earthly life can produce memories, cannot create words. Man must learn these in connection with other human beings. Something which lies deeper in him than that which casts the shadow of memory must take part in this process. In this case Anthroposophy speaks from Inspired Knowledge of the astral body, as in the case of memory it speaks of the etheric body. The astral body is added to the physical and etheric bodies as a third part of the human being.

[ 9 ] This third part, too, has a cosmic environment about it. This is made up of the Second Hierarchy. In human language we have a phantom of this Second Hierarchy. As to his astral body, man lives within the province of this Hierarchy.

[ 10 ] We may go still further. In speech a portion of man's being is engaged. When he speaks he brings his inner being into motion. That which surrounds this inner being remains at rest. The movement of speech wrings itself loose from the human being while he remains at rest, but the whole man comes into motion when he brings into activity all that belongs to his limbs. In such movement man is no less full of expression than in memory and speech. Memory expresses his experiences. The nature of language consists in its being the expression of something. In the same way the man whose whole being is in motion expresses something.

[ 11 ] Anthroposophy points out that this ‘something’ is another part of the human being. From Intuitive Knowledge it speaks of the ‘real Self’ or ‘I.’ This too, it finds, has a cosmic environment, namely the First Hierarchy.

[ 12 ] When man approaches the thoughts in his memory he meets with the first supersensible element—his own etheric being. Anthroposophy points out to him the cosmic environment corresponding to it. When man considers himself as one who makes use of language he finds his astral being. This is no longer comprehended in that which only acts inwardly, like memory. It is seen by Inspiration as that which in the act of speaking shapes a physical process out of the Spiritual. Speech is a physical process. At its foundation lies an activity which proceeds from the sphere of the Second Hierarchy.

[ 13 ] When the whole man is in motion there is a more intense physical action than in speech. Not merely a part of man is moulded, the whole man is given shape; and in the physical being which lives and moves in form, the First Hierarchy is active.

[ 14 ] In this way, then, true self-knowledge can be cultivated. But in doing this man does not grasp his own Self alone. Step by step he comprehends the parts of his body: the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body and the Self. And by comprehending these he also reaches up, step by step, to higher worlds which like the three kingdoms of Nature, the animal, plant and mineral kingdoms, belong, as the three spiritual kingdoms, to the whole Universe in which his being is unfolding.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 15 ] 69. The Third Hierarchy reveals itself as pure soul and spirit. It lives and moves in all that man experiences in the soul, in his inner life. Neither in the etheric nor in the physical could any processes arise if this Hierarchy alone were active. Soul-life alone could exist.

[ 16 ] 70. The Second Hierarchy reveals itself as soul and spirit that works in the etheric. All that is etheric is a manifestation of the Second Hierarchy. This Hierarchy, however, does not reveal itself directly in the physical; its power extends only to etheric processes. Only etheric and soul-life could exist if the Third and the Second Hierarchy alone were active.

[ 17 ] 71. The First and strongest Hierarchy reveals itself as the spiritually active principle within the physical. It makes the physical world into a Cosmos. The Third and the Second Hierarchy are the Beings who minister to it in this activity.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 18 ] 72. As soon as we approach the higher members of man's being—the etheric, the astral body and the Ego-organisation—we are obliged to seek for man's relation to the beings of the spiritual kingdoms. It is only the physical body's organisation which we can illumine by reference to the three physical kingdoms of Nature.

[ 19 ] 73. In the etheric body the Intelligence of the Cosmos becomes embodied in the human being. That this can happen, requires the activity of cosmic Beings, who, in their combined working, shape the etheric body of man, even as the physical forces shape the physical.

[ 20 ] 74. In the astral body the spiritual world implants the moral impulses into the human being. That these can show forth their life in man's Organisation, depends on the activity of Beings who are able not only to think the Spiritual, but to shape it in its reality.

[ 21 ] 75. In the Ego-organisation man experiences himself, even in the physical body, as a Spirit. That this can happen, requires the activity of Beings who themselves, as spiritual Beings, live in the physical world.

Dear Friends!

Since there is now a pause, I could at most make a few comments that seem important to me. I hope that it is only a pause that is being filled. After all, it is clear that the discussion on the matter is not over.

I would like to make a few comments as a first interjection, asking that the debates on the matters at hand in this important meeting be brought to precision in the individual points if possible. And even at the risk of being misunderstood, I would like to state as a first point that abstractions, such as that a brochure should be produced, are of no use at all in this abstract form. You really have to think about such things very specifically; you can't characterize something from the outside, but you have to go into the circumstances, especially with such a thing. In the most diverse matters that have affected the anthroposophical movement, the suggestion has come up again and again that a brochure should be written. This is not the first time we have been presented with this suggestion, and I have mostly been extremely reluctant to write a booklet because I knew that, unless the booklet is a very special work of art, arising from the individuality of a single person and justified by the individuality of that single person, it is unlikely to have a real impact. The idea of doing something like this arises because we are accustomed to not thinking reality, but rather to thinking something or other, not even in general outlines, but in general external directions. Therefore, I would ask that if the proposal is to be further considered, it should be discussed in such a way that something can be understood. For the time being, I cannot imagine anything from what is being thought. That is the first thing I would like to note.

Then there is the fact that I do not want misconceptions to arise, especially at the present moment. Misconceptions within a spiritual movement, especially one that is guided by the motto “Wisdom lies only in truth”, are always associated with a destructive impulse, and one must be very careful not to give rise to misconceptions.

Such a false idea would arise if, for example, the opinion were spread that one could say today that the building of the Goetheanum was exiled from Germany by certain powers. If one has such ideas, then they must, of course, be stated very precisely. For outwardly the facts were not such that the building was exiled by powers that can in some way be linked to the fire. Outwardly, the facts were such that a certain building plan had been completed in Munich, and this was not rejected in such a way that one could say: Powers had influenced German law, causing the Bauhaus to be exiled, and the school would have had to move to a place where freer laws prevailed in this regard. But on the surface, the situation was such that it was essentially the Munich art community that had influence over the assessment of such a plan, and that as an art community, really as an art community, simply could not get into the matter, could not say anything right about it. And then one day, after working out a couple of dozen plans, I don't know how many in a row, we were faced with the fact that we still couldn't get a definite opinion from the relevant commission of experts.

In order to build as quickly as possible, the decision was made to build here, where the site was available to us and where there was a very nice view, that in the absence of a building law, it could be built as one wanted at the time. So in such a case, I would not want to say that theories are being spread and ideas are being conjured up today that do not exactly correspond to what happened back then. For it always happens in the anthroposophical movement that strange assertions are made from one side, and then something hostile appears that attributes these assertions to me and actually attacks me because of them. Therefore, in the future I am obliged to explicitly state that assertions I have not made myself have not been made by me.

You can also be quite certain that the opposing comment will reappear somewhere in the future: Dr. Steiner, despite everything, has once again not refrained from pointing to certain powers that were behind the Dornach fire. And I would like to note that from the very beginning, from the night of the fire, I have never pointed to such powers. I would just like to mention this fact and, so to speak, urge caution in this area. We are surrounded by lurking enemies to a much greater extent than we are usually aware of when speaking of such things – I am of course referring more to the way we speak of them. So even with ideas like this one, where there is a suggestion of some background, I would like to note today that I do not want to be identified with it.

I consider it extremely necessary that we try to be precise in our speech here in this assembly, and that we also speak precisely about the impossibility of bringing any valuables from the German borders here. Because the way things stand today, there is the absolute impossibility of bringing any valuables from Germany here. The possibility of accepting lovingly offered work, like so many other things, will arise during the construction process. I am not commenting on that now. But the fact must be clear in all its severity, because otherwise it could have unforeseeable consequences: It must be absolutely clear that whatever is collected in Germany, for my sake, during the reconstruction of the Goetheanum, must also remain within Germany by law, must be spent there, if I want to express myself clearly. So everything that is collected in Germany must also be spent within Germany, or rather, consumed there, within Germany.

For this side, therefore, only moral sacrifices can be considered, a spiritual sacrifice. A material sacrifice, if it is not compensated for in some way, cannot be considered at all. And if things are only expressed as they have been discussed so far, then the floodgates are opened to all sorts of opposing intentions, so that it is said: There it says that Dr. Steiner is the one who carries the result of a certain collection from Germany to other countries! You can be quite sure that this version will appear very soon if the matter is discussed only in the way it has been discussed so far.

We Anthroposophists must be clear about the fact that [material] thinking is not in the first place, but when it comes to practical matters, these must be considered. It must be clearly thought. And on this occasion, my dear friends, I may indeed point out one thing: it is extremely important today that there is the will to make many sacrifices for the reconstruction of a Goetheanum. On the other hand, it is also desirable that this reconstruction of the Goetheanum not be postponed indefinitely, but that it come about as soon as possible. But if we intend to make specific plans, it would be very good if it were borne in mind that this assembly itself is, in a sense, making a kind of proposition for the reconstruction. It should be visible at the end of this assembly how the Goetheanum can be rebuilt.

My dear friends, the Goetheanum can be rebuilt with one million francs, in which case two million francs of the insurance money will still be available for other purposes. It can be rebuilt with two million, with three million, with four million. If it is rebuilt with one million, a concrete barn will stand as a reminder of the old Goetheanum. If two million are used, it will be twice as nice as a barn; but it will be just as it can be built for two million, and so on. And what is necessary in view of the present situation in which we find ourselves, would be this: it should be known as soon as possible how large a sum can be expected. If we know by tomorrow evening that we can count on five million, then a Goetheanum will be built for five million. That is the practical approach we can take now.

And since I naturally assume that every soul has the tendency to want the Goetheanum to be as beautiful as possible, it seems to me that something very considerable can be achieved, even if we take this intention very seriously. But it is necessary that we approach the matter in such a way that by the end of this conference a kind of proposition can be formulated, and that this proposition can be seen as a celebration, and that we can say: in the spirit of this proposition, something will be placed here on the Dornach wing in place of the old Goetheanum. I think the times are much too serious for us to engage in disagreements. It is perhaps necessary for us to orient ourselves directly in the most determined way. My dear friends, it is really not my intention to add a little unpleasantness to so many beautiful things; but if it does not happen from any other side, then I must always do it, so that I am tempted to form a whole out of things. I am terribly sorry!

Now I would like to note that what I have just discussed now, in the first instance, is external, and so comes into consideration for an external structure. But something else also comes into consideration. And that is that in the future, as much thought as possible should also be given to the fact that it is necessary to support the whole anthroposophical activity morally in some way in relation to the world, to make some kind of moral contribution, so to speak. And such moral contributions are now even more necessary! Because ultimately, we will be able to build something here, so the possibility that a spiritual center will be created for anthroposophical matters is a given. But thought should also be given to how moral support could be attempted. And it must be pointed out again and again that an extraordinary amount needs to be done in this regard! If something were to be done by the Anthroposophical Society in an extensive and visible way that would tend to present the Anthroposophical Society itself to the world in such a way that one could not help but take it as something deeply serious, if, I might say, say, would arise here, to create a kind of moral fund to which precisely those who are currently having to leave their valuables within their own four walls, so to speak, could contribute, if a kind of moral fund could be created, then much of what I keep talking about would be fulfilled.

You see, in a sense I would like to see this brochure, which is supposed to be first-class, as was said yesterday, discussed here, because in a sense it also passes judgment on all the productions that have been released so far, and because it passes judgment that all the productions that have been released so far are actually useless! I would very much like to hear in precise and concrete terms how the first-class would relate to the second-class or third-class that has been produced so far.

These things are always hidden in the background. Now you may say that it is very bad to bring such things out from the background. Yes, my dear friends, if we simply say these things thoughtlessly, and do not draw attention to how such things are often said within our ranks, then we should not be surprised when our opponents take them up. The opponents will certainly notice what is at stake in such things. And it is against the whole onslaught of opponents that the building of the Goetheanum must be carried out today! The building of the Goetheanum cannot be carried out with money alone; it must also be carried out with the support of a moral fund of the Anthroposophical Society. There is no other way. This moral fund must be there.

And we must be clear about this: our outward work has already taken on a very strange form today. This too must not remain unconscious. In a certain respect, everything that is connected with Anthroposophy is like a besieged fortress. And think about what ideas people get when you say to them, “Go into a besieged fortress”. The first thing that a person with good will hears about anthroposophy today is what its opponents say. Anyone who approaches anthroposophy with the best of intentions is confronted with the writings, statements and slander of its opponents. And this is something that carries an extremely heavy weight when it comes to something like the construction of the Goetheanum.

Yes, my dear friends, if it were a matter of spreading anthroposophy today, I would say that all that is needed is the good will to stand up for anthroposophy. If it were only a matter of spreading anthroposophy in the world today, then I would, for my part, walk past fifty defamatory brochures and statements by opponents with absolute composure, accept them with absolute indifference, not worry about them, but just continue to work in a positive way. Because anthroposophy is spread only by continuing to work in a positive way. If it were only a spiritual current, then perhaps we would not need such gatherings at all; then we could be indifferent to all opposition. But when it comes to the fact that Anthroposophy is isolating itself today, when just mentioning its name leads to a whole range of external foundations, including of course the building of the Goetheanum, then it must be said: such things cannot be done unless a compact society is formed that is able to counteract the fact that anyone approaching the fortress first takes the opposing writings into their hands. One must make a clear distinction between the individual justifications and what the spiritual movement of anthroposophy is. It is self-sustaining. You can cover it with fifty kilometers of debris today, it can be rendered ineffective for decades for all I care. If the work is done in the right way, it will make its way through the world! But when things are presented to the outside world that are also incomprehensible to it, and all the individual justifications that are based on anthroposophy today are incomprehensible, then the Society must be united and compact.

And that, my dear friends, must be considered above all when making proposals that are to be made to the outside world by the Anthroposophical Society. Really, I can understand it when these things I say are repeatedly ignored. I am terribly sorry to have to mention it, but I want them to be heard! I want people to realize that they are not standing on a concrete floor but on glass when they make proposals for this cause, and that they need to create the moral foundation as well.

You see, here in this hall, I pointed out very recently, to a much smaller number of members than today, as was pointed out in the Journal de Geneve, that the Swiss should also be taken to the cleaners by me for the construction of the Goetheanum. We must not lack the answers that are an effective defense against such attacks. And so it should also be clear that from the moment something like this arises, everyone should be aware that it is not at all a matter of bringing a single centime into Switzerland from the German border. This must be stated unequivocally. Because that is the situation today.

Dear friends, I naturally have the greatest feeling for what enthusiasm is. But today one must really take into account the real possibilities, above all the realities themselves. Not to stop anything, but to ask outright that these real possibilities be taken into account as soon as the words are spoken. That is the only reason I wanted to fill this pause that has arisen. Because it hurt me, so to speak, that things are being discussed by one side that are not immediately taken out of context, so that the other side is not given a handle for their opponents.

End of session

It is not without significance to observe in the anthroposophic movement itself, particularly amongst those first people who began, as one might say, by being just an ordinary audience, how the ground had, so to speak, to be conquered for Christianity. For the theosophic movement, in its association with Blavatsky's special personality, started out in every way from an anti-christian orientation.

This anti-christian orientation, which I mentioned in connection with the same phenomenon in a very different person, Friedrich Nietzsche, is one which I should like to examine a little in a clearer light before going further.

We must be quite clear ... it follows, indeed, from all the various studies which, in our circles more especially, have been directed to the Mystery of Golgotha ... we must be quite clear that the Mystery of Golgotha intervened as a fact in the evolution of mankind on earth. It must be taken, in the first place, as a fact. And if you go back to my book, Christianity as Mystical Fact, and the treatment of the subject there, you will find already the attempt made there to examine the whole Mystery-life of ancient times with a view to the various impulses entering into it; and then to show how the different forces at work in the different, individual mysteries all came together in one, met in a harmony, and thereby made it possible for that which first, in the Mysteries, came before men so to speak in veiled form, to be then displayed openly before all men as an historic fact. So that in the Mystery of Golgotha we have the culmination in an external fact of the total essence of the ancient Mysteries. And then, that the whole stream of mankind's evolution became necessarily changed through the influences that came into it from the Mystery of Golgotha.—This is what I tried to show in this particular book.

Now, as I have often pointed out, at the time when the Mystery of Golgotha was enacted as a fact, there were still in existence remnants of the ancient Mystery-Wisdom. And by aid of these remnants of ancient Mystery-Wisdom, which passed on into the Gospels, as I described in the book,—it was possible for men to approach this Unique Event, which first really gives the Earth's evolution its meaning. The methods of knowledge which they needed to understand the Mystery of Golgotha could be taken from the ancient Mysteries. Rut it must be noted at the same time, that the whole life of the Mysteries is disappearing,—disappearing in the sense in which in old times it had existed and found its crown and culmination in the Mystery of Golgotha. And I pointed out too, that really, in the fourth century after Christ, all those impulses vanish, which mankind could still receive direct from the ancient way of knowledge, and that of this ancient way of knowledge there only remains more or less a tradition; so that here or there it is possible—for particular persons, for peculiar individuals, to bring these traditions again to life; but a continuous stream of evolution, such as the Mysteries presented in the old days, has ceased. And so all means, really, of under-standing the Mystery of Golgotha is lost.

The tradition continued to maintain itself. There were the Gospels,—at first kept secret by the ecclesiastical community, and then made public to the people in the various countries. There were the ritual observances. It was possible, during the further course of human history in the West, to keep the Mystery of Golgotha alive, so to speak, in remembrance. But the possibility of thus keeping it alive ceased with the moment when, in the fifth post-atlantean century, intellectualism came on the scene, with all that I spoke of yesterday as modern education. At this time there entered into mankind a science of natural objects,—a science which, were it only to evolve further the same methods as it has done hitherto, could never possibly lead to a comprehension of the spiritual world. To do so, these scientific methods require to be further extended: they require the extension they receive through anthroposophy. Rut if one stopped short at these natural science methods in their mere beginnings, as introduced by Copernicus, Galileo and the rest, then, in the picture of the natural world, as so seen, there was no place for the Mystery of Golgotha.

Now only just consider what this means. In none of the ancient religions was there any cleft between the Knowledge of the World and what we may call the Knowledge of God. Worldly learning, profane learning, flowed over quite in course of nature into theology. In all the heathen religions there is this unity between the way in which they explain the natural world, and in which they then mount up in their explanation of the natural world, to a comprehension of the divine one, of the manifold. divinity that works through the medium of the natural world, ‘Forces of nature,’ forces of the abstract kind, such as we have to-day, such as are generally accepted on the compulsion of scientific authority,—such ‘forces of nature’ were not what people had in those days. They had live beings, beings of the natural world, who guided, who directed, the various phenomenon of nature; beings to whom one could build a bridge across from that which is in the human soul itself. So that in the old religions, there was nowhere that split, which exists between what is the modern science of the natural world, and what is supposed to be a comprehension of the spiritual and divine one.

Now Anthroposophy will never make any pretension that it is going, itself, to establish the grounds of religion. But although religion must be always something that rests upon itself and forms in itself an independent stream in the spiritual life of mankind; yet, on the other hand, man's nature simply demands that there should be an accordance between what is knowledge and what is religion. The human mind must be able to pass over from knowledge to religion without having to jump a gulf; and it must again be able to pass over from religion to knowledge, without having to jump a gulf. But the whole form and character assumed by modern knowledge renders this impossible. And this modern knowledge has become very thoroughly popularized, and dominates the mass of mankind with tremendous authority. In this way no bridge is possible between knowledge of this kind and the life of religion;—above all, it is not possible to proceed from scientific knowledge to the nature of the Christ. Ever more and more, as modern science attempted to approach the nature of the Christ, it has scattered it to dust, dispelled and lost it.

Well, if you consider all this, you will then be able to understand what I am going to say, not now about Blavatsky, but about that very different person, Nietzsche.—In Nietzsche we have a person who has grown up out of a Protestant parsonage in Central Europe,—not only the son of religious-minded people in the usual sense, but the son of a parochial clergyman. He goes through all the modern schooling; first, as a boy at a classical school. But since he was not what Schiller calls a ‘bread-and-butter scholar,’ but a ‘lover of learning’, ... you know the sharp distinction made by Schiller in his inaugural address between the bread-and-butter scholar and the lover of learning ... so Nietzsche's interest widens out over everything that is knowable by the methods of the present age. And so he arrives consciently and in a very uncompromising way at that split-in-two, to which all modernly educated minds really come, but come unconsciently, because they delude themselves, because they spread a haze over it. He arrives at a tone of mind which I might describe somewhat as follows:—

He says:—Here we have a modern education. This modern education nowhere works on in a straight line to any clear account of the Christ-Jesus, without jumping a gap on the road. And now, stuck into the midst of this modern education which has grown up, we have something which has remained left over as Christianity, and which talks in words that no longer bear any relation whatever to the various forms of statement, the terms of description, derived from modern scientific knowledge. And he starts by saying to himself very definitely: If one in any way proposes to come to a real relation with modern scientific knowledge, and still at the same time to preserve inwardly any sort of lingering feeling for what is traditionally told about the Christ,—then one will need to be a liar. He puts this to himself; and then he makes his decision. He decides for modern education; and thereby arrives at a complete and uncompromising denunciation of all that he knows of Christianity.

More scathing words were never uttered about Christianity than those uttered by Nietzsche, the clergyman's son. And he feels it, with really, I might say, his whole man. One need only take such an expression of his as this,—I am simply quoting; I am, of course, not advocating what Nietzsche says; I am quoting it only—but one need only take such an expression as this, where he says: Whatever a modern theologian holds to be true is certainly false. One might indeed make this a direct criterion of truth.—One may know what is false—according to Nietzsche's view,—from what a modern theologian calls true. That is pretty much his definition, one of Nietzsche's definitions, as regards Truth. He decides, moreover, that the whole of modern philosophy has too much theological blood in its veins. And then he formulates his tremendous denunciation of Christianity, which is of course, a blasphemy, but at any rate an honest blasphemy, and therefore more deserving of consideration than the dishonesties so common in this field to-day. And this is the point which one must keep in sight: that a person like Nietzsche, who for once was in earnest in the attempt to comprehend the Mystery of Golgotha, was not able to do so with the means that exist,—not even by means of the Gospels as they exist.

We have now in our Anthroposophy interpretations of all the four Gospels. And what emerges from the Gospels as the result of such interpretation is emphatically rejected the theologians of all the churches. But Nietzsche in that day did not possess it. It is the most difficult thing in the world, my dear friends, for a scientific mind (and almost all people at the present day may be said in this sense to have, however primitively, scientific minds), to attain possession of the Mystery of Golgotha. What is needed in order to do so?

To attain to this Mystery of Golgotha, what is needed, is not a renewal of the ancient form of Mysteries, but the discovery of a quite new form of Mystery. The rediscovery of the spiritual world in a completely new form,—this is what is necessary. For, through the old Mysteries, not excepting the Gnosis, the Mystery of Golgotha could only be uttered haltingly and brokenly. Men's minds grasped it haltingly and brokenly. And this halting, broken utterance must to-day be raised to speech.

It was this urgent need to raise the old halting utterance to speech which was at work in the many homeless souls of whom I am speaking in these lectures. With Nietzsche it went so far as a definite and drastic—not denial only—but appalling denunciation of Christianity.

Blavatsky, too, drew her impulse mainly from the life of the old Mysteries. And, truly speaking, if one takes the whole of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, one cannot but see in it a sort of resurrection of the old Mysteries,—in the main nothing new. The most important part of what one finds revealed in the works of Blavatsky is simply a resurrection of the old Mysteries, a resurrection of the know-ledge through which in the old Mysteries men had become acquainted with the divine spirit-world.

But all of these Mysteries are only able to comprehend what is a preparation for the Christ. The people, who, at the time when Christianity began, were still in a way con-versant with the old Mysteries and their impulses,—these persons had a positive ground still, from which to approach the Unique Event of Golgotha. So that down, in fact, to the fourth century, there were people who still could approach the Event of Golgotha on positive ground. They were still able in a real sense to comprehend the Greek Fathers of the Church, in whom there are everywhere connections with the old Mysteries, and who—rightly understood—speak in quite a different key from the later Fathers of the Latin Church.

Within what dawned upon Blavatsky's vision there lay the ancient wisdom, which sees the natural world and spirit-world in one. And much as a soul, one might say, before the Mystery of Golgotha, beheld the world of Nature and Spirit, so Blavatsky beheld it now again. That way,—she said to herself—lies the Divine and Spiritual; that way a vista opens up for men into the region of divine spirit. And from this aspect she then turned her eyes upon what modern tradition and the modern creeds say about Christ-Jesus.

The Gospels, of course, she had no means of understanding as they are understood in Anthroposophy: and the understanding that is brought to them from elsewhere was not of a kind that could approach what Blavatsky had to offer in the way of spiritual knowledge. Hence her contempt for all that was said about the Mystery of Golgotha in the outside world. She said to herself, as it were: ‘What all these people say about the Mystery of Golgotha is on a far lower level than the sublime wisdom transmitted by the ancient Mysteries. And so the Christian God too must be on a lower level than what they had in the ancient Mysteries.’

The fault lay not with the Christian God; the fault lay with the ways in which the Christian God was interpreted. Blavatsky simply did not know the Mystery of Golgotha in its essential being; she could only judge of it from what people were able to say about it. Such things must be regarded with perfect objectivity. For as a fact, from the time of the fourth century after Christ, when with the last remnants of Greek civilization the sun of the old Mysteries had set, Christianity was taken over and adopted by Romanism. Romanism had no power, from its external civilization, to open up any real road on into the spirit. And so Romanism simply yoked Christianity to an external impulse. And this Romanized Christianity was, in the main, the only one known to Nietzsche and Blavatsky.

One can understand then that the souls I described as homeless souls, who had gleams from their former earth-lives, and were principally concerned to find a way back into the spiritual world, took the first thing that presented itself. They wanted only to get into the spiritual world, even at the risk of doing without Christianity. Some link between their souls and the spiritual worlds,—that was what these people wanted.

And so one met with the people who at that time were groping their way towards the Anthroposophical Society.

Let us be quite clear, then, as to the position which Anthroposophy held towards these people, when it now came upon the scene,—towards these people who were homeless souls. They were, as we saw, questing souls, questioning souls; and the first thing necessary was to recognize: What are these souls asking? What are the questions stirring in their inmost depths?—And if now from the anthroposophic side a voice began to speak to these souls, it was because these souls were asking questions about things, to which Anthroposophy believed that it could give the answers. The other people of the present day have no questions; in them the questions are not there.

Anthroposophy, therefore, had no sort of call to go to the theosophists in search of knowledge. For Anthroposophy, Blavatsky's phenomenal appearance, and what had come into the world with it, was so far a fact of great importance. But what Anthroposophy had to consider, was not the knowledge that came from this quarter, but principally the need for learning to know the questions, the problems that were perplexing a number of souls.

One might have said, had. there been any possibility at that time of putting it plainly into words: As to what the leaders of the Theosophical Society have given the people, one doesn't need to concern oneself at all; one's concern is with what the people's souls are asking, what their souls want to know. And therefore these people were, after all, the right people in the first instance for Anthroposophy.

And in what form did the answers require to be worded?—Well, let us take the matter as positively, as matter-of-factly, as possible. Here were these questioning souls: one could plainly read their questions. They had the belief that they could arrive at an answer to their questions through the kind of thing which is found in Mrs. Besant's Ancient Wisdom: Now you can easily tell yourselves that it would have been obviously very foolish to say to these people that there are a number of things in this book, Ancient Wisdom, which are no longer appropriate to the modern age; for then one would have offered these souls nothing; one would only have taken something away from them. There could only be one course, and that was, really to answer their questions; whereas from the other side they got no proper answer. And the practical introduction to really answering was that, whilst Ancient Wisdom ranked at that time as a sort of canonical work amongst these people, I did not much trouble about this Ancient Wisdom, but wrote my book, Theosophy, and so gave an answer to the questions which I knew to be really asked. That was the positive answer; and beyond this there was no need to go. One had now to leave the people their perfect liberty of choice: Will you go on taking up Ancient Wisdom? or will you take up Theosophy?

In epochs of momentous decision, when world-history is being made, things do not lie so rationalistically, along straight lines of reasoning, as people are apt to conceive.

And so I could very well understand, when theosophists attended that other set of lectures on ‘Anthroposophy’, which I gave in those days, at the founding of the German Section, that these theosophists said the same thing as I have been pointing out to you here: ‘But that doesn't in the very least agree with what Mrs. Besant says!’ Of course it didn't agree, and couldn't agree! For the answer had to be one which proceeded from all that the mind of this age can give out of its deeper consciousness. And so it came about,—just to give for the moment the broader lines only,—that, as a fact, to begin with—down to about 1907—every step on behalf of Anthroposophy had to be conquered in opposition to the traditions of the Theosophical Society. The only people, to begin with, whom one could reach with these things, were the members of the Theosophical Society. Every step had to be conquered. And controversy at that time would have had no sense whatever; the only thing was to hope and build upon the alternative selection.

Matters went on by no means without internal obstacles. Everything—in my opinion at least—had its proper place, in which it must be done properly. In my Theosophy I went, I think, no single step beyond what it was possible at that period to give out for a number of people publicly. The wide circulation which the hook has found since then of itself shows that the supposition was a right one: Thus far one could go.

With the people who were more intently seeking, and had, accordingly, come into the stream set going by Blavatsky, with these people it was possible to go further. And with these one now had to make a beginning towards going further. I could give you any number of instances; but I will pick out just one, to show how, step by step, the attempt was made to get away from an old, bad tradition, and come to what was right for the present day, to the results of direct present-day research.

For instance, there was the description usually given in the Theosophical Society of the way Man travels through so-called kamaloca, after death. The description of this, as given by the leading people in the Theosophical Society could only be obviated in my Theosophy by my leaving the Time notion so far out of account in this book. In the circles inside the society, however, I tried to work with the right notions of time.

So it came about that I delivered lectures in various towns, amongst what was then the Dutch Section of the Theosophical Society, on the Life between Death and New Birth, and there for the first time, quite at the beginning of my activities, pointed out that it is really nonsense to conceive of it simply so, that if this, B D, is the life on earth from birth to death, that then the passage through kama-loca were simply a piece joined on, as it were, in one's consciousness. I showed, that time, here, must be conceived backwards; and I depicted the life of kama-loca as a living backwards, stage by stage, only three times as quick as the ordinary earth-life, or the life that was spent on earth: B ---------- D.

In outer life, of course, nobody to-day has any conception of this going on backwards as a reality, a reality in the spiritual field; for Time is simply conceived as a straight line from beginning to end; and a going on backwards is something of which people to-day form no notion whatever.

Now the theory was, amongst the leaders of the Theosophical Society, that they were renewing the teachings of the old wisdom. They took Blavatsky's book as a basis; and all sorts of writings came out, linked onto Blavatsky's book. But in these writings everything was presented to the mind in just the same way as things are conceived under the materialist world-conception of modern-times. And why?—Because they would have needed to become again knowing, not merely to renew the old knowledge, if they had wanted to find the truth of the matter.

The old things were for ever being quoted. Amongst other things always being quoted from Buddha and the old Oriental wisdom, was the Wheel of Births. Rut that a wheel is not of such a nature that one can draw a wheel as a straight line—, this the people did not reflect; and that one can only draw a wheel as running back into itself.

—There was no vitality in this revival of ancient wisdom, for the simple reason that there was no direct knowledge.

What was needed, in short, was: that something should be brought into the world by direct, living knowledge; and then this might also throw light upon the old, primeval wisdom.

And so one conclusion, from these first seven years especially of anthroposophic labour, amounted to this: that there were people who were ... well ... just as well pleased that there should not be any renovations, or,—as they called it,—‘innovations’ in the theosophic field; and who said: Oh, all that he says is just the same thing as the other! There's no difference! The differences are quite inessential! And so they were argued away. But this awful thing that I had, so to speak, ‘gone and done’ at the very beginning of my work in the Dutch Section of the Theosophical Society, when I lectured ‘from the life’ instead of simply rehearsing the doctrines contained in the canonical books of the Theosophical Society as the others did,—that was never forgotten! It never was forgotten. And those of you, who may perhaps go back in memory to those days in the growth of our movement, need only recall in the year 1907, when the Congress was held in Munich, at a time when we were still within the fold of the Theosophical Society, how the Dutch Theosophists turned up all primed and loaded, and were quite furious at this intrusion of a foreign body, as they felt it to be. They had no sense, that here a thing of the living present was matched against something merely of tradition,—they simply felt it to be a foreign body.

But something else could not fail to occur even then. And at that time the conversation took place in Munich between Mrs. Besant and myself, in which it was definitely settled that what I have to stand for, the Anthroposophy which I have to represent, would carry on its work in perfect independence, without any regard to anything else whatever that might play a part in the Theosophical Society. This was definitely settled, as a modus vivendi, so to speak, under which life could go on.

Even in those days, however, in the Theosophical Society, there were already dawning signs on the horizon of those absurdities by which it afterwards did for itself. For as a vehicle for a spiritual movement, the society to-day—despite the number of members still on its lists—may truly be said to have done for itself. Things, you know, may live on a long while as dead bodies, even after they are done for. But what was the Theosophical Society is to-day no longer living.

One thing, however, must be clearly understood: At the time when Anthroposophy first began its work, the Theosophical Society was full of a spiritual life, which, though traditional, nevertheless rested on sound bases, and was rich in material. What had come into the world through Blavatsky was there; and the people really lived in the things that had come into the world through Blavatsky.

Blavatsky had now, however, been dead for ten years past as regards earthly life. And one can but say of the tone in the Theosophical Society, that what lived on in it as a sequel of Blavatsky's influence and work was some-thing quite sound as a piece of historical culture, and could undoubtedly give the people something. Still, there were even then unmistakable germs of decay already present. The only question was, whether these germs of decay might not possibly be overcome; or whether they must inevitably lead to some kind of total discord between Anthroposophy and the old Theosophical Society.

Now one must say that amongst the tendencies that existed in the theosophic movement, even from the days of Blavatsky, there was one tendency in particular that was a terribly strong disintegrating element.

One must make a distinction, when considering the subject in the way I am doing now. One must make a clear distinction, between what was flung as spiritual information into the midst of modern life through the instrumentality of Blavatsky, and what was a result of the particular way in which Blavatsky was prompted to give out this information, out of her own person, in the manner I described. For in Blavatsky there was, to begin with, this particular kind of personality,—such as I described to you recently,—one who simply, having once been given, so to speak, an instigation from some quarter—through a betrayal, if you like,—then, out of her own person, as though in recollection of a previous life of incarnation on earth, and though only as a reawakening of an old wisdom, yet did bring wisdom into the world, and transmitted it in book-form to mankind.—This second fact one must keep quite distinct from the first. For this second fact, that Blavatsky was instigated in a particular way to what she did, introduced elements into the theosophic movement which were different from what they should have been if the theosophic movement was to be one of a purely spiritual character.

That it was not. For the fact of the matter was, that Blavatsky in the first instance received an instigation from a quarter of which I will say no more, and put forth, out of herself, what is in her Isis Unveiled; and that then, through all sorts of machinations, it came about that Blavatsky, the second time, was subjected to the influence of esoteric teachers from the Orient; and behind these there was a certain tendency of a political-cultural kind and egoistic in character. From the very first, there lay an orientalist policy of a one-sided character in what it was now hoped to obtain in a roundabout way by means of Blavatsky. Within it all lay the tendency to show the materialistic West, how far superior the spiritual knowledge of the East is to the materialism of the West. Within it was concealed the tendency to achieve, in the first place, a spiritual, but, more generally, any kind of dominion, an ‘empire’ of some kind, of the Orient over the Occident: And this was to be done, in the first place, by indoctrinating the spirituality or unspirituality of the West with the traditions of Eastern wisdom.—Hence came what I might call that shifting of the axis which took place, from the altogether-European of Isis Unveiled, to the altogether-Oriental of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine.

There was every variety of factor here at work; but one of the factors was this one, that wanted, namely, to join India on to Asia and so create an Indo-Asiatic Empire with the assistance of Russia. And so this ‘Doctrine’ of Blavatsky's was inoculated with the Indian vein, in order, in this way, to conquer the West spiritually.

Now this, you see, is a one-sided vein, egoistic,—nationally egoistic. And this one-sided vein was there from the very beginning. It met one directly with symptomatic significance. The first lecture I ever heard from Mrs. Besant was on ‘Theosophy and Imperialism’. And when one inwardly tried to answer the question: Does really the main impulse of this lecture lie in the continuation-line of the strictly spiritual element in Blavatsky? or does the main impulse of this lecture lie in the continuation-line of what went along with it;—then one could only say: the latter.

With Mrs. Annie Besant it was often the case, that she said things of which she by no means knew the ultimate grounds. She took up the cudgels for something or other of which the ultimate grounds were unknown to her; she was ignorant of the connections that lay at their root. But if you read this lecture, ‘Theosophy and Imperialism’ (which is printed), and read it understandingly, with all that lies underneath it, you will then see for yourselves, that, supposing there were somebody who wanted to split India off from England,—to split it off in a certain sense spiritually after a spiritual fashion,—a good way of taking the first unobtrusive step, would be with a tendency such as there was in this lecture.

This was always the beginning of the end with all such spiritual streams and spiritual societies, that they began to mix up one-sided political interests with their own sphere. Whereas a spiritual movement—above all to-day—can only possibly pursue its course through the world, and it is indeed, to-day, one of the most vital life conditions for a spiritual movement that would lead to real, actual spirituality, that it should be universally human, wholly and undividedly human. And everything else, which is not wholly and universally human, which sets out in any way to split the body of mankind, is from the first an element of destruction in any spiritual movement that would lead to the real spirit-world.

Just consider how deep one strikes with all such things into the sub-conscious regions of man's being. And hence it is one of the life-conditions of any such spiritual movement,—for instance, such as the anthroposophical movement, too, would be,—that there should be at least an earnest, honest endeavour to get beyond all partial, sectional interests in mankind, and really to rise to the universal interests of all mankind. And therein lay the ruin of the theosophic movement, that from the beginning it had an element of that kind in it. On occasion, as we know, this kind of element is quite capable of reversing steam: later, during the Great War, this opposite tendency turned very anglo-chauvinist. Rut this very circumstance should make it perfectly clear, that it is quite impossible successfully to cultivate a real spiritual movement, so long as there is some kind of sectionalism which one is not pre-pared to leave behind one.

Amongst the external dangers, therefore, which beset the anthroposophic movement to-day, there is this especially: That people in the present age, which is wandering astray in nationalisms on all sides, have yet so little courage to get beyond these nationalisms.

What then lies at the root of a one-sidedness like that of which we were speaking?—At its root lies the desire to acquire power as a society through something else than simply the revelations of the spiritual source itself. And one can but say that whereas, at the turn of the century, there was still a fairly healthy sense in the Theosophical Society as regards conscious aspirations after power, this was by 1906 all gone, and there existed a strong ambition for power.

It is necessary, do you see, that one should clearly recognize this growth of the anthroposophical life out of universal human interests, common to the whole of mankind; and that one should clearly see, that it was only because the questioners were there, in the Theosophical Society, and because of this only, that Anthroposophy was obliged to take growth in the Theosophical Society, to take up its lodging there, one might say, for a while; since otherwise it had nowhere to lodge.

The first period—so to speak—was scarcely over, when, as you know, the whole impossibility of the theosophical movement for Western life demonstrated itself quite peculiarly in the question of the Christ. For what with Blavatsky was in the main a theory,—although a theory that rested on emotions,—namely, the depreciation of Christianity, was afterwards carried in the theosophic movement to such a very practical depreciation of Christianity, as the education of a boy in whom they said they were going to train-up the soul of the re-arisen Christ.

One could hardly conceive anything more nonsensical. And yet an Order was founded amongst the Theosophical Society for the promotion of this Christ-Birth in a boy, who really, as one might say, was already there.

And now it very soon came to the perfection of nonsense.—With all such things, of course, there very soon come muddles which border terribly close on falsehoods. In 1911, then, there was to be a Congress of the Theosophical Society in Genoa. The things leading to this nonsense were already in full bloom, and it was necessary for me to announce as my lecture for this Genoa Congress From Buddha to Christ. It must then necessarily have come to a clear and pregnant settlement of relations; for the things, that were everywhere going about, would then necessarily have come to a head. But, lo and behold! the Genoa Congress was cancelled.—Of course excuses can be found for all such things. The reasons that were alleged all looked really uncommonly like excuses.

And so the anthroposophic movement may be said to have entered on its second period, pursuing its own straight course; which originally began, as I said, with my delivering a lecture, quite at the beginning, to a non-theosophical public, of whom only one single person remains, (who is still there!) and no more, although a number of persons attended the lecture at the time. Anyhow, the first lecture I delivered (it was a cycle of lectures, in fact) bore the title From Buddha to Christ. And in 1911 I proposed again to deliver the cycle From Buddha to Christ. That was the straight line. But the theosophical movement had got into a horrible zigzag.

Unless one takes the history of the anthroposophic movement seriously, and is not afraid to call these things by their right name, one will not be able to give the proper reply to the assertions continually being made about the relation of Anthroposophy to Theosophy by those surface triflers, who will not take the trouble to learn the real facts, and refuse to see, that Anthroposophy was from the very first a totally separate and distinct thing, but that the answers, which Anthroposophy has the power to give, were naturally given to those people who happened to be asking the questions.

One may say, then, that down to the year 1914 was the second period of the anthroposophic movement. It really did nothing very particular—at least, so far as I was concerned—towards regulating relations with the theosophic movement. The Theosophical Society regulated relations by excluding the Anthroposophical one. But one was not affected by it. Seeing that from the first one had not been very greatly affected by being included, neither was one now very greatly affected by being excluded. One went on doing exactly the same as before. Being excluded made not the slightest change in what had gone on before, when one was included.

Look for yourselves at the way things went, and you will see that, except for the settlement of a few formalities, nothing whatever happened inside the anthroposophic movement itself down to the year 1914, but that everything that happened, happened on the side of the Theosophical Society.

I was invited in the first place to give lectures there. I did so; I gave anthroposophic lectures. And I went on doing so. The lectures for which I was originally invited are the same newly reprinted in my book, Mysticism at the Dawn of the New Age of Thought. And I then carried on further what is written in this Mysticism at the Dawn of the New Age of Thought, and developed it in a variety of directions.

By this same society, with the same views, I was then excluded, and of course, my followers, too. For one and the same thing I was first included, and afterwards excluded. Yes ... that is the fact of the matter. And no one can rightly understand the history of the anthroposophic movement, unless they keep plainly in sight as a fundamental fact, that as regards the relation to the theosophic movement, it made no difference whether one were in- or excluded.

This is something for you to reflect upon very thoroughly in self-recollection. I beg you to do so. And then, on the grounds of this, I should like tomorrow to give a sketch of the latest and most difficult phase, from 1914 until now, and then to go into various details again later, in the subsequent lectures.

It will be necessary for me to begin this evening with a sort of introductory lecture, and deal with the actual subject itself in the two following lectures. I must do this because there are so many people in the audience to whom Anthroposophy is still but little known; and lectures dealing with a special subject would remain rather in the air if I did not begin with some introductory remarks treating of Anthroposophy in general before coming to definite observations in the domain of medicine.

Anthroposophy is indeed not as is so often said of it, some kind of craze, or a sect; it stands for a serious and scientifically-considered conception of the world; but a conception of the world which is applied just as seriously to the spiritual domain as we are accustomed to apply our modern scientific methods to the material domain. Now it might appear to begin with to many people that any suggestion of the spiritual at once introduces something unscientific, for the reason that people are generally inclined to the idea that only those things can be grasped scientifically which can be experienced by the senses, and carried further by means of the reason and intellect. It is the opinion of many people that directly we step over into the spiritual it implies renunciation of Science. It is said that decisions with regard to spiritual questions rest upon subjective opinion, upon a kind of mystical feeling, which everyone must manufacture for himself; “faith” must take the place of scientific knowledge. The task of this introductory lecture shall be to show that this is not the case.

Above all, Anthroposophy does not set out to be “Science” in the generally-accepted sense of the word as something that lies apart from ordinary life and is practised by single individuals who are preparing for some specialised scientific career; on the contrary, it is a conception of the world which can be of value for the mind of every human being who has a longing to find the answers to questions regarding the meaning of life, the duties of life, the operation of the spiritual and material forces of life, and how to turn this knowledge to account. Hitherto in the Anthroposophical field there has been unfailing success in achieving entirely practical methods of applying Anthroposophical principles, more especially in the sphere of education. We have founded schools, which are organised on the basis of these conceptions. And in many well-recognized ways we have succeeded in a similar manner with regard to the art of healing. Anthroposophy does not wish to create obstacles in any sphere, or to appear in opposition to anything that is in the nature of “recognized science;” it will have nothing to do with dilettantism. It is above all anxious that those who wish earnestly to work out what has been given as Anthroposophical knowledge, shall prize and admire all the great achievements that have resulted—with such fullness in recent times—from every kind of scientific endeavour. Therefore there can be no question (in the medical sphere or any other) of anything like dilettantism, nor of any opposition to modern science. On the contrary, it will be shown how by following certain spiritual methods one is in a position to add something to that which is already accepted, and which can only be added when the work of serious investigation is extended into the spiritual world itself.

Anthroposophy can do this because it strives after other kinds of knowledge which do not prevail in ordinary life or in ordinary science. In ordinary life, as in our customary scientific methods, we make use of such knowledge which we attain when in the course of our development we add to our inherited tendencies and capabilities what we can gain through the usual lower or higher grades of schooling, and which together make us into ripe human beings in the sense in which that is understood to-day. But Anthroposophy goes further than this; it desires to start from what I may call intellectual modesty. And this intellectual modesty (which must be there to begin with if we are to develop a feeling for Anthroposophy) I should like to characterise in the following manner.

Let us consider the development of a human being from earliest childhood onwards. The child first appears in the world showing outwardly in its life and inwardly in its soul nothing of that by which a fully- developed human being finds his orientation in the world through actions and knowledge. There must be education and up-bringing in order to draw out of the childlike soul and bodily organism those capacities which have been brought into the world in a dormant or “unripe” state. And we all admit that we cannot in the true sense of the word become active inhabitants of the world if we do not add to our inherited tendencies all those things which can only come by a process of unfolding and drawing them out. Then sooner or later, according to whether we have completed a higher or lower grade of education, we step out into life, having a particular relation to life, having the possibility of unfolding a certain consciousness with regard to our surroundings. Now anyone who approaches the intentions of Anthroposophy with true understanding, will say: Why should it not be possible—seeing that it is possible for a child to become something entirely different when its soul- qualities are developed—for such a thing to take place also in a man who is “ripe” according to the standard of to-day? Why should not a man who enters the world fully equipped with the best modern education, also contain hidden capacities in his soul which can be developed further, so that he can progress by means of this development to still further knowledge, and to a practical conduct of life which to some extent can be a continuation of that which has brought him as far as the ordinary state of consciousness?

Therefore in Anthroposophy we undertake a kind of “self-development”—which is to lead out beyond the ordinary condition of consciousness.

There are three faculties in the human soul which are developed normally in life up to a certain point, but which we can unfold further; and Anthroposophy provides the only means in this our modern age of culture and civilisation which will create the necessary stimulus for the further development of these faculties. All three faculties can be so transformed as to become the faculties of a higher kind of knowledge.

First there is the Thinking. In the culture that we have acquired we use our thinking in such a way that we give ourselves over quite passively to the world. Indeed, Science itself demands that we should employ the least possible inner activity in our thinking, and that that which exists in the outer world should only speak to us through the observation of our senses; in fact that we must simply give ourselves over altogether to our sense-perceptions. We maintain that whenever we go beyond this passivity we are only led into dreams and fantastic notions. But where Anthroposophy is concerned, there is no question of fantasy or dreaminess, but of the exact opposite; we are guided to an inner activity which is as clear as any method leading maybe to the attainment of mathematics or geometry. In fact we comport ourselves with regard to Anthroposophy precisely in the same way as we do with regard to mathematics or geometry, only in Anthroposophy we are not developing any special attribute, but on the contrary, every faculty that is connected with human hearts and minds—the whole sum of what is human. And the first thing that has to be done is something which, if people are only sufficiently free from prejudice, can be readily comprehended by everyone. It is simply that the capacity and the force of Thinking should be directed for a time not in order to grasp or understand some external thing, but just in order to allow a thought to remain present in the soul—such a thought as may be easily observed in its totality—and to give oneself up entirely to this thought for a certain length of time.

I will describe it more exactly. Anyone having the necessary feeling of confidence might turn to someone who was experienced in these matters and ask what would be the best kind of thought to which he might devote himself in this way. This person would then suggest some thought which could be surveyed with ease but which would at the same time be as new to him as possible. If we use an old familiar thought, it is very easy for all kinds of memories and feelings and subjective impressions to arise out of the soul, so that only a dreamy condition would be induced. But if the enquirer is directed to a thought which is quite certainly a new one, which will arouse no memories, then he will be able to give himself up to it in such a way that the thought-forces of the soul will become stronger and stronger. In my own writings, and especially in my books—“Knowledge of the higher Worlds” and “An Outline of Occult Science,” I call this kind of thinking, which can be inwardly cultivated, Meditation. That is an old word: but to-day we will only use it in the particular connection which I will now describe. Meditation consists in turning the attention away from everything that has been either an inner or an external experience, and in thinking of nothing except that one thought, which must be placed in the very centre of the soul's life. By thus directing all the strength that the soul possesses upon this single thought something takes place with regard to the forces of the soul which can only be compared to the constant repetitions of some movement of the hand. What is it that takes place when one does that? The muscles become stronger. It is exactly similar in the case of the soul's powers. When they are directed again and again to one thought they gain force and strength. And if this goes on for a long time—(though to spend a long time at it on each occasion is certainly not necessary, because it is rather a question of entering into a state of soul produced by concentration on a single thought)—and the length of time depends also on predisposition, for with one person it might take a week, and with another three years, and so on—so, if we go on for a long period doing such exercises again and again perhaps for five minutes or fifteen minutes every day, then we begin at last to have an inner sense that our being is becoming enfilled with a new content of force.

Previously, the forces of the nerves have been felt in the process of ordinary thinking and feeling, as we feel the forces of the muscles active in the grasping of objects or in whatever we perform. Just as we have been feeling these things gradually more and more in growing up from childhood, so in the same way we gradually begin to learn how to feel that something new is permeating us when we apply ourselves to such thought-exercises—of which I can now only indicate the general principles. (You will find them described in greater detail in my books.) Finally there comes a day when we are aware that we can no longer think about outer things in the same way as we used to think about them; but that now we have attained an entirely new soul-power; that we have something in us that is like an intensified, a stronger quality of thinking. And at last we feel that this kind of thinking enables us actually to take hold of what previously was only known to us in quite a shadowy way.

What we are then enabled to grasp is the essential reality of our own life. In what manner do we thus recognize our own earthly life—the life we have lived since birth? We know it through our memory, which reaches back as far as a certain point in our childhood. Rising out of undefined depths of the soul appears the remembrance of our past experiences. They are like shadows. Think how shadowy those emerging memory pictures of our life are in comparison with the intense full- blooded experiences we have from day to day! If we now take hold of our thinking in the way that I have described, the shadowy quality of these memories ceases. We go back into our own actual earth-life; we experience again what we experienced ten or twenty years ago with the same inner forces and strength with which we originally experienced these events. Only the experience is not the same as formerly, inasmuch as we do not again come into direct contact with the external objects or beings, but we experience instead a kind of “extract” of it all. And that which we experience can, paradoxical as it may sound, be described as having definite significance. All at once, as in a mighty panorama, we have the whole of our life up to the time of birth before us. Not that we see the single events simply in a time- sequence, but we see them as a complete life-tableau. Time turns into Space. Our experiences are there before us, not as ordinary memories, but so that we know that we stand before the deeper being of our own humanity—like a second man within the man we know with our ordinary consciousness.

And then we arrive at the following: This physical human being that we confront in our ordinary consciousness is built up out of the matter which we take out of the Earth which is round about us. We continually discard this matter, and take in fresh matter, and we can definitely say that all the material substances which have been discarded by our body are replaced by new substances within periods of time of from seven to eight years. The material in us is something that is in constant flux. And so, learning to know our own life through our intensified thinking, we come to know that which remains—which endures throughout the whole of our earth-life. It is, at the same time, that which builds up our organism out of outer material substance; and this latter is itself at the same time that which we survey as the tableau of our life.

Now what we see in this manner is distinguished in yet another way from ordinary memory. In ordinary memory the events of our life appear before the soul as though approaching us from outside. We remember what such and such a person has done to us, or what has accrued to us from this or that event. But in the tableau which arises from our intensified thinking, we learn to know ourselves as we really are ourselves—what we have done to other human beings, how we have stood in relation to any occurrence. We learn to know ourselves. That is the important point. For in learning to know ourselves, we also learn to know ourselves intensively, and in such a way that we know how we are placed within the forces of our growth, yes, even within the forces of our nourishment; and how it is we ourselves who build up and again disintegrate our own bodies. Thus we learn to know our own inner being.

Now the important thing is that when we come to this self-knowledge, we immediately experience something which can never be experienced by means of any ordinary science or through the ordinary consciousness. I must admit that nowadays it is really very difficult to express what is now arrived at, because in face of what is considered authoritative to-day, it sounds so strange. But so it is. At this point we experience something through our intensified thinking, of which we must say the following:—There are the laws of Nature which we study assiduously in the sciences; we even learn about them in the elementary schools. We are proud of this; and prosaic humanity is justly proud of what has been learnt of these laws of Nature in physics, chemistry and so on. Here I must emphatically declare that Anthroposophy does not set itself in any amateurish opposition to Science. But because of our grasp of inner intensive thinking we say that the natural laws which are learnt in connection with physics and chemistry are only present in the matter of the Earth, and they cease to be of any account so soon as we pass out into universal space.

Here I must state something which will not seem so very implausible to anyone who thinks over it without prejudice: suppose we have somewhere a source of light, we know that the more widely the light is distributed from its source the more it loses in intensity; and the further we go out into space the weaker it becomes, so that we are tempted to speak of it no longer as “light” but as “twilight,” and finally when we have gone far enough it cannot be accounted as light any more. It is the same with the laws of Nature. They have a value for the region of the Earth, but the further we go out into the Cosmos they become less and less of value, until at length they cease to be of any account at all as laws of Nature. On the other hand, those laws which we come to apprehend through intensified thinking, which are already active in our own life, these show us that as human beings, we have not grown out of the natural laws of the Earth, but out of higher, cosmic laws. We have brought them with us in coming into earthly existence. And so we learn to recognize that the moment we have grasped our intensified thinking we can only apply natural law to the mineral kingdom. We cannot say—and this is a very reasonable error made by the newer physics—that natural laws can be applied to the Sun or the Stars. That cannot be done; for to wish to apply natural laws to the Universe would be just as artless as to wish to illumine the worlds of space with the light of a candle. Directly we ascend from the mineral, which as mineral is only apparent to us on this Earth, up to what is living, then we can no longer speak of the natural laws of the earthly realm, but we must speak of laws which worked down into the earthly realm from out of the Cosmos—from universal space. That is already the case with regard to the vegetable kingdom.

We can only use the laws of the Earth to explain the mineral—laws, for example, such as the law of gravity and so on, which work from the centre of the Earth towards the circumference. When we come to the vegetable kingdom, then we must say that the entire globe is the central point, and that the laws of life, are working towards it from every side of the Cosmos—the same laws of life which we have first discovered in ourselves with our intensified thinking, and of which we have learnt to know that we build ourselves up between birth and death by their means.

To these laws, then, which work from the centre of the Earth outward, we add knowledge of the laws which work inwards towards the centre of the Earth from every direction, and which are already active in the vegetable kingdom. We look at the plants springing up out of the Earth and tell ourselves that they contain mineral matter. Chemistry to-day has gone very far in its knowledge of the respective activity of these mineral substances. That is all quite justifiable and quite right. And chemistry will go yet further. That will also be quite right. But if we want to explain the nature of plants we must explain their growth, and that cannot be done through the forces that work upwards from the Earth, but only through those forces that work inwards from the surroundings, from the Cosmos, into the Earth- existence. Hence we have to admit that our knowledge must ascend from an earthly conception to a cosmic conception; and moreover in this cosmic conception is contained the real human Self-knowledge.

Now we can go further than this and transform our Feeling. To have “Feeling” in ordinary life is a personal affair, not actually a source of knowledge. But we can transform that which is ordinarily only experienced subjectively as feeling, into a real objective source of knowledge.

In Meditation we concentrate upon one particular thought; we arrive at intensified or “substantial” thinking and thereby are able to grasp something that works from the periphery of the Universe towards the centre of the Earth, in contradistinction to the ordinary laws of Nature, which work from the centre of the Earth outwards in all directions. So when we have reached this intensified thinking, and have perceived that our own life and also the life of the plants is spread out before our souls like a mighty panorama, then we go further. We come to a point, after having grasped something through this forceful thinking, when we can cast these strong thoughts aside. Anyone who knows how difficult it is, in ordinary life, to throw aside some thought which has taken hold of one, will understand that special exercises are necessary to enable this to be done. But it can be done. It is not only possible to cast out with the whole strength of our soul this thought that we have concentrated upon, but it is also possible to cast out the whole memory-tableau, and therewith our own life, and entirely to withdraw our attention from it.

Something then begins to occur by which we clearly see that we are descending further into the depths of the soul, into those regions which are usually only accessible to our feeling. As a rule in ordinary life, if all impressions received by sight or hearing are shut off, we fall asleep. But if we have developed intensified thinking, we do not fall asleep even when we have thrown aside every thought—even the substantially intense ones. A condition arises in which no sense-perceptions and no thoughts are active, a condition we can only describe by saying that such a person is simply “awake;” he does not fall asleep; but he has nevertheless at first nothing in his consciousness. He is awake, with a consciousness that is empty. That is a condition revealed through Spiritual Science to which a person can attain who can be quite systematically and methodically developed—namely to have an empty consciousness in complete waking awareness.

In the usual way, if our consciousness is empty we are asleep. For from falling asleep to waking up we do have an empty consciousness—only—we are asleep in it. To have an empty consciousness and yet be awake, is the second stage of knowledge for which we strive. For this consciousness does not remain empty for long. It fills itself. As the ordinary consciousness can fill itself with colour through the perceptions of sight, or by the ear fill itself with sounds, so this empty consciousness fills itself with a spiritual world which is just as much in our surroundings “there” as the ordinary physical world is in our surroundings here. The empty consciousness is the first to reveal the spiritual world—that spiritual world which is neither here on the Earth, nor in the Cosmos in Space, but which is outside Space and Time, and which nevertheless constitutes our deepest human nature. For if at first we have learnt to look back with the intense consciousness of thinking upon our whole earth-life as a script—now, with a consciousness that was empty and has become filled, we gaze into that world where we passed a life of soul and spirit before we came down into our earthly existence. We now learn to know ourselves as Beings who were spiritually present before birth and conception, who lived a pre-earthly existence before the one wherein we now are. We learn to recognize ourselves as beings of spirit and soul, and that the body that we bear we have received in that it was handed on to us by parents and grandparents. We have had it delivered to us in such a way that, as I have said, we can change it every seven years; but that which we are in our individual being has brought itself to Earth out of a pre-natal existence. But none of this is learnt by means of theorising, or by subtle cogitation; it can only be learnt when the suitable capacities are first of all unfolded in intellectual modesty.

Thus we have now learnt to know our inner humanity, our own individual being of spirit and soul. It comes to meet us when we descend into the region of feeling and not merely with feeling, but also with knowledge. But first we must mark how the struggle for knowledge is bound up with strong inner experiences which can be indicated as follows: If you have bound up one of your limbs tightly, so that you cannot move it—even if someone perhaps only bandages two of your fingers together—you feel discomfort, possibly even pain. Now when you are in a condition where you experience what is soul and spirit without a body, you do not possess the whole of your physical being, for you are living in an empty consciousness. The passing-over into this state is connected with a profound feeling of pain. Beyond the feeling of pain, beyond the privation, we wrestle for the entrance into that which is our deepest spiritual and soul-being. And here many people are arrested by terror. But it is impossible to gain any explanation of our real human nature by any other means; and if we can learn it in this way, then we can go still further.

But now we have to develop a strength of knowledge which in ordinary life is not recognised as such at all; we have to develop Love as a force of knowledge—a selfless out-going into the things and processes of the world. And if we perfect this love ever more and more, so that we can actually lift ourselves out into the condition I have described, where we are body-free—and in this liberation from the body gaze at the world—then we learn to realise ourselves wholly as spiritual beings in the spiritual world. Then we know what man is as Spirit; but then we also know what dying is; for in Death man lays his physical body altogether aside. In this knowledge, which as a third form, is experienced through the deepening of Love, we learn to know ourselves outside our body; we accomplish separation from it by the constructive quality of knowledge.

From this moment we know what it will mean when we lay aside our body in this Earth-existence and go through the Gate of Death. We learn to know death. But we also learn to know the life of the soul and spirit on the other side of death. Now we know the spiritual- soul-being of man as it will be after death. As at first we had learnt to recognize our being as it is before the descent into earthly life, so now we know the continuation of the life of this being in the world of soul and spirit after death.

Then something else occurs which causes us to mark clearly how imperfect is the consciousness of to-day; for it speaks of “immortality,” out of its hope and faith. But immortality—deathlessness—is only one half of Eternity—namely the everlasting continuation of the present point of time. We have to-day no word such as was to be found in the degrees of knowledge of an older time, which points to an immortality in the ether half of Eternity—“unborn-ness.”

Because just as man is deathless, so is he also unborn; that is to say, with birth he steps out of the spiritual world into physical existence, just as at death he passes from the physical world into a spiritual existence. Therefore in this manner we learn of the true being of man, which is spiritual, and which goes through birth and death; and only then are we in a position to comprehend our whole being.

The principles which I have briefly outlined have already formed the content of a wealth of literature, which has imbibed a conscientiousness and a responsibility towards its knowledge out of the realm of exact Science, on which alone this sense of responsibility can rest to-day. So we attain to a Spiritual Science, which has grown out of ordinary Science.

And just on account of this, we learn something else—namely how life consists of two tendencies or streams. People speak in a general way to-day about development; they say the child is small—it develops—it grows; it is full of energy—strong—it blossoms with life. They say that a lower form of life has evolved to a higher;—-quickening, blooming life—growing ever more and more complicated! And that is right. But this stream of “life” is there, however, in opposition to another stream, which is present in every sentient living being—namely, a destructive tendency. Just as we have a budding and sprouting life in us, integrating life—so we have also the life of disintegration. Through knowledge such as this we perceive that we cannot merely say that our life streams up into the brain and nervous system, and that this matter organises itself so that the nervous system can become the bearer of the life of the soul. No—it is not like that. The life is germinating and sprouting, but at the same time there is continual destruction incorporated into it.

Our life is incessantly going to pieces ... the blossoming life is always giving place to the decaying life. We are actually dying by degrees and at every moment something falls to ruin in us, and every time we build it up again. But, whereas matter is being destroyed, it leaves room wherein what is of the soul and spirit can enter and become active in us. And here we touch upon the great error made by materialism, for materialism believes that the sprouting and budding life evolves up to the nervous system in man so that the nerves are built up in the same way as the muscles are built up out of the blood. It is true they are. But no thinking is developed by means of building up the nerves; neither is feeling. On the contrary, in that the nerves decay to a certain extent the psychic-spiritual incorporates itself into what is decaying. We must first disintegrate matter in order that the psychic-spiritual can appear in us and enable us to experience it for ourselves.

That will be the great moment in the development of a rightly-understood Natural Science, when the opposite to evolution will be recognized as carrying evolution forward at the corresponding point; when it will recognize not only integration, but also disintegration—thus admitting not only evolution but devolution. And thus it will be understood how the spiritual in the animal and in man—but in the latter in a self-conscious way—takes hold of the material. The spiritual does not take hold of the material because the latter is developing itself against it, but because matter, by a contrary process, is destroying itself; and the spiritual comes into evidence, the spiritual reveals itself, in this process. Therefore we are filled with the spirit; for it is everywhere present in devolution but not in evolution, which is Earth-development. Then we learn to observe that man as he stands before us in his entirety, is as though contained within a polar antithesis. Everywhere, in every single organ, wherever there is an upbuilding process there is also a destructive process going on. If we look at any one of the organs, it may be the liver, or the lungs, or the heart, we see that it is in a constant stream which consists of integration—disintegration, integration—disintegration. Is it not really rather an extraordinary expression that we use when we say for example “Here flows the Rhine?” What is “the Rhine?” When we say “Here flows the Rhine,” we do not as a rule mean that “there is the river-bed `Rhine,'“ but we mean the flowing water which we look at. Yet it is different every moment. The Rhine has been there a hundred years, a thousand years. But what is it which is there every moment? It is what is realised as being in alteration every moment in the flowing stream. In the same way everything that we contain is held within a stream of change, in integration and disintegration, and in its disintegration it becomes the bearer of the spiritual. And so in every normal human being there exists a state of balance between anabolism and catabolism, and in this balance he develops the right capacity for the soul and spirit. Nevertheless, this balance can be disturbed, and can be disturbed to such an extent that some organ or other may have its correct degree of anabolism in relation to too slight a degree of catabolism, and then its growth becomes rampant. Or contrariwise, some organ may have a normal process of disintegration against too slight an anabolism, in which case the organ becomes disturbed, or atrophies; and thus we pass out of the physiological sphere into the pathological.

Only when we can discern what this condition of balance signifies, can we also discern how it may be disturbed by an excess of either integrating or disintegrating forces. But when we recognize this, then we can turn our gaze to the great outer world, and can find there what, under certain conditions, will act so as to equalise these two processes.

Suppose we take for example a human organ that is disturbed by reason of too strong a destructive process, and then look with sight made clear by spiritual-scientific knowledge at something outside in Nature, say at a plant; we shall know that in a particular plant there are anabolic—building-up—properties. Now it becomes apparent that in the habit of certain plants there are always anabolic properties and that these correspond precisely to the anabolic forces of human organs. Thus, we can discover—when we make use of these conceptions which have now been developed by me—that there are anabolic forces in the kidneys. Let us suppose the kidneys are too weak, that their destructive forces are excessive. We turn to the plants, and we find in the common marestail, Equisetum Arvensae, anabolic forces which exactly correspond to those which belong to the kidneys. If we make a preparation from equisetum and administer it through the digestive process into the blood-circulation and thus conduct it in the right way to the region in the body where it can work, we strengthen the debilitated anabolic forces of the kidneys. And so we can proceed with all the organs. Once we have grasped this knowledge we have the possibility of bringing back into a condition of balance the unbalanced processes of integration and disintegration by using the forces which can be found in the outside world. If on the other hand we have to deal with forces of anabolism either in the kidneys or elsewhere which have become over- strong, then it will be necessary to reinforce the destructive processes. In this case we must have recourse to the lower type of plants, let us say the fern species, which have this property.

In this way we pass beyond the point of mere experiment and test in order to discover whether a preparation will be beneficial or not. We can look into the human organism in respect of the relative balance of the organs themselves; we can penetratingly survey Nature for the discovery of the anabolic and catabolic forces, and thus we make the Art of Healing into something wherein we can really see that a remedy is not administered just because statistics confirm that in such and such cases it is useful—but because by a really penetrating survey both of the human being and Nature we know with exactitude in every case the natural process in a Nature-product that can be transformed into a healing factor—that is, for the human organs in respect of the anabolic and catabolic forces.

I do not mean to say that in recent times Medicine has not made immense progress. Anthroposophy recognises this progress in Medicine to the full. Neither have we any wish to exclude what modern medical science has accomplished; on the contrary we honour it. But when we examine what has been brought out in the way of remedies in recent times we find that they have only been arrived at by way of lengthy experimentation. Anthroposophy supplies a penetrating knowledge which by its survey of human nature has fully proved itself in those spheres where Medicine has already been so happily successful. But in addition to this, Anthroposophy offers a whole series of new remedies also, a fact which is made possible by the same insight applied to both Nature and Man.

Therefore if we learn to look into the human being spiritually in this way—(and I will later show how the Art of Healing can be made fruitful in every single sphere through a true knowledge of the spirit)—we also learn to look into the spiritual life together with the material life, and then we arrive—and this no longer in the old dreamlike way which had its overflow in Mythology, but in an exact way—then we can arrive at a bringing together of perfectly rational knowledge with a “message” of Healing.

Man learns to heal by means of a real and artistic conception of an art that has grown out of the world itself. Therewith we come again into touch with what existed in ancient times—though it was not then to be found in the way in which we to-day must aspire to find it now that we have the great wealth of Science behind us;—for what existed in ancient times through a kind of dreamlike knowledge, can lead us to-day to the application of forces and spiritual forces in connection with human health and sickness.

In ancient times there were the Mystery Centres in which a knowledge was cultivated which could solve humanity's religious problems and satisfy the longings of the soul; and in connection with the Mysteries there were Centres of Healing. To-day, quite rightly, we regard the things that were cultivated there as somewhat childish. But there was nevertheless a sound kernel in them;—it was known that the knowledge of the so-called normal world must go forward into knowledge of the abnormal world. Is it not strange that we, on the other hand, say that in his healthy state man comes forth out of Nature, and that then we have to explain the unhealthy man also by the laws of Nature? For every illness can be explained by these laws. Does Nature then contradict herself? We shall see that she does not do so with regard to disease. But our knowledge must be a continuation from the normal physical into the pathological. Knowledge can attain value for life only in so far as that side by side with those places where the normal aspects of life are cultivated, there must also be found those that are concerned with the illnesses of life.

There was to have been a centre of knowledge at the Goetheanum at Dornach in Switzerland, in the building which most unfortunately was burnt down, but which we hope will soon be rebuilt. It was to be a centre of knowledge where mankind would have been able to satisfy those longings of the soul which seek to penetrate into the sources of life. And out of what I might call a natural sequence it came to be regarded as a matter of course that there should be added to the Goetheanum a centre of Healing. True, this could only be, at first, of a modest kind. Such a thing must be there wherever there is to be a real knowledge of humanity. And we have it in the Clinical-Therapeutical Institute at Arlesheim which is the result of the efforts of Frau Dr. Wegman, and which has been followed by the founding of a similar Institute under Dr. Zeylmans van Emmichoven at The Hague. And so at Dornach there is established once again, side by side with the centre of Knowledge, a centre of Healing. And whereas courage must always be a part of everything that pertains to knowledge of the Spirit, so courage belongs above all things, to the way of Healing. This vital element lives in that Institute at Arlesheim—the courage to heal; in order that all which comes forth out of the whole human being as the possibility to control the forces of healing, may be used as a blessing for humanity. Therefore, such a centre of Knowledge, which once more strives towards the Mysteries—albeit in the modern sense—and where the great questions of existence are dealt with, must have beside it, even though it may be only in a modest way, a centre of Healing where knowledge of the smallest details of life is cultivated and where the effort is made to deepen the Art of Healing in a spiritual sense.

In the external nearness of Knowledge-Centre and Healing-Centre to one another we have the outer image of how close a connection should exist between Anthroposophical knowledge and the practical work of Healing, and that this should exist as such a spiritual Art that out of a conception of conditions of illness in the human being, there should grow a conception of Therapeutics, of Healing, so that the two may not fall asunder, but that the diagnostic process may be carried on into the healing process. The aim of Anthroposophy herein is that while one makes a diagnosis in the knowledge one has of what is happening in a person when he is ill, at the same moment one sees that such and such a thing is taking place, or something is happening in the anabolic processes. One then recognizes Nature for example in occurrences brought about by destructive forces; one knows where the destructive forces are to be found, and in administering these as a healing agent one is thus able to act so that these destructive forces can work against the upbuilding forces in the human being. And vice versa. So one is able to perceive clearly in what is going on in the human being, an unhealthy condition; but even in perceiving this unhealthy condition one immediately perceives also the nature of the working of the healing agent.

To-day I wished only to demonstrate the nature of a spiritual way of knowledge, and point out that the effect of this spiritual knowledge is such that man does not merely approach natural and spiritual forces in a theoretical way, but that he also learns to handle them, and out of his spiritual learning to mould life.

With advancing civilisation, life becomes continually more and more complicated. At the present time a longing is dominating the subconscious life of many souls—a longing to find what may be the source out of which this more and more complicated life has grown. Anthroposophy tries above all to assuage these longings. And we shall see that against much that is destructive in the life of to-day it honestly desires to co-operate in all that is constructive, that is advancing, that tends to prosperity in our civilisation—not with helpless phrases but actively, in all the practical questions of life.

Morning Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at 9 am.

Address by Dr. Rudolf Steiner

My dear friends! After the way our meeting went on the first two days, I felt compelled yesterday to give a few guidelines — as I already said: out of my concern for the further course of the negotiations. Because today we have to come to a positive result, and it must not be the case that our dear friends who have traveled to this assembly of delegates leave tonight in the same way as they arrived on Sunday. We must arrive at a positive result. I tried to say what I said based on the reality that emerged from the negotiations. We must always take things as they appear in reality, and our present reality is what emerged from the negotiations over the past two days. We could not come to this meeting with a finished program, because then we would not have needed to meet. Otherwise, some program could have been worked out and sent to each individual, and that would have been the end of it. The point is that these negotiations are to be taken seriously and that every member of this assembly is to have a say through the delegates.

Now it has become clear that, quite apart from smaller groups, two main groups have emerged in the membership and that it is quite hopeless to expect these main groups to agree on an absolutely common program.

I will start with a completely different point to show how things really are. At the beginning of my lecture yesterday, I said: In the two decades of the Anthroposophical Society's life, something has been experienced. The Anthroposophical Society is not something that can be newly founded, something that can be spoken of as it was 15 or 20 years ago. But that is how someone who has only recently joined must speak. That can be extremely good, but it is spoken from a different point of view. I had to experience this life of the Anthroposophical Society from my point of view. And for this experience of mine, the shades that emerged in the last two years were very sharply present. How were they present? You see, my dear friends, when I came to Stuttgart, I met the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society here. That is how the really experienced circumstances had unfolded. When I came here, I came for certain reasons, there were intentions to be carried out, purposes to be carried out. When I spoke here in Stuttgart with someone who had been involved in his work here for many years, then, so to speak, I only needed to press a button and in a few minutes what I had to say was done. They understood me, they knew the needs of the Anthroposophical Society. For example: a Waldorf school teacher is immersed in his subject for a long time, because he was already immersed in education from an anthroposophical point of view before he became a Waldorf school teacher. The mistake was not that I was not understood in Stuttgart – most people assume that. I was understood – it was just that what was understood was not carried out. But that is what is needed. Of course, I do not have the time to explain all this in detail. I will explain why there is no time for that in my lecture today.

So on the one hand, here in Stuttgart, people who are really well informed and strengthened by the experience are immediately understood. In terms of understanding, everything goes like clockwork. These are the old, good members who have developed a kind of intuitive genius for anthroposophical matters. In this respect, everything is in order. And I only had to make the effort to find the committee myself, after weeks of back and forth negotiations, to tell us how it wants to find the bridge from easy understanding to the will! Therefore, my appeal to this committee is to finally tell us what it actually wants.

It was not right, how the essentials were misunderstood. It seemed grotesque to me when, out of complete ignorance of the circumstances, a proposal was put forward that we should now, in the midst of all the unfinished business, start to elect a new central committee. How impossible that is, will be understandable when I now characterize the other party.

You see, the following is quite natural: when I negotiate with someone, be it a group or an individual coming on behalf of a group, at first they understand nothing of what I say. That is quite natural — they understand nothing of it, absolutely nothing! But there is an infinite amount of activity, an infinite amount of goodwill. Anything that has not been understood will be done immediately! The speeches of those coming from outside are imbued with the noblest anthroposophical intentions. But one must grow into the old history, one must become familiar with all the details! And no matter how long these two groups may say to each other: We have the best will to grow together, they will not come together, they will always talk past each other. Do not think that I am only referring to the Youth Group. There are very old members of the Anthroposophical Society who are in the same situation. They do everything I say — but they do what has not been understood. Now we are faced with the truly worrying necessity of nevertheless continuing the Society in absolute inner solidarity and solidity. This can only be done if we find a form for it in which both groupings can flourish; in other words, if the old Anthroposophical Society continues to exist in accordance with our principles, and in such a way that it is led first by the committee of nine, which was not brought about as a mere [*] See note on p. 571.

was brought about not as a mere matter of necessity, but also arose out of historical circumstances. So that which has become historical must be carried forward historically. And the others will form a loose association, regardless of whether they are old or young, ninety-five or fifteen years old, whether they are Waldorf students or senior citizens – they are still members of the Anthroposophical Society – so that they then have an inner esoteric connection according to the karmic connections of these or those members, so to speak. Something definite will come out of this loose association. The group that represents history will have to indicate, from its experiences, which are abundant, what it and each individual wants to do next. But those who form the loose association will initially form this loose association by saying to themselves: We are genuine, true anthroposophists – these are often the youngest ones – and we will now continue to seek a form for our work. They don't need to come to any kind of election or the like right away; they will try to bring their loose association so far that we can then create the binding link between the two.

After our negotiations ended yesterday, I was asked at 12 o'clock [at night] to come to another meeting at Landhausstraße 70. At the end of the meeting, the objection was raised: We have seen that those who represent the old society, which has its leading figures here in Stuttgart, cannot properly relate to the individual institutions and enterprises from an anthroposophical point of view. Those who do not agree with this now, certainly not! If that were the case, these enterprises would be a complete failure and would have no following. I said that if that were the case, then the desirable state would have been reached, because the abstract desire to help is worth nothing. A healthy state will only come about if the enterprises here in Stuttgart – I do not mean this ironically – are left alone with good advice. The mistake made by the departments was that they always talked about the enterprises and not about the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society in relation to the enterprises. The enterprises as such are either in order or not in order. The eurythmy enterprise is in order, the Waldorf school is in order, the Kommende Tag is in order. The Federation for a Free Spiritual Life, however, is not in order. But a federation for a free spiritual life will not be founded out of this assembly; nor, my dear friends, will the two magazines ¹ can be edited by this meeting. The point at issue is that the Stuttgart undertakings must be left alone. One can have confidence in them, and there is no question of the personalities who are in these institutions being tested for trustworthiness. Every day at the Waldorf School, for example, shows that the Waldorf School has excellent leadership. We are here to talk about what the Anthroposophical Society should become in the future. The point is that we proceed in such a positive way - I ask you to discuss my proposal - that all those who can feel: are not connected historically with the time when one only had to press the pen for their joint work within the whole of anthroposophy, will find such a form that has lasting value. Then there will be absolutely no need for the concern, which can be formulated something like this: What will the old Society do with the enterprises if the young do not participate? The loose association will take an interest if – forgive the ugly word – it is organized the way they want it. Then interest will awaken. I would like a form to be found within which real interest can exist.

That, my dear friends, is what it is about: not a division into two groups, but a classification so that those who are familiar with the things that need to be present can actually continue to prevail in their way, but without disturbing the others, and so that both groups can work together in harmony. You can't try to bring them together. They will never talk to each other, but they will work together splendidly. Everyone must do what they are good at and are predisposed to do. So we actually come to find a way for society to continue to exist.

I would like to mention a grotesque fact again and again. The Federation for Threefolding has had three heads in succession.² The first head — as I have already briefly explained — remained until I declared: I can no longer participate. The second main person was someone who, when working in the right place, worked extraordinarily well; this was demonstrated in many places within the Anthroposophical Society. I had not been there for a long time when I came back. A meeting was taking place with the leadership of the Federation for Threefolding. I asked what had happened, and I was told: We have created a card index of such and such slips of paper; all the newspaper clippings are here and there; then we have larger slips of thicker paper, and then there are all the opposing articles; and then we have other slips of paper that are thinner and can be folded, with the indentations and so on. So I finally said: Yes, but my dear friends, I don't want to know what you have in your card catalogs. Don't you also have heads? I don't want to deal with card catalogs, but with heads. — The heads were not absent, but they were eliminated, and a card catalog was placed opposite me.

They laugh at it! In a sense, it's not even funny.

Those who are thinking of realizing a more original form of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society, of being in a union of smaller groups in which they are not constrained, will be able to live it up. And that is what matters first. I do hope that in this way we will get to the point where everyone knows which group they belong to. Then it can continue, then the loose union can form, can give itself a head in such a free or unfree way as it wants. A connecting link can then be created — not between the two Anthroposophical Societies, but between the brothers, the two groups of the unified Anthroposophical Society. But we will have to discuss that, my dear friends. I just threw that in as a guideline.

On behalf of the nine-member board, which has now taken the place of the old central board, Dr. Unger makes the following statement:

1. Mr. Uehli has definitively left the old central board.
2. The other two members of the central board have co-opted the members of the committee and are willing to co-opt further individuals to form an extended board.
3. These individuals on the committee are willing to take over the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society as the new board.
4. The members of the new executive council residing in Stuttgart will take over the administration of the Society's affairs.
5. They will assume particular responsibility, together with the leading figures of the institutions founded in Stuttgart, for the proper integration of these foundations into the Anthroposophical Society.

The new leadership of the Society has set itself the following guidelines:

1. The leadership will feel responsible for ensuring that the life of the anthroposophical movement as a whole is led into all parts of the Society. This includes reports on lectures, research and the fruits of anthroposophical work. A newsletter as the organ of the Society should serve these purposes.

2. The leadership of the Society will feel responsible for ensuring that the individual creative powers in the Society can develop and that the personalities involved in the work feel supported by the interest that the Society takes in their work.

For both tasks, the leadership relies on trusted personalities in the sense of the draft principles of an Anthroposophical Society.

The Executive Council hopes to find support for the affairs of the Society and help in carrying out its tasks in a body of trusted individuals to be formed.

The following tasks are among the objectives that the Anthroposophical Society has set itself in accordance with the draft principles: cultivation of universal anthroposophical life — development and cultivation of anthroposophical community — imparting of anthroposophical teachings to the outside world — introduction and continuation — study groups — organization of defense against opponents - focusing the work on the future.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Our group is still in the process of coming into being, and it is therefore clear that we cannot come up with a program at the beginning of this process. That is quite impossible. So I can only give you a very brief description of how we actually view this whole undertaking, so to speak, from within. The starting point is that what we see as anthroposophical striving for development has not been realized in the narrow-mindedness of the Anthroposophical Society, so that we were initially in a position where we could not communicate at all and were the impetus for what could have ultimately led the Society into chaos yesterday. When Dr. Steiner suggested dividing the Society into two societies because of the two different directions of will, we were shocked by this conclusion. But then we realized that it was precisely through this structure that harmony in society could arise again. So we are very grateful to Dr. Steiner for helping us to find a way to continue our own anthroposophical development without having to contribute to the creation of such chaos, an atomization of the Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, it is now a matter of us having to try to assert our own developmental conditions in a certain independence from what has become the historical society. But it is self-evident for us – if we now have the opportunity to grow further as anthroposophists – that the fruits of this development must then benefit the whole anthroposophical movement. That the development of the Anthroposophical Society will then have its strongest supporters in us, and that we are convinced from the outset that we need the individual institutions, the publishing house, the institute and so on, but that we can bring our development to fruition better with a certain independence, with a certain distance.

If older members of society sympathize with us, then it is quite natural for us that these “young people” can also include those who are ninety-five years old, as Dr. Steiner said. For example, it is perfectly possible, according to this view, for one and the same person to be actively involved in both branches of anthroposophy, and every member of the older friends can work with us. We want to be completely free in this, depending on whether people come together out of human or anthroposophical impulses.

For us, this actually anthroposophical aspect is such that this difference between age and youth, which has often complicated the debate in a highly philistine way, does not exist. The fact is that I myself am older than some of those who did not get on with the youth. So from this side it can be said that, with regard to the danger of further disintegration and fragmentation, we are convinced that this danger does not exist. It is part of a basic impulse that there must be no difference whatsoever in age, status or occupation, that for us these things are so entwined with the anthroposophical that we would immediately become untruthful if we were to make any distinction in this regard. We must see to it that we introduce anthroposophical truthfulness.

We can try to work from these developmental possibilities to strive for a certain connection that will then lead to a free organization. But that is not really the first concern, nor what this connecting link to the old society will look like. I am thoroughly convinced that these things will arise of themselves, if, on the one hand, the Anthroposophical Society can continue to work out of its own developmental conditions, undisturbed by an opposition that cannot help it and thus does not help itself either, and if, on the other hand, the youth group can also develop according to its own nature. Then this connection will come about of its own accord, because after all, we are aware of both sides: they are anthroposophists and we are anthroposophists. Thus the connecting link, as whose representative Dr. Steiner is here, is present.

From the points of view presented by Dr. Steiner, Dr. Unger and myself, the discussion could now be continued in a truly friendly and objective manner and take on a completely different character from yesterday's. It would be necessary for us to stick to the good starting points and persevere with what we have begun as a positive path shown to us by Dr. Steiner.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, talks about the formation of a trust organization ³ and warns against letting it develop in a bureaucratic way. A real trust organization must form itself through living relationships. The minimum is the right of the trusted personalities to propose members for admission to the society. In addition, the most diverse relationships must arise between the society's board and the trusted personalities. The board must have the opportunity to work with very different personalities as trusted persons in different matters. The trusted personalities should be appointed by the board, not elected by the members, but they should be trusted by the members. In principle, the matter of the trusted organization is already regulated in a comprehensive way by the “principles”. On the basis of these principles, the relationship with the youth group can also be organized in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.

When approaching such a matter as the creation of a trust organization, one must be careful not to fall into a sense of optimism. We have to go back to what was given at the starting point of the Anthroposophical Society when it was founded as a draft of the principles. There we find exactly how a trust organization must be managed.

For example, one might think that a person of trust can be appointed by one member being proposed to that effect by seven others. The persons of trust have to provide a guarantee when members register. That is, so to speak, the minimum of what the persons of trust would have to do; beyond that, the organization of the persons of trust would have to be built up. I now believe that it is important that we do not appoint trusted personalities in some theoretical way, but that such an organization is formed out of the work. The starting point would be that trusted personalities are proposed and the Central Committee recognizes these personalities. Then a basis is created for admitting members, and the relationship of trust must begin to develop. This must now arise out of the work that the Central Committee and the trusted individuals thus appointed do. It cannot be a matter of the Central Committee saying yes and amen to everything, but it must satisfy itself that it can take responsibility. Of course, it is easy to find seven people whom one does not know at all and thus bring in trusted individuals who are not really trusted at all. We cannot work only from the bottom up in the Anthroposophical Society; we must also work from the top down. This must not be forgotten, otherwise we will end up with a kind of democracy or Bolshevism.

Then there is the question of a trusting, lively interaction. But both parts belong to this. Good will must be shown by both the leadership and the members.

Furthermore, Dr. Steiner must be relieved of the enterprises, but not dismissed. Dr. Steiner has often said the same thing over the years, and it was not heard. And finally today we are coming to the realization that we actually have to do what Dr. Steiner said years ago. I could show you this with practical examples. If he is heard, then he gets by with very little time, and we have our hands full implementing it. For the rest, they have to say to themselves: We should not interfere in the enterprises. What kind of advice do you think I received in the first place regarding commitments? Everyone should say to themselves: Not what should the others do, but what should I do?

Mr. Leinhas reports that there are about 55 requests to speak and some written communications.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Now that it has been made clear that such a division is not a “split” but an “outline,” I would like to say that I do not want to hold on to what I have said about it.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena, emphasizes the necessity of young people working together with old people.

Count Hermann Keyserling, Koberwitz near Breslau: The depression that has probably weighed on all of us has given way to a joyful feeling when Dr. Steiner kindly helped us out of our plight. Speaker thanks the committee of nine for the selflessness with which they have undertaken such a great task as the preparation of this conference. Speaker moves that the discussion should not continue, but that a vote should be taken on the committee of nine's program.

Mr. Otto Coppel, Edenkoben, says that the management has not made it sufficiently clear what it wants. Therefore, the attempt to break up the meeting the day before yesterday, as nonsensical as it was, was only natural. Now, before voting, the program should be discussed.

Now a procedural debate is taking place as to whether a vote should be taken or whether the discussion should continue.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: We are in danger of going in the wrong direction. We are all anthroposophists and differ only in the way we have become so; the question is not whether we should vote or continue the discussion, but I would like to make the following suggestion: Now that the direction for further development has been set, it would be necessary for a number of people to step forward and say: I believe that this and that is the right thing, and I think it is good for the following reasons.

Mrs. Emma von Staudt, Munich, emphasizes that one should not overlook the tremendous amount of self-criticism and self-knowledge that has been practiced from within. It will be difficult to live with two families under the same roof. Therefore, she would like to make a tactical suggestion for living together. If the three different directions: art, science and religion were represented more, without prejudice to the actual leadership of the branches, this coexistence would be easier.

Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart: It is not a matter of voting on whether to join the old or the new society, but rather of recognizing that things have become so and that we can only continue within the Anthroposophical Society if we now work on the one hand in the way history has developed, and on the other hand in the way that seems right to those for whom Dr. Büchenbacher has just spoken. It was mentioned earlier that individual parts of society do not understand each other with other parts. It seems to me that this cannot be the case, they do understand each other. But it would depend on whether it would be expressed as strongly and from as many sides as possible, to what extent they can understand each other very well, how they can establish a connection with the institutions and an understanding for these institutions among the members. It seems to me to be very necessary that it not be expressed simply through silence: yes, now it is just so, we agree with it, but that this agreement be expressed through speeches. It would be necessary to speak very briefly about how one understands the whole matter, how one believes one can work within this so-divided society.

Of course, one or two things could be said about Dr. Unger's program, but it seems to me that the important thing is not to discuss the program, but to implement it.

At the request of the chairman, the assembly unanimously approves the program.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, points out that a relatively large amount has been achieved in Hamburg; he speaks of a “Hamburg system” based on the activation of the human being. The personalities here have earned antipathy as well as sympathy because the “activation of the human being” has not happened. However, he has already found some things in the work of the committee that go in this direction. He said that he would do whatever lay in his limited power to ensure that this “activation of the human being” gradually became decisive in the committee, which would be expanded. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart: I would like to say a few words about the situation that has now been created, which I could not say yesterday because I did not understand it. As you have heard, I resigned from the Central Executive Committee because I was unable to work fruitfully. Now the situation is such that I am growing naturally into the organization of the Free Community because I believe that I can work in the way that is possible, out of friendship for people. Whether I continue with the other things or not is a matter for the committee; it does not belong here, for example, the 'Federation for a Free Spiritual Life' or the newspaper 'Drei'. I want to be able to work as a free human being.

Mr. August Everbeck, Brake: Yesterday the Society threatened to dissolve into chaos - today the difficulties no longer exist after listening to Dr. Steiner. (He wants to explain how the Stuttgart work looks from the periphery. — There is an interjection: Positive suggestions! - The speaker then summarizes his remarks: The only thing that was missing in the branches was the connection with Stuttgart.)

Dr. Josef Kalkhoff, Freiburg: If we had absorbed “Practical Thinking” and “The Philosophy of Freedom”, then we would not have needed a great physician to tell us what is missing. Anyone who believes that they have things to contribute to the discussion can send a paper to Stuttgart, and it will be processed – or thrown away.

What needs to happen is not terribly new, it just needs to be brought to consciousness. We have a medical working group. One can also continue to work in the threefold order, because it is not work that should be abolished, only the organization. What emerges from the discussion should not be thrown in the trash. We should not commit ourselves to a program; that would take care of itself.

Professor Hermann Craemer, Bonn: These are practical suggestions for the future, and what the assembly has suggested should be put into practice, and to be clear about the first steps, based on the nature of such an assembly. There are over a thousand people who are supposed to communicate with each other, and that is extremely difficult. We have also seen that within this large group there are individual groups, especially the youth movement, who, when one person stands up, understand each other perfectly without the person concerned having said much. We still have to learn the art of communicating in large gatherings and not talking at cross purposes. This can be achieved if the branches practice learning to listen to the other person, to be interested not only in the content of what he says, but in the fact that he is saying it. If we practice this coming-to-the-experience-of-you in the branches and continue to practice it in somewhat larger circles, we will gradually come to understand each other in larger gatherings as well. People who live in geographic districts should work together, starting with the simplest personal interaction and working through the problems we face. Here we have to start from scratch and spare no sacrifice so that we can grow together from fragmentation and atomization into one organism.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart, agrees with the program of the new central committee as the spokesperson for the Kerning branch in Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it was noted that there is a discord against one person of the new central committee, which he also shares; this is the person of Dr. Carl Unger (heckling). Speaker Leinhas explains that he will talk to Dr. Unger personally.

Dr. Praussnitz, Jena, fully supports Mr. Leinhas and has a request to make to the assembly: to return to the religious revival movement this evening.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: There can be no question as to whether the Neuner Committee should continue the matter or not. The matter requires that the affairs of this committee be continued.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, discusses the matter of founding the Free University; he reports that Mr. Emil Molt has donated ten million marks for the Free University.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: You, the members of the Committee of Nine, are wondering what we should do when we are carried by the trust. Please do not think that it is only an honor to sit here at the committee table and be flattered. That is not what motivates us; rather, we make ourselves available out of a sense of duty and responsibility. It should not be so difficult for you to say: You must!, as it is difficult for us to say: We must! When we meet again, we will not be able to make excuses: We have not had time! (A voice from the audience asks the assembly to shout unanimously: You must!)

End of the morning discussion.

II. Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The Conditions for Building a Community in an Anthroposophical Society” [in GA 257]

Afternoon Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at half past two.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, of Jena, announces that a committee has been formed consisting of the following members: J. G. W. Schröder, Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Rene Maikowski, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Maria Röschl, Wilhelm Rath, Berlin, probably Rector Bartsch and Ernst Lehrs.

Mr. Rene Maikowski, Stuttgart, announces the personalities of the committee that will deal with the founding and tasks of the School of Spiritual Science: Emil Molt, Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Ernst Lehrs, Werner Rosenthal, Louis Werbeck, Rene Maikowski.

Mr. Manfred Kries, Jena, points out the necessity of working together, especially in the field of medicine. As physicians, one must begin with anthroposophy. The moral, the powers of love, are what one must start from. We can only be successful in spreading the remedies if we have the necessary support from the clinic. We cannot work only in a propagandistic way; we need the experience of those who stand behind us. There is a characteristic that shows how differently the young and the old approach medicine. We cannot appropriate a new method from our own experience and proceed from there to the physical plane. We have to start from pure anthroposophy. We have to develop to the point where we can specialize the purely human, the general, to such an extent that we can penetrate to the individual physical organ.

Mr. Otto Maneval of Stuttgart said that concern for the Waldorf School is an important task of the Anthroposophical Society. Not all members of the Anthroposophical Society are members of the Waldorf School Association. The idea of the Waldorf School must also be brought to bear on the state by professing it.

Mr. Wilh. Salewski, Düsseldorf, believes that the basis for genuine community building is an artistic and educational approach. One should not only find common ground with anthroposophists, but also with non-anthroposophists. With such people one could work in some area. If one does it right, such work will automatically lead to anthroposophical work. If you come from the Ruhr area, you feel a particular need to speak to people in the moment, to grasp them morally in the world situation. We have to pay attention to this: what is the spiritual world saying, what is Dr. Steiner saying, what needs to be done today? If we listen to this, a rhythmic inhalation and exhalation will arise. The bridge to other people can only come from the heart, from love. Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart, points out that what Mr. Maneval said earlier should be taken into account. The financial situation of the Waldorf School is very difficult, and in this regard he must remind us of the dangers that Dr. Steiner spoke of at the last general assembly of the Waldorf School Association. It is absolutely essential for the economic survival of the school that it be the constant concern of all Anthroposophical Society members. The school would not have been able to survive at all without the help of friends abroad. But this is by no means enough. It should be pointed out to the state that the 1925 primary school law allows the admission of pupils to the first class of private schools for the last time. It is therefore important for the Waldorf School to gain such strong support that this paragraph cannot apply to it. So material means and ideal interest, that is what could ensure the continued existence of the Waldorf School.

Mr. Jürgen v. Grone, Stuttgart: My dear friends! I have been asked to serve on the provisional committee of the younger generation and am thus active in both committees. To explain my position, I would like to refer to an experience I had in Berlin in 1908.

Around this time, several young people from very different walks of life, from different parts of the world, came together and met weekly at Motzstraße 17 to study Dr. Steiner's philosophical writings intensively. It was a seemingly random community. But the significant thing was that what moved people to come together in community was the love that each person had for delving into the world of ideas. Through this collaboration in Motzstraße, the personalities involved were able to get to know each other very intimately, and, as I was later able to observe, this work created links of destiny. When I came to Stuttgart a few years ago, I met people again who had belonged to this circle, and I can assure you that we immediately felt how a shared inner experience had connected us precisely through this study of the philosophical works. Our eyes lit up, so to speak, when we saw each other again.

After the war, when I was studying the 'Kernpunkte' and realized that something needed to be done from an anthroposophical perspective that would directly address the social needs of the present, it was this impulse that led me to work on the newspaper. For me, there was indeed a strong connection between the memories from 1908, the anthroposophical experience of that time and the will to translate this anthroposophical experience into social action. On the other hand, I must emphasize that since the seemingly so spontaneous community work in the past, I have a deep, inner understanding of what today's anthroposophical youth and all those who feel connected to it want. Since then, I have taken a keen interest in working with those communities that, above all, consider it necessary to promote true anthroposophy in a group of people through intensive collaboration.

I only wanted to point out these two points of view so that you can see why I agreed to be a member of the committee and why, on the other hand, I agreed to be a member of the provisional committee for the time being.

Dr. Gabriele Rabel, Stuttgart: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak before a larger circle of anthroposophists. I want to make my personal position on anthroposophy as clear as possible. I joined two years ago in order to get to know anthroposophy thoroughly. At the time of my admission, everyone knew that I was not a follower. It was also Dr. Steiner's intention that I should be offered the opportunity to study the matter thoroughly. The result of these two years of examination is a peculiar mixture of sympathy and antipathy.

I feel warm sympathy for everything I have observed in the movement that is personal and human, in the soul, and in the honest striving for spiritual perfection; I feel the warmest sympathy for what is happening in Landhausstrasse and here in these days. It was wonderful of Dr. Steiner to have made such wise use of the burning of the Goetheanum, to have taken it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and reflection.

The spirit of self-knowledge that shone through these speeches suggests that it could easily be the case that in a few years the fire at the Goetheanum will be seen not as a disaster but as a piece of good luck. Every event is only what we make of it.

I have heard the word: the Goetheanum could not have burnt down if we had been what we should have been. That is a distinctly religious attitude. My personal conviction is that it is in this attitude, in the emphasis on the religious character, that the salvation and future of anthroposophy lies.

On the other hand, I am very skeptical about another area to which Dr. Steiner attaches great importance: anthroposophical science. I am an opponent of that. I am not just a so-called opponent, as Dr. Steiner said, I am a real opponent. I have truly shuddered at the abyss of ignorance, inability to think and arrogance of people that I have encountered in a large number of anthroposophical works. It is truly disheartening to read such works. They are written by people who have no idea of natural science. And the people in question have doctorates. Unfortunately, it is one of the saddest chapters of the universities today that a doctorate can be acquired very easily.

Of course, I cannot prove these assertions in detail here. I have already begun to provide evidence in the last article in “Drei,” and I want to continue doing so as long as the editorial staff of “Drei” is so loyal and kind as to publish my critique. I feel obliged to offer a critique. It is necessary to address the details objectively. But it is not enough to say that the whole polemic is insubstantial. It is necessary to show in detail where the errors in thinking lie. I will endeavor to do this as clearly and distinctly as possible.

This discussion about atomic theory has made me clearly recognize the dangers of the Anthroposophical Society in another way. These are dangers that have been pointed out many times, including by myself. But it is quite a different matter whether one speaks of something in general or whether one has concrete examples that can be used to show: There it is. In the first article I wrote the following: the position of anthroposophy on atomic theory is completely unclear. Dr. Steiner himself did not believe in the reality of atoms in the past, but has since been persuaded by the facts, as he mentioned in conversation, and now believes, like us, in the existence of atoms. In response to this, I was told by the anthroposophical side that this is yet another myth that is being peddled solely for the purpose of undermining trust in Dr. Steiner's personality. A scientific person is completely baffled and at a loss in the face of such an attitude. It would be natural for me to lose all trust in him if he could not be belied by facts and stubbornly clung to something he had once said just because he had said it.

But what about anthroposophy? If you believe that Dr. Steiner is not dependent on considering the facts, that he sees through all connections from his own thinking, then of course it is only logical when one comes to such views. There is a gulf between anthroposophy and science. As anthroposophists, you believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner; as scientists, you cannot believe in it. I know very well that you will tell me: We do not believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner, on page so and so much it says: The clairvoyant can err. Yes, there it is, you can read it there, but in practice I have never known anyone to express doubt about what Dr. Steiner said. If he took the floor in a procedural debate or in some kind of scientific discussion, then the case was settled. And now Dr. Steiner spoke recently about the atomic discussion and confirmed the legend that I had told at the time. He explicitly said that I (this opponent) was right, that it was useless to deny the results of science. Yes, what do these gentlemen do now, who have been so fanatically committed to the fact that atoms do not exist? If you have arrived at this conviction, not through blind faith in authority but after careful consideration of the facts, then you cannot just let go of your conviction so easily. This thought seems quite absurd to you, that one of you could polemicize against Dr. Steiner. That is the great cancer. That is what we cannot understand. It is a religious attitude. I use the word religious here in the best sense, that one's own judgment is subordinated to something that one perceives as a higher power, to which one looks up in humility and reverence. I do not want to disgust you with this attitude. But it is not the scientific attitude. The scientific person must be completely free to form his or her own judgment. And so, the more I delve into anthroposophy, the more deeply I am convinced — earlier it was only a hunch — that no synthesis is possible between faith and science, because the scientific person must be free and independent, and the religious person desires to be the opposite. Both attitudes have their good and beautiful aspects. But you cannot mix them. I have the impression that what is being criticized as the system of double accounting is the only possible clean separation: on the one hand, a scientist, on the other, a religious person. I just wanted to say that these are some of the reasons why science must view anthroposophical science with skepticism. I cannot see at present that this conflict can be resolved unless anthroposophical science teaches me better.

There is one more point I would like to mention, which is also a major stumbling block for science. I know you and I are already bored by this, but it is the unholy mystery of Dr. Steiner's changes. It is not possible to get past this point. This question must be thoroughly addressed.

Recently, I have read all the articles that Dr. Steiner wrote between 1886 and 1903. I have read all the articles and found much that is beautiful and good. But I absolutely do not see how one should get over these contradictions.

Speaker reads the following passages:

“But however hard one may try, no one will ever succeed in reconciling the Christian and the modern scientific world view. Without a personal, wise leadership of world affairs, which announces itself in times of need by pointing the way, there is no Christianity. Without the denial of such a leadership and the recognition of the truth that all the causes of events lie in this world accessible to our senses, there is no modern way of thinking. Nothing supernatural ever intervenes in nature; all events are based on the elements that we reach with our senses and our thinking. Only when this insight has penetrated not only into thinking but also into the depths of feeling can we speak of a modern way of looking at things. But our modern minds are quite far removed from this. It works with thinking. The minds of contemporaries are gradually coming to terms with Darwinism. But the feeling, the feeling, are still thoroughly Christian.“ ⁹

"We are entering the new century with feelings that are essentially different from those of our ancestors, who were educated in Christianity. We have truly become ‘new men’; but we, who also profess the new world view with our hearts, are a small community. We want to be fighters for our gospel, so that in the coming century a new generation will arise that knows how to live, satisfied, cheerful and proud, without Christianity, without an outlook on the hereafter.” ¹⁰

I cannot bring myself to read this and then read the essays that appeared five years later in Lucifer-Gnosis and then assume that the man who wrote the two essays has not changed. If a conversion has taken place, I would find it understandable. I have given myself the interpretation that it happens very often in world history that one condemns everything one preached before and vice versa. But that without such a transformation both opinions can be reconciled, I do not understand. I have not received any explanation about this from anyone. The agreement with Haeckel goes so far that he could say: We, the small Haeckel community, are the community of the future, we proclaim the gospel. In an article in the journal Drei, he tried to say what would have captivated him, and it would have been the artistic element. I must urgently ask, also in the name of all the scientists who are trying to have faith in Dr. Steiner: Well, the gods are on this side; the gods also belong to nature. These are conjurer's tricks. I request that this question be addressed. I am very willing to be educated and will gladly proclaim, publicly and loudly, as I stand here with my accusation, that Dr. Steiner has been wronged and that the matter has now been clarified for me.

The speaker concludes with a request that Dr. Steiner himself comment on this question if possible.

Dr. Praußnitz, Jena: I must first express my appreciation of the extraordinary courage that Dr. Rabel has shown by presenting her point of view calmly and unconcernedly. I know what it takes for an anthroposophist to speak in the face of opponents. Regarding the question of the atomic theory, I must state that I am also a specialist in the field; I have encountered the same difficulties as Dr. Rabel, and for me, too, the path from the philosophical side was the only possible one to approach it for the first time. I also openly admit that I have not yet been able to deal with the anthroposophical treatment of science.

One must ask the question: has anthroposophical science, as represented in Stuttgart, actually taken the path it must take to make itself understood to other, outside natural science? I believe that this is where the catch lies... Our young friends want us to become different people through anthroposophy, not just to concern ourselves with anthroposophy. I myself have been involved in the movement for a long time and have not yet had the time to immerse myself in the science as you have. We can only approach this science when we have become different people. —Speaker discusses further details of atomic theory.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein: Dr. Steiner pointed out in his lecture that all the individual actions of our opponents are ultimately based on the fact that they say to themselves: “How do we force the spiritual researcher to defend himself?” Dr. Rabel's remarks culminated in her request that Dr. Steiner comment on what she had said against him. Dr. Steiner should therefore defend himself.

Now, I don't know if he will do that, but I would like to present what I have to say in the way that he has asked us to behave towards our opponents. Dr. Steiner called on us to immerse ourselves with all our love in the souls of our opponents. It is far from my mind to believe that something like what I am about to mention is consciously present in Dr. Rabel. But it works in her, as in every opponent, that which Dr. Steiner just said underlies all opponents' actions. And we should pay attention to this fact. Dr. Steiner said that it is of the utmost importance to know the limits of the different states of consciousness and not to blur them. One must not carry dream consciousness into the sense world, nor what is right for the sense world into the supersensible world. One must change one's way of thinking when moving from one realm to the other. But that is precisely what Dr. Rabel does not do. What she does not understand in Dr. Steiner's work and attitude is because she uses the same habits of judgment and forms of thinking that are right for the field of ordinary science, but she also wants to include what belongs to the spiritual realm of the supersensible. Of course, this would have to be shown sentence by sentence, but one could show that Dr. Steiner's lecture answers point by point what he himself has to say about Dr. Rabel's objections, with the exception, of course, of the quotations that have been put forward, but otherwise really everything. You see, what Dr. Rabel cannot properly observe is what we call the right crossing of the threshold, that is, the actual demand of reality that one must have a different way of behaving in the sensual than in the supersensible. She says: I can sympathize with the religious, but not with the scientific. She also sees a separation between these fields. But what is the reason that forces her to speak of double bookkeeping? The reason is that she does not bring to consciousness the act that a human being must perform when crossing the threshold from one to the other in the right way. Therefore, she does not understand why Dr. Steiner behaves in one way in one area and in a completely opposite way in another area, even for the different areas of life or the objects of knowledge. For her, the areas stand side by side, and she would like to embrace them all in one way or keep double books for them, instead of recognizing the metamorphosis as factually grounded in the area. That is where the difficulty lies for her, and she does not have the right understanding for it. Nor does she have the right understanding for what Dr. Steiner discussed today: tolerance. For the essence of tolerance is that one always speaks from the heart of the matter. When Dr. Steiner arrives at certain forms of judgment in his essays in the 'Magazin', he does so on the basis of very definite presuppositions, and these must be taken into account.

I have repeatedly tried, and really tried in good faith, to make it clear to Dr. Rabel how things stand in this area. But the misunderstanding is surely due to the fact that two basic conditions have not been sufficiently taken into account.

1. As Dr. Steiner explained, the consideration of the changeover when crossing the threshold between the sensory world and the supersensible world.
2. The consideration of the changeover when moving from one area of fact to another.

Of course, all the sentences that were read by Dr. Rabel and that are quoted in the “Magazin für Litteratur” are written in such a way that Dr. Steiner could write them down today word for word exactly as they are there. For when he rejected Christianity there, he did not mean the Christianity that he later presented in his spiritual scientific works, but rather he wanted to show how he had to reject at that time the Christianity that was known at that time as the only one in the world: namely, the Christianity of Christian theologians. And these theologians reject Dr. Steiner today just as much with what they call Christianity as they reject him. So I don't see how there could be any change in Dr. Steiner's position. There is none in the sense that Dr. Rabel suggests. It is simply a matter of getting fully involved in the matter and judging it from that point of view. Then one understands Dr. Steiner, understands his behavior, and does not speak of sleight of hand out of one's own lack of understanding. But for us anthroposophists, something else is important. We must be vigilant in our society in the future. And vigilance also means noticing this powerful phenomenon, which consists of Dr. Steiner's appearance and self-defense in his lecture, and the fact that the accusation is brought forward with the demand that Dr. Steiner be forced to make a statement, to defend himself.

Evening Session:

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, opens the meeting.

Dr. Hans Theberath, Stuttgart: If Dr. Rabel sees something dangerous in anthroposophical science, she cannot be referring to my atomic essays, since Dr. Steiner himself described these essays as anti-anthroposophical. However, there is no reason to oppose anthroposophical science on the basis of these essays.

Dr. Steiner has not denied the existence of atoms in the past either, but only opposed interpreting atoms into phenomena. Therefore, I referred this alleged change of heart by Dr. Steiner to the realm of myth.

Dr. Rabel asks what those gentlemen who did not believe in atoms in the past are doing now. I do not know, because I have always believed in the existence of atoms. [See Notes below.]

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: I would just like to say a few words about the fact that the events that have taken place here in the Anthroposophical Society are connected with the destruction of the Goetheanum. It has been repeatedly emphasized here that all these events are completely independent of the Dornach catastrophe, since the origins of this crisis go back to December 10, when the aforementioned conversation with Mr. Uehli took place. It is necessary to emphasize this in view of the misunderstandings that could arise if one speaks ironically about matters that should be most sacred in the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot allow ourselves to be treated in this way.¹¹

In response to the polemic in the “Drei”, I would like to say that Dr. Rabel's essay has been accepted and will appear at the same time as an essay of mine that will attempt to lead this entire polemic out of the deadlock in which it has been mired.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: The words spoken by Dr. Rabel in her “Farewell Address to the Anthroposophical Society” vividly reminded me of what Dr. Rittelmeyer said during the conference when we were dealing with the question of opponents. He said that we must achieve a situation in which the many people of good will who, although they could not profess anthroposophy themselves, consciously had the attitude: “But it is something whose seriousness and high striving we have recognized too clearly to allow it to be destroyed by wickedness,” that they, as a ‘league of decent people,’ could be a wall around the movement. Well, I could feel that Dr. Rabel belongs to such people, and I sincerely hope that she will continue to belong to them! And we can be grateful that, among all the muck and filth of opponents, we were able to hear a person who has really tried to engage with anthroposophy.

I would like to address two points in Dr. Rabel's words: first, Dr. Steiner's article from the “Magazin”, and then the atomic theory.

With very few exceptions, which are also known to the public, I was previously unaware of any of the passages quoted by Dr. Rabel from the “Magazin”. However, I immediately noticed the exclusivity with which Dr. Steiner refers to the actual results of sensory research. In those articles he does not once acknowledge the mental speculations about the background of the phenomena of the senses! And conversely: at the very latest scientific course at the last turn of the year in Dornach, the call went through Dr. Steiner's entire cycle to recognize the tremendous results of sensory research, yes, it is to be redeemed at all from their sleep of magic, in which the intellectualism has banned, by spiritual research methods! If, therefore, we look closely, we see that the opposite of the alleged 'break in world-view' is the case. Nevertheless, we may perhaps wonder at first why Dr. Steiner once championed with such energy the world-view that had emerged from Darwinism. When I heard Dr. Steiner's words for the first time, as I said, I had a wonderful experience. I realized what a situation he was in with regard to a world view. And it cannot be better described than with Nietzsche's words, which he used in the speeches “On the Future of Our Educational Institutions”, already quoted on another occasion, where he talks about the grammar school. In the few words that I will quote, all you have to do is replace the word “grammar school” with “ruling world view”. With this change, the passage reads:

"We both know the prevailing worldview; do you also believe, for example, with regard to this, that the old tenacious habits could be broken up with honesty and good new ideas? Here, in fact, it is not a hard wall that protects against the battering rams of an attack, but rather the most fatal tenacity and slippery nature of all principles. The attacker does not have a visible and solid opponent to crush: this opponent is rather masked, able to transform himself into a hundred forms and in one of them to escape the gripping attack and always confuse the attacker anew through cowardly yielding and tenacious rebounding."

That was the terrible situation in which Dr. Steiner found himself at the time! No one before Haeckel had had the courage to be a materialist not only on weekdays but also on Sundays! A muggy, soft haze obscured the view of the consequences of the life of knowledge. Dr. Steiner's words swept in like a fresh spring wind. A viscous paste of philistine mental and spiritual laziness was spread by the spiritually dominant class around everything. And if Dr. Steiner saw it as his task to break down the wall of materialism, then he himself had to first help harden and erect this viscous mass into a wall. But what was the hardening agent? Consistency! Dr. Steiner first had to force the world to be consistent! No call for spiritual consistency could find resonance without materialistic consistency. And that is what is so close to the hearts of us young people, the consistency of thinking, feeling and morality that the world still does not know! And so those decades-old words of Dr. Steiner are said precisely from the heart to us youngest in the Anthroposophical Society!

And now to the controversy over the atomic theory, which Dr. Steiner has so vigorously opposed of late. What has happened here, and what has Dr. Steiner, and in fact every anthroposophist, had to oppose? In the discussions as they were conducted in the “Drei”, our scientists allowed themselves to be drawn by Dr. Rabel from the field of anthroposophy into their own field, instead of forcing them to enter the anthroposophical field! The whole battle was not at all in the anthroposophical field, but in the intellectual field! For they have fought with proofs. Just during the conference, we were able to hear again from Dr. Steiner what is to be thought of “proofs” in the field of anthroposophy. One can actually “prove” every assertion and its opposite: it just depends on one's attitude! Dr. Rabel cannot be refuted because she is right! Anyone who tries to refute her by providing evidence is wrong!

An example from a different area that I recently experienced can shed a bright light on the point at issue here. An anti-Semitic publishing house has issued a pamphlet entitled “Moses, a dynamiter and manufacturer of explosives!” It claims that Moses was a great initiate. The initiatic system consisted of certain personalities having power over the higher forces of nature. The higher forces of nature are those that have been accessible to all people since the dawn of the scientific age: the physical and chemical energies. There are no others. This explains the fire on Sinai, the untouchability of the Ark of the Covenant, etc., etc. Moses instilled in the Jewish people a fear of God by means of fireworks and the like, by which he could make himself their lord, and under the lying sign of which all Jewish development has stood since then. Etc.! Here then we have the strange fact that this book, just as we do, calls Moses a “great initiate”! But the terrible thing is that it is right in its conclusions if one asserts: there are only material energies! Can the opposite be proved? No! Two world-views are confronting each other: both call Moses a great initiate, one recognizes only material forces, the other also supersensible ones; one comes to the conclusion that Moses was a swindling explosive bomb manufacturer, the other sees in him a messenger of the gods! What alone can bring the decision here? Only by pursuing these trains of thought to the point where they become moral, where they touch on human value and human dignity. And there it shows that if you try to experience yourself in the stream of becoming human with all the consequences, with the attitude of those books, you can't do anything but hang yourself from the nearest window nail, while the other attitude lets you carry your head higher, makes your step more proud and yet lets humility and love prevail in your heart! Only in this way does Anthroposophy “prove” itself!

And only in this way can Dr. Rabel prove the validity or invalidity of the atomic theory. She continues to assert it, to pursue it, to teach it, because it is her duty, as long as she has not experienced “the other”! But she never will, as long as she is attacked where she is right by herself! Rather, I call out to her in farewell: “You spoke of your religious feeling, to which anthroposophy is so sympathetic. Now I ask you from the bottom of my heart: Go through the coming decades of your life with an ever clearer view of the souls of the people you meet! Become more and more alert in these experiences! Take them deeper and deeper into your heart and let them grow and grow in the warmth of your religious feeling! And when you begin to suffer from the fact that it is increasingly cold and unworldly souls that may still be interested in your atomic theory, but that all those whose nature you affirm from the bottom of your heart will call out to you more and more: Oh, how I suffer from your atomic theory, how it kills my noblest, how I freeze in the coldness of your science! Where, where is the science in whose warming light the flower of my life can flourish! — When these calls will resound to you, shaking you to the marrow of your life, then perhaps the reality of the atomic theory will prove itself to you!"

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer of Stuttgart, speaking on behalf of the religious movement, first expressed his deepest gratitude to Dr. Steiner for the tremendous benefit to life that he has provided to humanity through his help and advice in this movement, in the most selfless purity and greatness. He then also thanked the anthroposophists, who have prepared the way by their voluntary support in the movement's first most difficult days. In many places, it has not yet been possible to reach non-anthroposophical circles, for which one is determined to work. Also, before Dr. Steiner's Dornach lecture, Steiner's lecture in Dornach, the dangers that arise particularly from the new movement of the Anthroposophical Society were not sufficiently perceived, both in that financial help is withdrawn from it, and in that the satisfaction of human community needs in the cultic community distracts many from the Society, and above all in that many exchange the path of knowledge, which they once embarked upon, for the more beneficial path of cult. The Christian Community cannot take pleasure in Anthroposophical members who neglect their financial responsibility to the Anthroposophical Society in favor of the Christian Community, or who cannot find a way to remain fully loyal to their path of knowledge. On the other hand, he asks the Anthroposophists to regard those members of the Christian Community who, now or in the future, wish to work with both movements out of their own free will and with knowledge of the material, as fully Anthroposophical, since the cult offers many opportunities for inner participation and does not necessarily have to be celebrated only by emotionally immersing oneself in it, which is certainly un-Anthroposophical, but also spiritually, not soul-like and passive, but spiritually, actively. He further asked the Anthroposophists never to expect any special privileges as members of the Anthroposophical Society in the Christian Community, since the new movement must place itself on an equal footing with all people if it is to fight its way through successfully. And finally, Dr. Rittelmeyer asked for ongoing support in the The Christian Community finding the people it needs, and for inner understanding and support in the tremendously difficult task it has to fulfill.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart: Mr. Weishaar did not speak this morning. However, it is extremely important to me to do and say what I consider necessary on my own initiative, so that in the future, as far as my relationship with the Kerning group and its leader, Miss Völker, is concerned, there will be no further misunderstandings. I regret that remnants may still be apparent from a time when it was necessary to make a point of distancing myself from the Theosophical Society and to act against various phenomena that were connected with the unjustified mysticism or mystical eccentricity in the Anthroposophical Society. Perhaps I sometimes overshot the mark. But as far as my relationship with the group and its leader is concerned, I would like to emphasize that for many years I have always advocated that the fully-fledged working method of this working group and its efforts to carry out this work in a closed circle must be respected. As for my personal relationship, I can only say that I have known Ms. Völker for many years, that we have been together frequently and have discussed anthroposophical matters, and that I hope this will continue to happen in the future.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart: Miss Völker cannot yet be completely satisfied with these explanations. But I do not want to bother the assembly with this. I would like to hand over the whole matter to the new central committee for further action and hand over the relevant files to them.

A distinction must be made between the personal relationship between Ms. Völker and Dr. Unger. In this regard, Ms. Völker is completely satisfied and in agreement with what Dr. Unger has said. But we must also consider another point of view: that Fräulein Völker, as the chair of an old working group, is on one side and Dr. Unger, as a member of the old central committee, is on the other. It is therefore necessary to provide clarification with regard to matters that need to be addressed; but the matter will then be settled.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart: Lecture on “The Opponents” [see references below]

Our opponents want to block the source from which spiritual knowledge flows. Because they consciously or unconsciously serve a current of spiritual world view that believes the publication of spiritual knowledge must be prevented. The first sentence in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is: “There are abilities slumbering in every human being through which he can acquire knowledge of higher worlds.” This is the voice of a school of thought that wants to include all people in the transcendental knowledge, who want to attain such knowledge themselves or want to know how others attain it. In this way, anthroposophy documents itself as a spiritual path that cannot include any aspirations to power. Power arises from knowledge that is withheld from others. The schools of thought that have aspirations to power have a different cosmic goal than the school of thought that wants to develop freedom and love for all beings.

To give you an idea of what the unfolding of these effects is based on, the following should be presented to you: In his book “Exercitia spiritualia”, Ignatius of Loyola gives the following meditation: “Imagine Lucifer planting his standard on a desolate rock near Babylon, where everything is in the greatest confusion and turmoil; how he sends the demons into the world to lure human souls to follow him. Christ, on the other hand, planted the cross banner in a field near Jerusalem, where everything is at its most beautiful and peaceful; he sends out his holy “soul zealots” to invite the whole world to follow him, with the assurance that everyone who swears obedience to the cross banner, patiently endures contempt and suffering, will possess his heavenly kingdom for all eternity. Here you have initially placed two images, which will be discussed in more detail in a moment. Both show that we are dealing with a spiritual-military organization that is not based on freedom but on obedience. This obedience even extends to the ability to comprehend: “[...] it cannot be denied that obedience includes not only the execution – that one does what is commanded – and not only the will – that one does it willingly –; but also the judgment, so that everything the superior commands and judges appears both right and true to the subordinate, so that, as I said, with his strength, the will is able to bend the power of judgment.” (Quote from a letter by Ignatius of Loyola from April 1553. Cf. ‘Jesuitica’ by Roman Boos, Dreigliederungszeitung No. 40, April 1920.) So we are dealing here with a spiritual-military organization that exerts power deep into the innermost being of the human being. But now let us see – let us see by means of an historical example – how such power works. In Schiller's 'Thirty Years' War', in the first book, we read about Ferdinand II that he was educated and taught by Jesuits at the Academy of Ingolstadt. And then it says: “On the one hand, he was shown the indulgence of the Maximilian princes towards the followers of the new doctrine and the confusion in their lands, and on the other hand, the blessing of Bavaria and the relentless religious zeal of its rulers; he was given the choice between these two examples.” Here you have a historical example of how a prince received a meditation, the effectiveness of which is proven by the course of history. That was the case during the Thirty Years' War. At that time, it was necessary to eradicate a spiritual current that can be symptomatically grasped in the work of Comenius, which was entitled Pansophia. Why did Comenius call what he represented a pansophia? Because he wanted to create a wisdom for all people. He was moved by the same impulse to which the first sentence in “How to Know Higher Worlds” refers: he wanted to address what lives in every human being. That is why he spoke of a pansophia. It has been eradicated by impulses that have already been characterized.

In our age, however, people speak differently. They say to young Solothurn: “Gather together! Storm the Goetheanum!” (See “Das Goetheanum” of January 7, 1923.) These words were spoken at a meeting of Catholic associations from Dornach, Arlesheim and Reinach. It was in the afternoon of September 19, 1920 at the Hotel Ochsen in Dornach-Brugg. The speaker at this meeting was Pastor Kully. A brochure written by this pastor Kully and directed against Anthroposophy concludes with the words: Christus vincit / Christus regnat / Christus imperat.

It is not without significance that another book, the Jesuit Baumgartner's biography of Goethe, ends with the same words. I characterized the book in a lecture that was then printed in issue 8 of “Die Drei”, November 1921, first year of publication. No one would want to compare the two-volume, gold-edged, painstakingly and scientifically written biography of Goethe with Pastor Kully's pamphlet. But both books serve the same impulse. It is significant that they end with the same words. One book is directed against Goethe, the other against everything that comes from the Goetheanum. Goethe's true nature is overlooked and denied. What he himself fought against is presented as his true nature. And this is because they want something very specific in the world. Goetheanism, Pansophy, Anthroposophy have their enemies. Because they address everyone, and that must not be. For higher knowledge should be possessed only by a few, to whom the many owe obedience, obedience graduated in degree. And that is to be achieved by a spirit-military system. And the reflection of this system? Where is it? There is also a militarization of economic life. The extreme end of this is Bolshevism. What was it invented for, for example, to organize the working class? Why teach them party opinions? Because there are powers that want to eradicate individual judgment and free will. In theory, this lives as a will in the materialistic conception of history, and in practice in everything that this conception of history, which is as one-sided as can be, increasingly makes the only correct one. The mirror image of a world view built on freedom and love is an associative economy in which one selflessly sacrifices one's life experience to the other, thereby renouncing any display of power, as it lives, for example, in competitive struggle. But a militarized spiritual life is reflected in a militarized economy. However different the things of the world often are, if you look deeply enough, very dissimilar things reveal a power. We could also learn a lot from the lectures given by Father Muckermann S.J. here in Stuttgart. He spoke about scientific problems. The undertone of his remarks was that science should be a mere physical science. As such, it is rightly materialistic. But science finds its limits everywhere. Beyond these limits, the Church rules. It administers souls just as science administers the body. There is no need to talk about the spirit today. It was abolished in 869. Materialistic science serves the same impulses as the Church, which administers souls. The two belong together. If science dared to embrace body, soul and spirit, then the souls would begin to govern themselves. Therefore, there must be no spiritual science. There must only be physical science. That is, materialistic natural science is needed. It serves the same impulse as all the striving for power already mentioned.

In the lectures that Dr. Steiner gave in Dornach on Thomas Aquinas, it is clearly shown how Goetheanism and Anthroposophy are straightforward continuations of what was present as realism in the Middle Ages. And in brief summary, what can be said about the position of anthroposophy in relation to Catholicism can be found in the first part of the writing “The Smear Campaign Against the Goetheanum”. There, especially on pages 24 and 25, it is shown how fully in line the methodology of the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is with what the most orthodox Catholicism has declared to be correct. Nevertheless, the Catholic side declares, as does Father Zimmermann SJ, for example, that anthroposophy is incompatible with true Catholicism. There, anthroposophy is also deliberately mixed with Anglo-Indian theosophy and presented as gnosticism and all sorts of other things. In reality, however, all sorts of things have been incorporated into Catholicism that are certainly not Christian. For example, the doctrine of the eternity of hell punishments is Aristotelian and not Christian. To prove this, I quote Brentano's words here, with which he reproduces Aristotle's teaching on page 146 of his book on Aristotle and his world view: '[...] When the departed human spirits behold the plan of the world and see themselves interwoven with their life on earth, one recognizes himself as identical with one who practices the noble, and another with one who accomplishes ignoble deeds. The knowledge they attain is at the same time an eternal, glorifying or condemning judgment of the world. .. ."

Likewise, the doctrine of creatianism is Aristotelian. This doctrine consists in denying pre-existence and thinking that the higher human being that descends into the incarnation is created by God at the time of procreation. Likewise, the mass is largely a continuation of Egyptian initiation rituals. Thus a close examination would show how Catholicism contains within itself elements that are older pre-Christian spiritual material, partly of oriental origin. The assertions that say similar things about anthroposophy are not only wrong, but project onto anthroposophy precisely that which is characteristic of the accuser himself. Anthroposophy has something of a mirror in itself. The opponent sees himself in it and, by supposedly describing anthroposophy, sketches his own portrait. Anthroposophy does indeed teach pre-existence. In doing so, it goes against the Council of 869. The aim of the latter was to eradicate the spirit. All orientalism, which always pointed to the prenatal, was covered up by Aristotelianism. Only the after-death could be talked about. This also applies to Protestant theologians. They began by appealing to the soul's egoism. The soul has an interest in outliving death, but not in having existed before. A kind of horror of the prenatal, spiritual, cosmic realm emerged, from which the soul descends into birth. This horror can be clearly observed, for example, in Professor Traub. He is afraid that the ethical significance of the mystery of Golgotha will be lost if its cosmic significance is brought to the fore. This fear is based on an important fact. This fact will be demonstrated by means of a symptomatic case. Thomas More presented the results of supersensible experiences in his work Utopia (= non-locality). He describes how Egyptian and Roman ways come to his island, but not Christianity. That is, Thomas More must form the opinion through the experiences he has that in the supersensible world he describes, Christ is not to be found. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has beatified Thomas More. So the paths of those who are beatified into the higher worlds are such that they do not find Christ there. So one can understand that a kind of horror develops before entering the supersensible world. There are reasons for it when on one side the spiritual cosmos, from which Christ once descended to earth or from which the soul descends into birth, must be thought of as being incompatible with ethics or morals. And one must understand why one needed Aristotelianism from this side, which denies pre-existence. In this case, which Dr. Steiner pointed out, one can see that certain realities underlie the horrors of the opponents, which do not have to be conscious to all those who have such horror.

Another thing became clear to me in a long conversation I once had with our opponent Gogarten. He had a different horror. He took offense at the fact that we interpose hierarchies between God and people. From what Gogarten told me, I had to assume that he had inner experiences. He described how he felt united with God, indeed experienced it. He described God. If I apply his description to what we know, I would have to say that he described what we call an angel. Now we have to understand Gogarten. We do not insert hierarchies between angels and humans either. We also believe that the angel stands directly above the human being. But we do not worship this being, which is so close to man. For the angel is, after all, the higher self of man, and each person has his own special angel. So if someone prays to his angel, he would worship a god that is not the general god of man. The result would be self-idolatry, and besides, everyone would have their god and someone else would have theirs.

You see, but these are again things that one accuses anthroposophy of. It promotes self-redemption, yes, self-deification. There are already such things, Dr. Steiner has also pointed this out - but they are not to be found in anthroposophy. If you say something about anthroposophy – that it is this or that – and it isn't, then it is just some thought form that people think, and so it must come from somewhere. Usually, those who claim something about anthroposophy that is not true attach to anthroposophy something that characterizes them. So Anthroposophy is a being that defends itself, with a shield that shines brightly, that reflects, that holds out its true face to everyone. And when you see the true face in the mirror, then you know how all our opponents are striving towards the same goal.

They live in a spiritual cosmos that they consider immoral because the Christ does not appear to them in this spiritual cosmos, or because they do not want him to appear through the paths they take. Therefore, they deny the entire prenatal spiritual world, or at least want to admit only a few into it. They lay claim to the souls for an earthly church. They teach a mere physical science and shape social economic life in such

that initiative of the will weakens and individuality dies. And over this a network of power is organized. Where does this lead? It leads to the fact that after the spirit and soul have been killed, mere bodily automatons remain, without judgment, without their own will, subordinated to higher ones, whom they obey. A subhuman race, directed and led by one or more directing group souls. They want to encircle the Earth, the Earth that will one day disintegrate into dust, and eternalize it and populate it with those subhuman beings. That is a terrible cosmic goal. They are all working towards it, consciously or unconsciously. Then the Earth's goal will be gone. Then no Jupiter development will be possible.

These powers that strive for this create a fog. A fog in which error and truth become indistinguishable. Flocks of thoughts and emotions swirl in this fog. Snatches of quotes and thoughts, enveloped in what instincts can provide as a cover, an elementary flood of fog, sweeps around the earth. In this fog, power is born. All dishonest power is based on campaigns of lies. These power instincts today arise from all kinds of group souls. Family and racial souls stand up against the movement that is based on the individuality struggling for freedom. Anthroposophy fights for a cosmic goal. Last time I was able to show you how the Zeitgeist wants to take hold of our society, today I must point to the spirit of the planet. Anthroposophy fights for the future of the earth. Its shield shines brightly, its sword flashes brightly. But this sword is the word of truth, which unfolds no power that rules, which develops love that forms. Those who fight for the future of the Earth must feel themselves to be knights not of the sword but of the word. For heaven and Earth will pass away, even if dark forces seek to perpetuate what should become dust – but the word of truth will remain if we feel responsible for the evolution and future of the Earth and humanity through love for all beings who are human beings and fellow human beings.

Rector Moritz Bartsch, Breslau: Dr. Rabel said that we are too dependent on the authority of Dr. Steiner in our views and decisions. We faithfully accept everything from him, do not see the contradictions in his work, etc. Is that right? Are we so unfree as people or do we have a different concept of freedom than many people today? Well, many of you will have felt the same way I did. If you take a superficial look at Steiner's works, you will initially come across contradictions. Many years ago, I asked Dr. Steiner about this myself. Dr. Steiner is a true modern educationalist. He does not point the facts out to you, but expects you to make an effort to find the solution to the riddle yourself. Dr. Steiner also pointed out to me that if I understood such sayings in context, I would recognize that there are no real contradictions. I did so, and after years of arduous searching I succeeded in finding the red, uninterrupted thread of development in Steiner's career: the “contradictions” dissolved. Today it is almost incomprehensible to me how one could once be so foolish, so terribly superficial. In the introductions to Goethe's scientific writings, which were written by Dr. Steiner as early as the 1880s, the idea of communion with the world spirit in the act of knowledge is put forward, among other things. In my defense, however, I must say that I had not yet studied these books at the time. — When studying spiritual science, one has strange experiences in general. Our intellectually steeped consciousness initially finds it quite difficult to understand Steiner; since we see ourselves as very clever people, we consider the spiritual-scientific writings to be unclear, confused or foolish and wrong. Over time, however, we realize that such obscure passages express very profound truths. One realizes that Fichte is right when he says that a person must be born or educated to philosophize. Indeed, a person must mature to receive the truth. One must recognize, as Fichte did, that a person's world view is what he is like. Wisdom alone knows nothing of the content of the world; thinking only provides the form for the idea content of being. In order to be able to receive it, a person must purify his character, and above all, he must have respect and reverence for the wisdom of the world. The path from modesty to reverence can be found by experiencing one's own maturing during the study of Steiner's writings and by realizing that the limits of one's own knowledge are not yet the limits of knowledge for all people, that there are spirits with much broader horizons than one's own. One becomes modest and grateful to people whose horizon extends beyond the portals of the beyond into the supersensible world. In the presence of such a person, a feeling of reverence arises as a human matter of course. And is it such a great crime for modern man to learn to look up to a greater being again, to be cured of his self-important subjectivism!? Does he thereby surrender his freedom? Not at all! Even today I have a completely free relationship with Dr. Steiner. I represent that part of spiritual science that I have made my own through years of work, and what I do not yet understand, I leave for the time being in the hope that I may yet mature to these deeper truths. Of course, before one has gained this point of view, one sometimes fears for one's independence. I once had a conversation with Dr. Steiner about this matter years ago. I believed that I would become somewhat dependent on representing Steiner's spiritual ideas in lectures. But I was persuaded that in the spiritual realm it is similar to the physical plane: the farmer did not produce the field, but he regards what he produces on it through his labor as his own. Spiritual wealth is also given to the majority of people by a few creative minds; what the individual acquires through his own efforts he may regard as his own. Today man has a false concept of freedom. He seeks it in that subjectivism which believes it knows everything better and criticizes everything. But only the person who has made the content of the world his own, and allows it to become the motivation for his actions, is truly free. Such a person follows his own path and is allowed to follow it; he is free. But this freedom is not achieved through arrogance, but through humility. Sophia only condescends to the one who worships her. — One can see: our worship of Dr. Steiner does not lead to bondage, on the contrary, it is the forerunner of true freedom. — The speaker then humorously comments on the youth movement and declares his approval of the election to the board of the Free Anthroposophical Society.

Final words from Mr. Emil Leinhas

(The event cost an awful lot of money... there are baskets set up outside for collecting money.

The committee has made a decision: to provide a report on this assembly of delegates shortly in the form of a newsletter that can then be made available to all members.

I believe that we are all convinced that we have lived through an important piece of the history of the Anthroposophical Society together during these days. After the intense preparations that have taken place, we entered the delegates' meeting with anxious concerns. And the delegates' meeting itself proved that these concerns were not unfounded. And if we emerged unscathed from some of the chaos that occurred, we owe that primarily to the fact that Dr. Steiner himself intervened in the right way at the right moment. We must therefore express our gratitude to him for his active help at the end of this delegates' meeting. If we can look to the future with joyful confidence, it is thanks first and foremost to Dr. Steiner's intervention.

We also thank Dr. Steiner and the eurythmists who contributed to the fact that not only unpleasant things were dispelled but that there was also the opportunity to find recreation in the realm of art and beauty.

Thanks on behalf of the committee to the various speakers, who, whether they received more or less applause, made a sincere effort to deliver their presentation.

Thanks also to the speakers in the discussion, who have ensured that things have got into a certain flow here. In addition to the speakers, we must not forget the delegates and members who have come here and who have made an effort to endure a great deal as hosts. We must give special thanks to the youth, who, through their intervention, have brought a certain freshness and liveliness into the deliberations of the Anthroposophical Society for the first time. May they retain this, for there are some signs of it.

It is still the most beautiful society in the world, one of our friends told me yesterday, and his joy was evident despite all the clouds. Another friend from out of town said, “Yes, when I was here in the summer, my throat felt like it was tied up, that was because of the icy air; but now I have hope again.

This gathering has had some success after all. May it also have the effect that an understanding of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society takes root in all our hearts and souls in the right way. May there not only be understanding, but may the will be ignited to fulfill the tasks. A start must be made, then the right action will also be found through the work. The progress of the work cannot come out of discussions and deliberations, but only by finding the strength in the work itself and through the work itself for ever greater and more extensive work.

The blessing must lie in the doing, not in talking about what others have to do. The doing itself, not talking, but working, should be our task. If we look at things this way, we can look forward to the future with joy.

May we all look up to our cause with great enthusiasm, and also to the example set before us, which can give us courage and strength in the face of the difficult tasks that lie ahead. May this conference help to make it very real in all our hearts, so that we all say and feel, not only when we are together here, but also when we go out to our work, that our work must be ennobled by the conviction that we represent the most glorious cause in the world today.

With that, I declare the meeting closed.

Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger, Dr. phil. Walter Johannes Stein *

• 1. “Anthroposophie” and “Die Drei”
• 2. They were: 1) Mr. Hans Kühn, 2) Mr. Walter Kühne, 3) Mr. Ernst Uehli.
• 3. See page 463 of this volume.
• 9. The passage quoted here from ‘Magazin für Literatur’ can be found in the article ”Charles Lyell. On the 100th anniversary of his birth], Magazin für Literatur 1897, No. 47 [today in GA 30], and reads:
  ”...I cannot speak of Lyell or Darwin without thinking of Haeckel. All three belong together. What Lyell and Darwin began, Haeckel continued. He expanded it in the full knowledge that he was serving not only the scientific need but also the religious consciousness of mankind. He is the most modern spirit because his world view is no longer tainted by old prejudices, as was still the case with Darwin, for example. He is the most modern thinker because he sees in the natural the only field of thought, and he is the most modern feeler because he wants life to be arranged according to the natural. We know that he celebrates the anniversary of Lyell's birthday with us because for him it must be the day that brought the one founder of the new world view. The festive day that is celebrated in honor of Lyell makes us realize that we belong to the Haeckel community. When Haeckel talks to us about the processes of nature, every word has a secondary meaning for us that is related to our feelings. He is at the helm; he is steering hard. Even if at some point we don't want to go where he is taking us, he still has the direction we want to take. He has received the rudder from Lyell and Darwin; they could not have given it to anyone better. He will hand it over to others who will lead in his direction. And our community will sail swiftly forward, leaving behind the helpless ferrymen of the old worldviews. These are the ideas that the 14th of November, on which Lyell's birthday was celebrated for the hundredth time, has stirred in me."
  In a lecture at the Stuttgart Anthroposophical Congress on September 1, 1921 (reprinted in ‘The Three’, 2nd year, issue 7/8) [today in GA 78] Dr. Steiner said the following about the passage quoted above:
  "And when I had to write in 1897, on the hundredth birthday of Lyell, a founder of the modern scientific-monistic way of thinking, Haeckel also stood before me alive in the soul's eye. A community appeared to me in spirit that could be capable of continuing the process of living in nature, which can be found in the line of spirits from Lyell to Haeckel, in the direction in which it must be continued. That is why I wrote for this ideal community, which should seek the path that had just begun with Haeckel's monism, those words which, if understood correctly, can suggest that with this monism, a wall has now been crossed, beyond which one must no longer return to earlier times if one does not want to deal with the decline of if one wishes to deal with the rising, not the declining, forces of human evolution. Yes, my dear ladies and gentlemen, we must advance from this monism; we must never go back to the old worldviews that have been overcome by this monism. That is why I wrote the words at the time: Even if in some places we do not want to immediately move past the one he leads us to (namely Haeckel) – nobody can do that when anthroposophy is germinating in their soul – he still has the direction we want to take; he has taken the rudder from Lyell's and Darwin's hands, they could not have given it to a better person, and our community is sailing forward quickly! Yes, may it absorb into itself the strict scientific spirit that true natural research has brought forth, and may it quickly advance into those depths of world existence that lie in the supersensible and yet can only be fathomed by supersensible research!"
• 10. Magazin für Litteratur 1898, pag. 310. [Today in GA 33, page 129.]
• 11. This protest was directed particularly against Dr. Rabel's statement that Dr. Steiner “made wise use” of the burning of the Goetheanum and “took it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and inner reflection”.

At the end of the two public lectures I have given in this city, I emphasized that anthroposophy should not be considered a theory or mere science, nor as knowledge in the ordinary sense. It is rather something that grows in our souls from mere knowledge and theory into immediate life, into an elixir of life. In this way, anthroposophy not only provides us with knowledge, but we receive forces that help us in our ordinary lives during physical existence as well as in the total life that we spend during physical existence and the non-physical existence between death and a new birth. The more we experience anthroposophy as bringing to us strength, support and life renewing energies, the more do we understand it.

Upon hearing this, some may ask, “If anthroposophy is to bring us a strengthening of life, why do we have to acquire so much of what appears to be theoretical knowledge? Why are we virtually pestered at our branch meetings with descriptions about the preceding planetary evolutions of our earth? Why do we have to learn about things that took place long ago? Why do we have to acquaint ourselves with the intimate and subtle laws of reincarnation, karma and so on?”

Some people may believe that they are being offered just another science. This problem, which forces itself upon us, demands that we eliminate all easy and simplistic approaches toward answering it. We must carefully ask ourselves whether, in raising this question, we are not introducing into it some of the easy-going ways of life that become manifest when we are reluctant to learn and to acquire something in a spiritual way. This is an uncomfortable experience for us and we are forced to wonder whether something of this attitude of discomfort does not find expression in the question that is being asked. As it is, we are led to believe that the highest goal that anthroposophy may offer us can be attained on easier roads than on that taken by us through our own literature.

It is often said, almost nonchalantly, that man has only to know himself, that all he has to do in order to be an anthroposophist is to be good. Yes, it is profound wisdom to know that to be a good person is one of the most difficult tasks, and that nothing in life demands more in the way of preparation than the realization of this ideal to be good. The problem of self-knowledge, however, cannot be solved with a quick answer, as many are inclined to believe. Therefore, today, we will shed light on some of these questions that have been raised. We then will come to see how anthroposophy meets us, even if only by appearance, as a teaching or as a science, but that it also offers in an eminent sense a path toward self- knowledge and what may be called the pilgrimage toward becoming a good person. To accomplish this we must consider from different points of view how anthroposophy can be fruitful in life.

Let us take a specific question that does not concern scientific research, but everyday life—a question known to all of us. How can we find comfort in life when we have to suffer in one way or another, when we fail to find satisfaction in life? In other words, let us ask ourselves how anthroposophy can offer comfort and consolation when it is really needed. Obviously, what can be said here only in general terms must always be applied to one's own individual case. If one lectures to many people, one can only speak in generalities.

Why do we need comfort, consolation in life? Because we may be sad about a number of events, or because we suffer as a result of pains that afflict us. It is natural that, at first, man reacts to pain as though he is rebelling inwardly against it. He wonders why he has to stand pain. “Why am I afflicted by this pain? Why is life not arranged for me in such a way that I don't suffer pain, that I am content?” These questions can only be answered satisfactorily on the basis of true knowledge concerning the nature of human karma, of human destiny. Why do we suffer in the world? We refer here to outer as well as to inner sufferings that arise in our psychic organization and leave us unfulfilled. Why are we met by such experiences that leave us unsatisfied?

In pursuing the laws of karma, we shall discover that the underlying reasons for suffering are similar to what can be described by the following example relating to the ordinary life between birth and death. Let us assume that a youngster has lived until his eighteenth year at the expense of his father. Then the father loses all his wealth and goes into bankruptcy. The young man must now learn something worthwhile and make an effort to support himself. As a result, life hits him with pain and privation. It is quite understandable that he does not react sympathetically to the pain that he has to go through.

Let us now turn to the period when he has reached the age of fifty. Since, by the necessity of events, he had to educate himself at an early age, he has become a decent person. He has found a real foothold in life. He realizes why he reacted negatively to pain and suffering when it first hit him, but now he must think differently about it. He must say to himself that the suffering would not have come to him if he had already acquired a sense of maturity—at least, to the limited degree than an eighteen year old can attain one. If he had not been afflicted by pain, he would have remained a good-for-nothing. It was the pain that transformed his shortcomings into positive abilities. He must owe it to the pain that he has become a different man in the course of forty years. What was really brought together at that time? His shortcomings and his pain were brought together. His shortcomings actually sought pain in order that his immaturity might be removed by being transformed into maturity.

Even a simple consideration of life between birth and death can lead to this view. If we look at the totality of life, however, and if we face our karma as it has been explained in the lecture two days ago, we will come to the conclusion that all pain that hits us, that all suffering that comes our way, are of such a nature that they are being sought by our shortcomings. By far the greater part of our pain and suffering is sought by imperfections that we have brought over from previous incarnations. Since we have these imperfections within ourselves, there is a wiser man in us than we ourselves are who chooses the road to pain and suffering. It is, indeed, one of the golden rules of life that we all carry in us a wiser man than we ourselves are, a much wiser man. The one to whom we say, “I,” in ordinary life is less wise. If it was left to this less wise person in us to make a choice between pain and joy, he would undoubtedly choose the road toward joy. But the wiser man is the one who reigns in the depth of our unconscious and who remains inaccessible to ordinary consciousness. He directs our gaze away from easy enjoyment and kindles in us a magic power that seeks the road of pain without our really knowing it. But what is meant by the words: Without really knowing it? They mean that the wiser man in us prevails over the less wise one. He always acts in such a way that our shortcomings are guided to our pains and he makes us suffer because with every inner and outer suffering we eliminate one of our faults and become transformed into something better.

Little is accomplished if one tries to understand these words theoretically. Much more can be gained when one creates sacred moments in life during which one is willing to use all one's energy in an effort to fill one's soul with the living content of such words. Ordinary life, with all its work, pressure, commotion and duties provides little chance to do so. In this setting, it is not always possible to silence the less wise man in us. But when we create a sacred moment in life, short as it may be, then we can say, “I will put aside the transitory effects of life; I will view my sufferings in such a way that I feel how the wise man in me has been attracted by them with a magic power. I realize that I have imposed upon myself certain experiences of pain without which I would not have overcome some of my shortcomings.” A feeling of blissful wisdom will overcome us that makes us feel that even if the world appears to be filled with suffering, it is, nevertheless, radiating pure wisdom. Such an attitude is one of the fruits of anthroposophy for the benefit of life. What has been said may, of course, be forgotten, but if we do not forget it, but practice such thoughts regularly, we will become aware of the fact that we have planted a seed in our soul. What we used to experience as feelings of sadness and attitudes of depression will be transformed into positive attitudes toward life, into strength and energy. Out of these sacred moments in life will be born more harmonious souls and stronger personalities.

We may now move on to another step in our experience. The anthroposophist should be determined to take this other step only after he has comforted himself many times with regard to his sufferings in the way just described. The experience that may now be added consists of looking at one's joys and at everything that has occurred in life in the way of happiness. He who can face destiny without bias and as though he had himself wanted his sufferings, will find himself confronted by a strange reaction when he looks at his joy and happiness. He cannot face them in the same way that he faced his sufferings. It is easy to see how one can find comfort in suffering. He who does not believe this only has to expose himself to the experience.

It is difficult, however, to come to terms with joy and happiness. Much as we may accept the attitude that we have wanted our suffering, when we apply the same attitude to joy and happiness, we cannot but feel ashamed of ourselves. A deep feeling of shame will be experienced. The only way to overcome this feeling is to realize that we were not the ones who gave ourselves our joys and happiness through the law of karma. This is the only cure as, otherwise, the feeling of shame can become so intense that it virtually destroys us in our souls. Relief can only be found by not making the wiser man in us responsible for having driven us toward our joys. With this thought, one will feel that one hits the truth, because the feeling of shame will disappear. It is a fact that our joy and happiness come to us in life as something that is bestowed upon us, without our participation, by a wise divine guidance, as something we must accept as grace, as something that is to unite us with the universe. Happiness and joy shall have such an effect upon us in the sacred moments in our lives and in our intimate hours of introspection that we shall experience them as grace, as grace from the divine powers of the world who want to receive us and who, as it were, embed us in their being.

While our pain and suffering lead us to ourselves and make us more genuinely ourselves, we develop through joy and happiness, provided that we consider them as grace, a feeling that one can only describe as being blissfully embedded in the divine forces and powers of the world. Here the only justified attitude toward happiness and joy is one of gratitude. Nobody will understand joy and happiness in the intimate hours of self-knowledge when he ascribes them to his karma. If he involves karma, he commits an error that is liable to weaken and paralyze the spiritual in him. Every thought to the effect that joy and happiness are deserved actually weakens and paralyzes us. This may be a hard fact to understand because everyone who admits that his pain is inflicted upon himself by his own individuality would obviously expect to be his own master also with regard to joy and happiness. But a simple look at life can teach us that joy and happiness have an extinguishing power. Nowhere is this extinguishing effect of joy and happiness better described than in Goethe's Faust in the words, “And thus I stagger from desire to pleasure. And in pleasure I am parched with desire.” Simple reflection upon the influence of personal enjoyment shows that inherent in it is something that makes us stagger and blots out our true being.

No sermon is here being delivered against enjoyment, nor is an invitation extended to practice self-torture, or to pinch ourselves with red hot pliers, or the like. If one recognizes a situation in the right way, it does not mean that one should escape from it. No escape, therefore, is suggested, but a silent acceptance of joy and happiness whenever they appear. We must develop the inner attitude that we experience them as grace, and the more the better. Thus do we immerse ourselves the more in the divine. Therefore, these words are said not in order to preach asceticism, but in order to awaken the right mood toward joy and happiness.

If it is thought that joy and happiness have a paralyzing and extinguishing effect, and that therefore man should flee from them, then one would promote the ideal of false asceticism and self-torture. In this event, man, in reality, would be escaping from the grace that is given to him by the gods. Self-torture practiced by ascetics, monks and nuns is nothing but a continuous rebellion against the gods. It behooves us to feel pain as something that comes to us through our karma. In joy and happiness, we can feel that the divine is descending to us.

May joy and happiness be for us a sign as to how close the gods have attracted us, and may our pain and suffering be a sign as to how far removed we are from what we are to become as good human beings. This is the fundamental attitude toward karma without which we cannot really move ahead in life. In what the world bestows upon us as goodness and beauty, we must conceive the world powers of which it is said in the Bible, “And he looked at the world and he saw that it was good.” But inasmuch as we experience pain and suffering, we must recognize what man has made of the world during its evolution, which originally was a good world, and what he must contribute toward its betterment by educating himself to bear pain with purpose and energy.

What has now been described are two ways to confront karma. To a certain extent, our karma consists of suffering and joys. We relate ourselves to our karma with the right attitude when we can consider it as something we really wanted and when we can confront our sufferings and joys with the proper understanding. But a review of karma can be extended further, which we shall do today and tomorrow.

Karma not only shows us what is related to our lives in a joyful and painful manner. But as the result of the working of karma, we meet many people during the course of our lives with whom we only become slightly acquainted, and people with whom we are connected in various ways during long periods of our lives as relatives and friends. We meet people who either cause us pain directly, or as a result of some joint undertaking that runs into obstructions. We meet people who are helpful, or to whom we can be helpful. In short, many relationships are possible. If the effects of karma, as described.the day before yesterday, are to become fruitful, then we must accept the fact that the wiser man in us wants certain experiences. He seeks a person who seems accidentally to cross our paths. He is the one who leads us to other people with whom we get engaged in this or that way. What is really guiding this wiser man in us when he wants to meet this or that person? What is he basing himself on? In answer, we have to say to ourselves that we want to meet him because we have met him previously. It may not have happened in the last life; it could have happened much earlier. The wiser man in us leads us to this person because we had dealings with him in a previous life, or because we may have incurred a debt in one way or another. We are led to this person as though by magic.

We are now reaching a manifold and intricate realm that can be covered only by generalities. The indications here stem from clairvoyant investigation. They can be useful to anybody since they can be applied to many special situations.

A strange observation can be made. We all have experienced or observed how, toward the middle of our lives, the ascending growth-line gradually tilts over to become a descending line, and our youthful energies begin to decline. We move past a climax and from there on we move downward. This point of change is somewhere in our thirties. It is also the time in our lives when we are living most intensively on the physical plane. In this connection, we can fall prey to a delusion. The events that from childhood precede this climax were brought with us into this incarnation. They were, so to speak, drawn out of a previous existence. The forces that we have brought along with us from the spiritual world are now placed outside ourselves and used to fashion our lives. These forces are used up when we reach this middle point.

In considering the descending curve of our lives, we perceive the lessons that we have learned in the school of life, that we have accumulated and have worked over. They will be taken along into the next incarnation. This is something we carry into the spiritual world; previously, we took something out of it. This is the time when we are fully engaged on the physical plane. We are thoroughly enmeshed with everything that comes to us from the outside world. We have passed our training period; we are fully committed to life and we have to come to terms with it. We are involved with ourselves, but we are primarily occupied with arranging our environments for ourselves, and in finding a proper relationship to the world in which we live. The human capacities that are seeking a relationship to the world are our power of reasoning and that part of our volitional life that is controlled by reason. What is thus active in us is alien to the spiritual world, which withdraws from us and closes up. It is true that in the middle of our lives we are the farthest removed from the reality of the spirit.

Here occult investigation reveals a significant fact. The people with whom we meet, and the acquaintances we make in the middle period of our lives are curiously enough the very people with whom we were engaged during the period of early childhood in one of our previous incarnations. It is an established fact that, as a general rule, although not always, we meet in the middle period of our lives, as a result of karmic guidance, the very people who were once our parents. It is unlikely that we meet in early childhood the persons who were once our parents. This happens during the middle of life. This may appear as a strange fact, but this is the way it is. When we attempt to apply such rules to the experience of life, and when we direct our thoughts accordingly, then we can learn a great deal. When a person at about the age of thirty establishes a relationship to another, either through the bonds of love or of friendship, or when they get involved in conflict, or in any other experience, we will understand a great deal more about these relationships if we consider hypothetically that the person may have once been related to the other as a child is to his parents.

In reversing this relationship, we discover another remarkable fact. The very people with whom we have been associated in our early childhood, such as parents, sisters and brothers, playmates and other companions, as a rule are the very people whom we have met in the previous or one of our previous incarnations around our thirtieth year. These people frequently appear as our parents, sisters or brothers in the present incarnation.

Curious as this may appear to us at first, let us try to apply it to life. The experience of life becomes enlightened if we look at it in this way. We may, of course, err in our speculation. But if, in solitary hours, we look at life so that it is filled with meaning, we can gain a great deal. Obviously, we must not arrange karma to our liking; we must not choose the people we like and assume that they may have been our parents. Prejudices must not falsify the real facts. You realize the danger that we are exposed to and the many misconceptions that may creep in. We must educate ourselves to remain open-minded and unbiased.

You may now ask what the relation is to the people we meet during the declining curve of our lives. We have discovered that at the beginning of our lives, we meet people with whom we were acquainted during the middle period of a previous life, while now during the middle of our lives, we recognize those with whom we were involved at the beginning of previous existences. But how about the period of our descending life? The answer is that we may be led to people with whom we were involved in a previous life, or we may not yet have been involved with them. They will have been connected with us in a previous life if we are meeting under special circumstances that occur at decisive junctures of a life span, when, for example, a bitter disappointment confronts us with a serious probation. In such a situation, it is likely that we are meeting during the second period of our lives people with whom we were previously connected. Thereby conditions are dislodged and experiences that were caused in the past can be resolved.

Karma works in many ways and one cannot force it into definite patterns. But as a general rule, it can be stated that during the second half of our lives we encounter people with whom the karmic connections that are beginning to be woven cannot be resolved in one life. Let us assume that we have caused suffering to someone in a previous life. It is easy to assume that the wiser man in us will lead us back to this person in a subsequent life in order that we may equalize the harm that we have done. But life conditions cannot always permit that we can equalize everything, but perhaps only a part of it. Thereby matters are complicated, and it becomes possible that such a remainder of karma may be corrected in the second half of life. Looking at it this way, we are placing our connections and communications with other people in the light of this karma.

But there is something else that we can consider in the course of karma. This is what I have called in my two recent public lectures the process of maturing and the acquisition of life experiences. These terms may be used with utter modesty. We may take into account the process by which we become wiser. Our errors may render us wiser and it is really best for us when this happens because during one lifetime we do not often have the opportunity to practice wisdom. For this reason, we retain the lessons that we have learned from our errors as strength for a future life. But what really is this wisdom and the life experience that we can acquire?

Yesterday I referred to the fact that our ideas cannot be taken immediately from one life to another. I pointed to the fact that even a genius like Plato could not carry the ideas of his mind into a new incarnation. We carry with us our volitional and soul powers, but our ideas are given us anew in every life, just as is the faculty of speech. The greater part of our ideas live in speech. Most of our ideas are derived from our faculty to express ourselves in a language. The ideas we conceive during the time between birth and death are always related to this particular earthly existence. This being so, it is true that our ideas will always depend on the where and how of our incarnations, no matter how many we have to live through. Our wealth of ideas is always derived from the outer world, and depends on the way karma has placed us into race, family and speech relationships.

In our ideas and concepts we really know nothing of the world except what is dependent on karma. A great deal is said with this statement. This means that everything we can know in life and acquire in the form of knowledge is something quite personal. We never can transcend the personal level with regard to everything we may acquire in life. We never come quite as far as the wiser man in us, but we always remain with the less wise man. If someone believes that he can, by himself, know more about his higher self from observations in the outer world, he is being led by his laziness into an unreal world. Thereby we are saying nothing less than that we know nothing of our higher self as a result of what we acquire in life.

How can we gain an understanding of our higher self; how do we come to such knowledge? To find an answer, we must ask ourselves the simple question, “What do we really know?” First of all, we know what we have learned from experience. We know this and nothing else. Anyone who wants to know himself and does not realize that he carries in his soul nothing but a mirror of the outer world may delude himself into believing that he can find his higher self by introspection. What he finds within, however, is nothing else than what has come in from outside. Laziness of thinking has no place in this quest. So we must inquire about the other worlds into which our higher self is embedded, and thereby we learn about the various incarnations of the earth and the world picture described by spiritual science.

Just as we try to understand a child's soul with regard to its outer life conditions by examining the child's surroundings, so must we ask what the environment of the higher self is. Spiritual science gives us insight into the worlds in which our higher self lives by its accounts of the evolution of Saturn and all its secrets, of the Moon and Earth evolution, of reincarnation and karma, of devachan and kamaloka, and so on. This is the only way we can learn about our higher self, about that self that extends beyond the physical plane. He who refuses to accept these secrets is as playful as a little kitten in regard to himself. It is not by petting and caressing oneself that one can discover the divine man in oneself. Only what is experienced in the outer world is stored inside, but the divine man in us can only be found when we search in our soul for the mirrored world beyond the physical.

The very things that are uncomfortable to learn make up knowledge of self. In reality, true anthroposophy is true knowledge of self. Properly received, the science of the spirit enlightens us about our own self. Where is this self? Is it within our skin? No, it is poured into the entire world, and what is in the world is linked to the self; also, what once was in the world is connected with this self. Only if we get to know the world can we also get to know the self.

Anthroposophical knowledge, although it may appear first as mere theory, points to nothing less than a path to self-knowledge. He who wants to find himself by staring into his inner being may be motivated by the noble desire to be good and unselfish. But in reality, he becomes more and more selfish. In contrast to this, the struggle with the great secrets of existence, the attempt to emancipate oneself from the complacent personal self, the acceptance of the reality of the higher worlds and the knowledge that can be obtained from them, all lead to true self-knowledge.

While contemplating Saturn, Sun and Moon, we lose ourselves in cosmic thoughts. Thus, a soul thinking in anthroposophy exclaims, “In thy thinking cosmic thoughts are living.” He then adds to these words, “Lose thyself in cosmic thoughts.”

A soul creating out of anthroposophy says, “In thy feeling cosmic forces are weaving,” and adds in the same breath, “Feel thyself through cosmic forces.” These universal powers will not reveal themselves when we expect them to be flattering or when we close our eyes and pledge to be a good human being. Only when we open our spiritual eye and perceive how “cosmic forces” work and create, and when we realize that we are embedded in these forces, will we have an experience of our own self.

Thus, a soul that draws strength from anthroposophy will say, “In thy willing cosmic beings are working,” and he will quickly add, “Create thyself through beings of will.”

The meaning of these words can be realized if self-knowledge is practiced in the right way. If this is done, one recreates oneself out of the cosmic forces.

These thoughts may appear to be dry and abstract, but they are not mere theory. They have the inherent power of a seed planted in the earth. It sprouts and grows; life shoots in all directions and the plant becomes a tree. Thus it is with the experiences we receive through the science of the spirit that we become capable of transforming ourselves. “Create thyself through beings of will.” Thus, anthroposophy becomes an elixir of life. Our view of spirit worlds opens up, we draw strength from these worlds and once we can fully absorb them, they will help us to know ourselves in all our depth. Only when we imbue ourselves with world knowledge can we take hold of ourselves and gradually move from the less wise man in us, who is split off by the guardian of the threshold, to the wise man in us. This, which remains hidden to the weak, can be gained by the strong through anthroposophy.

In thy thinking cosmic thoughts are living;
Lose thyself in cosmic thoughts.
In thy feeling cosmic forces are weaving;
Feel thyself through cosmic forces.
In thy willing cosmic beings are working;
Create thyself through beings of will.

with introductory words commemorating the laying of the foundation stone of the Goetheanum on September 20, 1913

My dear friends! If the destructive flames of the New Year had not affected our Goetheanum in such a terrible way, we would have been able to look back on the laying of the foundation stone for this Goetheanum on the hill of Dornach ten years ago with deep satisfaction. We can only look at the fact that, apart from the foundation stone, very little of this Goetheanum has actually remained for us. And indeed — the foundation stone was meant not only to be what it immediately presented itself as, and the celebration at that time was also not meant to be only what immediately came to external expression. The destiny associated with the anthroposophical movement has, as it were, given birth to this Goetheanum out of its bosom, and the foundation stone was laid for the Goetheanum in the first place. But the way in which the celebration was conducted at that time, the way which was then, as you know, presented in such a terribly ugly way by the outside world, which was so reviled – this celebration was actually intended to consolidate the anthroposophical essence in the first place. It was intended to speak deeply to the spiritual part of the hearts of those who participated in this cornerstone ceremony not only physically, as only a few could, but also spiritually. And in this way it was indeed held at the time.

We may perhaps express the wish today that, although the building that has arisen from this laying of the foundation stone has gone well for the time being, the spiritual part may nevertheless retain its firmness; that firmness that the world already needs in this difficult time, which has become difficult and will become even more difficult. For gradually the conviction is gaining ground in some minds today that a breakthrough of the spiritual could be the only remedy for this epoch.

But this conviction is only gaining ground with great difficulty, because there are so many obstacles for people that if this conviction only shines as an extraordinarily small, weak flame, it cannot develop. There are obstacles that are again due to the circumstances of the time. For it is indeed the case that a large part of the reasons why humanity has run into its present difficulties lies in the fact that the conditions of the external world have become so extraordinarily complicated. And today man stands in the most diverse relationships into which he is born, into which he is educated, into which he is drawn by the social conditions. And what is actually missing in most cases is the courage – I do not even want to say to get out of these relationships, that does not even have to be the case – but there is not the courage that is really necessary to get clarity about these relationships that the individual has to the world, to his fellow human beings and so on from the extraordinarily complicated development of the last decades.

Man often seeks to dampen the insights that would bring him clarity about these circumstances. And that which acts as a dampening, paralyzing force for this conviction also extinguishes the small flame that is already saying in the depths of many hearts today: Yes, the salvation of humanity is only possible through the path of a spiritual world current. And so it is extraordinarily difficult for these flames, which are in the souls of those whom I called homeless souls here some time ago, to really lead to what they must lead to. And it was precisely to consolidate such convictions that the foundation stone ceremony for the Goetheanum was held here ten years ago. The laying of the foundation stone has always been a point of reference for everything that has since been done for the Goetheanum. It is hardly surprising that the excessive outbursts of the opponents have been joined by those who refer to the laying of the foundation stone.

It is now the case that on the one hand today - I have often said this - there is an eminent need, more than at any other time in the development of humanity, to work with all the fibers of the human mind towards a spiritual goal. But on the other hand, there is a terrible hatred - “hatred” must be said – a terrible hatred of everything that bears the mark of spirituality in the true sense of the word. Today, the symptoms of such hatred sometimes appear in a paradoxical way.

We have just had the Stuttgart conference, which on the whole was much more peaceful than the February conference; I would also say that more joyful hopes for the future were revealed, and that the will was expressed to place the Anthroposophical Society on a new foundation in an energetic way. That is what everything has been leading up to, and in this sentence everything can actually be summarized, so that, as far as the German Society is concerned, proper preparation can be made for the international conference of delegates that is to take place here at Christmas. But there were also some individual episodes, and one of these episodes belongs to those that I would like to tell here, because it might not be unnecessary for you, my dear friends, to hear about this matter.

Then a younger man came forward, one of those who try to keep watch over the situation at Landhausstrasse 70 in Stuttgart, and he spoke in a very urgent and serious manner about the urgent need for a strong consciousness within the Anthroposophical Society. And then he also said that what one could observe in this way already demands a great deal, and that it challenges one to always admonish this urgency in a more serious way. For example, he had seen, while he was watching over Landhausstrasse 70, that is, the branch office in Stuttgart, how a greengrocer had driven by who said to someone else: “Yes, that's the house; Dornach has burned, but the firebrand should also be thrown into this house, and up there under the roof, that's where the people live who actually make it necessary to shoot up there.

Well, you see, it's not exactly credible that this “vegetable” grew on the greengrocer's own heart, his own soul, but one must assume that the greengrocer's voice is the often-occurring echo of slogans coming from quite elsewhere. But it is not unnecessary to mention here the matter that was brought before the large assembly in Stuttgart. Perhaps from observing these or those episodes, as they were presented at the Stuttgart conference before the large assembly, and which are symptomatic of something, it may be possible to piece together what will justify what I have been repeating for many years: What we need is vigilance in all directions, and the last thing we need, especially within the Anthroposophical Society, is complacency.

All this comes to mind when one sees how much has been destroyed of what arose from that laying of the foundation stone ten years ago. It comes to mind because today one must really have the most enthusiastic longing in the truest sense of the word that what was spiritually connected with that laying of the foundation stone, what spiritually permeated that laying of the foundation stone, that this may signify a laying of the foundation stone for a building that can perhaps only be built with tremendous difficulties and efforts, of which perhaps very little still stands today: I mean the spiritual part! One would have to say the same thing even if a new Goetheanum were to be built again on the outside as a house! But that this spiritual building, of which perhaps little still stands today, may become ever stronger and more impressive for the world through the intense enthusiasm of those who have recognized how necessary anthroposophy is for our time, that is what I wanted to express before you today.

We may indeed say, especially in remembering that laying of the foundation stone: Despite the serious misfortune that has befallen us, this laying of the foundation stone should remind us even less of this misfortune than of what our task is in building. We should not dwell on what has been destroyed and what is only part of a work of destruction that is far from complete.

Now, my dear friends, I would like to add something else that is somewhat related to this. It is not intended to be presented in a sentimental way. I did present it in Stuttgart at the delegates' meeting, but even there it was not presented in a sentimental way. And since it is truly meant very seriously – despite not being presented in a sentimental way – from a certain point of view, allow me to present it here as well – although, of course, here too, as I did in Stuttgart, I must in a sense apologize for presenting things in this way. But since I really am presenting so many things here that I would like to say, which have been achieved with all my heart and soul – in the spiritual sense, of course, this is absolutely meant – which thus testifies that I am truly not concerned about the soul, from this place to become ironic, but it is always meant seriously, so I may well speak about it in this circle as well. There was an episode at the Stuttgart conference; people insisted on reporting this little episode, especially before the very last meeting at 8 o'clock on Monday morning. So perhaps I may also bring this event up here.

At the Stuttgart assembly of delegates, there was much talk about the fact that a certain, I would say, laxity has gradually crept in with regard to the administration of the Anthroposophical Society as such; perhaps it would be better to say of the individual anthroposophists' conception of what they should actually do in the interest of the stability and inner security of the Anthroposophical Society. It was pointed out many times how people without membership cards are admitted to the meetings, and how opponents can repeatedly sneak into these meetings. For example, it was pointed out that during the delegates' meeting itself, someone appeared with a membership card that had been borrowed from someone else – I believe from the sister. It was then debated that the circumstances made it necessary to affix photographs to the membership cards of anthroposophists. I took the liberty of remarking that these would only help if they were stamped at the same time, because otherwise one could simply peel them off and stick them over the photograph. It was then also immediately reported that the person who had this membership card is said to have said: A photograph won't help, because I look exactly like my sister. - Well, these are very strange views that lead to all sorts of things.

You see, such an opinion has also been formed with regard to the cycles, of which it can be said today that perhaps not so many people have read them in detail within the opposition as in the ranks of the supporters, but that they are fruitfully read by the opponents – I would like to say in the sense of the opponents: They are actually implemented, they are utilized by the opponents. They are read very carefully there, and everything possible is done by the opponents with regard to the cycles. Today, it is already the case that one can say what is being done with the cycles by the opponents. We have recently learned how the latest cycle was immediately exploited in an opponent's publication. So there is a great zeal that one would sometimes like to see within our walls. Various suggestions were also made in Stuttgart, without of course considering that none of these suggestions can be of any use. For one cannot take action against something that has become necessary, once the Society has reached a certain size, in this way, especially with the way in which the membership is otherwise handled. One can only say one thing – with full knowledge that today everything, not only what is printed but also what is spoken, comes into the hands and ears of the opponents; with full knowledge and not wasting time with all kinds of measures to prevent this, because that means wasting time – one can only say one thing: If the content of the cycles, the spiritual current flowing through them, is championed in the same way that its opponents champion anthroposophy, then that is the best protection for the cycles in their current form, the form in which they are disseminated by the Anthroposophical Society. Negative protection is of no use here, only the positive, the active, can be of use: that one can also take the initiative for the cause.

And so many things were discussed. Much was also discussed in such a way that one always had the feeling that what was being said no longer applies to the current situation. For example, in all that was being said about protecting society from opponents, there was a grotesque contrast to what Dr. Husemann said when he discussed the opponent Dr. Goesch. Dr. Goesch made a very grandiose impression – I just want to say that in parentheses, of course it was largely a feigned impression – but he made a grandiose impression on those people who gathered in Berlin some time ago under the slogan: The Non-Anthroposophical Experts on Anthroposophy. This assembly consisted of enlightened pastors, licentiates, professors and so on. And a certain Dr. Goesch made a particular impression there, as did a certain Dora Hasselblatt. Now I do not want to reopen the whole issue. Much of how Dr. Goesch in particular conducts his opposition has been reopened at the Stuttgart assembly of delegates. But what is of symptomatic significance is this: he still pursues this antagonism today in such a way that he says: 90 percent of all that exists in anthroposophy is something to which he adheres with complete conviction. He is not fighting anthroposophy at all, but only me and the anthroposophists.

Now, that is a distinction, isn't it, which is based on a strange disposition of the soul. But I don't even want to mention that today; instead, I would like to mention something else. I would like to mention that there were people gathered together – as I said, enlightened pastors, licentiates, professors – who then agreed to send speakers around for whom what had been discussed in this assembly was to form part of the material for opposing speeches. These opposing speeches have already begun, and it was emphasized at the Stuttgart assembly of delegates that there are good reasons to expect that they will continue, especially from October onwards. Since recently, especially in Central Europe, the number of opposing speeches far exceeds the number of speeches given by supporters, there is a good chance that this will continue to increase.

But that is not even what I am concerned with at this moment, but rather what I would like to point out and what Dr. Husemann presented, that is, how these personalities, who were gathered there and who were to be given the impulse from the assembly to appear as fierce opponents of anthroposophy, how they were convinced by Dr. Goesch and what positive arguments he presented to make them opponents of anthroposophy. People are now saying and emphasizing – as can be seen from the speeches made at this congress of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy – that anthroposophy poses a great danger to the physical and mental health of humanity.

In contrast to this, it seems very strange to hear Dr. Goesch's positive statements. For example, he said that he knew exactly what the intentions at the center of anthroposophy are. The intention was that Dr. Steiner and I would form a planet of our own, which would be separated from the earth and on which the members of the Anthroposophical Society would initially settle, so that in this way there would be a separation of our planet from the Anthroposophical Society on its own planet. And for this purpose, despite the fact that 90 percent of anthroposophy is the pure truth, the Anthroposophical Society was founded, and the poor members of the Anthroposophical Society are in this danger.

Now, my dear friends, I ask you to imagine the situation: enlightened pastors, licentiates, and professors are being told about their studies in terms of anthroposophy, that a piece of the Earth's planet should be split off to found a cosmic colony. This is the legitimization with which Dr. Goesch presents himself to this enlightened assembly in our enlightened cultural age.

Now I ask you: How many of these enlightened pastors, licentiates, professors and so on will have listened to such a thing and thought it foolish? For I do not really know what should be going on in the minds of the enlightened pastors, licentiates and professors – they are not anthroposophists, they want to fight them – so what should actually be going on in their minds if they do not consider it foolishness! But despite all this, the impulse to fight anthroposophy arises from this “positive”.

Now, please, just imagine the state of mind of this assembly. Such an assembly is possible today! Such an assembly grows out of the spiritual life of our present time! But that is not yet all, my dear friends, why I am mentioning this matter, but I am mentioning this matter for a completely different reason, and I will now characterize it for you.

You see, if you think a little further than those who just take crazy facts to look at them as they are and don't think any further – if you just think a little further, you have to say to yourself: On the third or fourth day, during the conference of the enlightened licentiates, pastors and professors, a number of these gentlemen, along with others like them, were sitting in other meetings where important things were discussed that affect the order of contemporary social life. On the tenth day, let us say, another group of these people sits together with their peers. You, my dear friends, must think beyond this assembly and consider that these are the people who otherwise sit together in assemblies when the great human affairs of the present are being arranged. And that is the important thing when one wants to judge our culture, that is what comes into consideration! Above all, one can be so objective, especially on the basis of anthroposophy, that one naturally regrets what follows from such a meeting for the physical world; but one must still be aware that such a meeting, even of the most inferior spirits in the spiritual world, can only be received with the most thorough laughter. That is an inner truth. But the fact remains that in a terrible way it points to the whole soul constitution of the present time, that such a gathering is an enormously telling symptom of what is happening in the wide world of so-called spirituality today! And that is the important thing.

I wanted to show by these concrete examples how different things come into consideration today. There are opponents. There will be people who think that the impulses of these opponents should be combated with this or that. Yes, my dear friends, with the vast majority of opponents it is not even possible to take the impulses that arise there seriously! Because these people, who now send their speakers out as opponents, who have written their articles, these people of the caliber of Mr. Lempp, who was mentioned here a few weeks ago in an admittedly unfortunate way in connection with the fact that our “Anthroposophy” published an article by him: these people could be persuaded on the basis of the information that we want to split off a piece of the planet and settle on it!

Yes, now you have to say to yourself: So not only did people not believe a word of it, they didn't believe a single atom of it! There is no thread of truth connecting what they are now developing as their opposition with what has been put forward to them as reasons for this opposition. There is no thread of truth, no matter how thin, connecting the two! That is how strongly the sense of truth of the opposing side has been eliminated today. This must really be taken into account today.

On the other hand, we must realize what the rest of our culture has come to be, when such things are possible. For the people who have so little to do with the truth in what they do, with the starting-point of their work, are in many cases the same people who, so to speak, lead our culture in an official capacity. We need not be guilty of anthroposophical social egotism when we consider these things. On the contrary, if we are not egotistical and take such things as our starting-point in order to gain a symptomatic grasp of the spiritual life of the present day, then this is something that should really go to our hearts.

And so, in connection with the fact that, in view of these really decisive facts, much of what is said in our meetings today seems, I might say, rather unwise, with little penetration of the consciousness of what is actually at stake, I said just last Monday evening in Stuttgart: I do not want to speak about the named and unnamed opponents, who are dealt with in a very concise manner in the book by Mr. Werbeck, who is really working on the composition of this book in an ingenious way. But, I said, I don't want to go into the question of opponents in any great detail, because I really don't have the time and I would miss out on many other infinitely more important things if I were to go into this question of opponents myself.

But I will discuss three enemies, I said, who – and now I also apologize to you for speaking of these three enemies – who are actually almost in all such assemblies, as the Stuttgart assemblies were again! There, too, were three enemies – not exactly opponents, but enemies – who are now always admitted, not with false membership cards, but without any membership cards at all, and are actually always there, and who are really causing a great deal of damage with their enmity. There are two female opponents and one male opponent.

The first female opponent is actually still terribly young, chubby-cheeked, with a youthful face, almost childlike, and somewhat flirtatious in the way she presents herself – not always, but especially when she asserts her impulses in anthroposophical gatherings. This is precisely the kind of opponent who has crept so terribly into even the more intimate Stuttgart gatherings! The three of them were always there. They were even there among the trusted people.¹They would meet in a smaller group – the three were always there! So this innocent creature, naivety with a name – and a very strong enemy in our meetings – comes without a membership card.

The second enemy is also female, is considerably older, with horn-rimmed glasses, I said, on her nose, a pointed nose. You could call her Aunt, but just as well “Fag”. That is namely the Lady Illusion. But she is extraordinarily loved, despite the fact that she causes extraordinary harm.

These two personalities in particular succeed in instigating those thoughts that then become suggestions of membership cards, of protective measures for the dissemination of cycles; and especially of what can often be heard and has done so much harm: that so-and-so has spoken “quite anthroposophically” again. Of course he was not speaking anthroposophically at all, but – well, I won't say how. But in any case, this longing in those who speak in such a way to find something 'completely anthroposophical', so that one can comfortably reassure oneself, is also fuelled by the two female personalities of naivety and illusion.

The third is a man, a man who bears the name: Leberecht Frei-Herr vom Unterscheidungsvermögen (free lord with no right to distinguish). This man is also always present at our meetings. And he prevents what has an inner value in the anthroposophical sense from being distinguished from the anthroposophical nonsense. But these are only the most extreme poles: anthroposophical solidity and anthroposophical nonsense – in between there are many gradations. And if we do not have, so to speak, a core within our society that consists of personalities who always appear without a membership card and who are free from all discernment and who transfer their capacity as Baron Leberecht Freiherr from discernment to so many - if there are not also those who turn their nose up at this Baron Leberecht, then we will most certainly, with all that we will only accumulate obstacles upon obstacles, weakness upon weakness, and so on.

These are three powerful enemies, who sometimes creep in through the keyhole: the ladies Naivety, Illusion, and the Baron Lack of Discernment. We must now be very careful to pay attention to these personalities.

You see, it is a difficult matter, and I apologized for bringing it up; but I usually, when I bring up something like this, always say: Those present are exempt. Yes, I usually say that. Now, my dear friends, it is not meant to be so badly, but it is meant as a way of drawing attention to these enemies who are always there. |

And indeed, what you can find as a kind of characteristic in the last scene of the last mystery drama also applies to these enemies, where it is said of certain spiritual entities – because you have already seen that spiritual beings are meant, spiritual enemies — it is said that they have their power as long as one is not aware of them, but that their power immediately ceases when one develops an awareness of them.

This is the secret of very many things in the spiritual world: evil powers can only maintain their power as long as there is no awareness of them, as long as no awareness of them is developed. On the other hand, the development of consciousness for certain spiritually hostile or evil spiritual powers works the same way as day does for the unkind ghosts: they run away when consciousness is developed.

I have often emphasized that it is harmful to say: This or that is a harmful entity; so one should beware of having anything to do with it, and flee from it oneself. — No, one should confront this hostile power with all one's inner strength, learn to recognize it! For when a reflection of it arises in one's own consciousness, it acts as the light from which it flees.

I have often characterized this by saying: Many a person, when they hear about Lucifer and Ahriman, says: Oh, we must beware! Away, away, away from it! — But that is not the task; rather, the task is precisely to grasp these two powers so precisely in our consciousness that they run away from us. This is something that really helps us to make progress. For in the spiritual world, different laws apply from those we have in the physical world.

I have already mentioned some of this. In the physical world, for example, the law applies that the whole is always greater than one of its parts. The four triangles are the parts of the large triangle; the large triangle is greater than one of its parts. Now one thinks that this is absolutely correct. For the spiritual world it is not correct at all, but there the part is always greater than the whole. You will say that cannot be. But that is just something we cannot imagine in the physical world! Yet it is a fact: in the spiritual world, your liver is infinitely larger than you are as a whole. And so it must be said that the same applies in the spiritual world: if I run away from Lucifer, he comes closer and closer to me. Only when I stop and he runs away, then he does so in the sense of running away in the spiritual world - and then he really gets far away, not close. On the other hand, if I run away from him – well, from a spiritual point of view I would not do it, because then I would know this secret that I have just explained – but if I run away from Lucifer, I do it the way you run away in the physical world: if you have longer legs, you escape him by running in the physical world. But in the spiritual world you get closer and closer to him, the opposite applies. On the other hand, if you make him run away, he observes the laws of the spiritual world, and he does it like the unholy ghosts before dawn: that he really moves away from his reflection in the human soul.

These things must be taken very seriously! If we take them seriously, we will also know that we can only fight these invisible opponents, naivety, illusion, lack of discernment, by not having any illusions about them, by chasing them away – yes, how should I put it, at the moment when you talk about them, that is when they always want to exist again. I myself must say: one must come to have no illusions about naivety, illusion and lack of discernment. So here again one must stand on the right ground in the face of the illusion.

But you see, this is my observation, which has become more and more firmly established over the last ten years: that we learn from what was meant at the foundation stone ceremony to expel these invisible, but no less powerful and significant enemies from our anthroposophical circles. And if we stand firmly on what was meant ten years ago when the foundation stone was laid, then we will drive these enemies out within our own assemblies. Otherwise, these enemies – I could name a few more, but that is enough for today – will be able to contribute unspeakably to the power of our opponents growing from day to day outside our ranks. I wanted to mention this today, firstly as a reminder of the laying of the foundation stone, and secondly as a brief report on the Stuttgart conference.

• 1. The Dreißigerkreis is meant.

Schreinereisaal in continuation of the meeting of April 22 Minutes by Helene Finckh

Albert Steffen: Dear friends, Today, too, I extend a warm welcome to those present at this continuation of the Annual General Meeting of April 22. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Steiner for his presence and for the fact that he will give a series of lectures every evening this week that is of such great importance for our movement, namely on the history and conditions of the anthroposophical movement in relation to our society.

And I also extend a warm welcome to our members from abroad, who I am delighted to see here. I do not want to give the slightest impression that we Swiss want to discuss everything among ourselves. We Swiss would like to have a firm foundation in our society, but then we would like to look as far as possible. Society encompasses the whole earth. We would actually like to be what our country is already modelling: it has a granite foundation and very high mountains, which we have of course not achieved in any way as yet. Dr. Steiner once described Switzerland itself as something that could become the centre of a spiritual movement. Perhaps I may quote the passage he had me print in the 'Goetheanum' at the time [from the Dornach lecture, 14 October 1921, in CW 339]: '.... A state like Switzerland... is something very special. Firstly, as was already apparent during the war if one only wanted to see it, Switzerland is something of a center of gravity in the world. And it could use its lack of engagement in relation to the various world conditions to develop free judgment and free action in relation to its surroundings. The world is just waiting for the Swiss to realize in their heads what they realize in their pockets. In their pockets they notice that the franc is not really affected by the rise and fall of currencies, by the corruption of currencies. The Swiss do notice that the whole world revolves around the Swiss franc. That this is also the case in spiritual terms is something the Swiss do not notice. But just as they appreciate the immovable franc, which has become the regulator, as it were, of currencies throughout the world, so they should also understand their position, which is truly independent of world events and through which Switzerland could actually be a kind of pivot for world events – the Swiss should understand this...

Dear attendees, what this actually says is that our Swiss anthroposophical movement is not only based on spiritual foundations but also on natural ones, and that if we cannot found this society, we are not only doing something that is unspiritual but also something that is unnatural.

Now Switzerland has been chosen by fate – which is also a fact of nature in this case – to have the Goetheanum here. It is simply necessary, if we really want to fulfill our task, that the Goetheanum be rebuilt here. This fact was also expressed at the last General Assembly, but in a highly chaotic manner and without any real outcome. But in the end, the mood was unanimous: the Goetheanum must stand here again.

You are all aware of what was discussed at this meeting, partly because you were present and partly because the report was sent out all over the world. ^{1The report can be found on page 557.} This report, so kindly and well written by Mr. Heywood-Smith, was sent to America, England, California, Italy, France and so on, and it has met with an extraordinarily enthusiastic response. Enthusiastic letters came from everywhere, and there were also assurances of support for the organization with money. I would like to read some of these letters to you. First, the letter from Mrs. Greene from New York to our friend Mr. Heywood-Smith:

"You were kind enough to send us the reports of the events of the general assembly held in the carpentry workshop. I immediately called an extra meeting and the members of the St. Mark's Group decided to send the following cable to Dr. Steiner: “It is the wish of the members of the St. Mark's Group that the Goetheanum be rebuilt as soon as possible and that we will support the work morally and financially to the best of our ability.”

A similar letter came from Mme. Ferreri in Milan. Unfortunately, she has asked me not to read it in its entirety. I will just say that she has also sent or plans to send large sums of money and that she is strongly supported in this by her group. In general, this letter conveys such a strong sense of community with Dornach and the whole movement.

Then there is a letter from California from Mrs. Love, who gives the same assurance of spiritual and financial support.

And then, especially from England, the report from the General Assembly there. After the English work had been discussed at this General Assembly, and it had been made clear that very good work was being done there, Mr. Wheeler reported that since the fire at the Goetheanum it had been possible to send an average of 100 pounds per month to Dr. Steiner. Mr. Metaxa then says: [was not noted, see page 517]. And then a whole series of members of the local branches speak in this sense. Mr. Kaufmann, for example, also said that the primary concern was to establish the necessary spiritual foundation for the building, and that this must be the goal in a new solidarity and unity that exists in society. Mr. Dunlop then said that this was the right thing to do at the present moment. The Society should come to Dr. Steiner with a definite will and aim and should not leave everything to him; if we face the world squarely and show our will and determination to build, there will be no question of the authorities being able to prevent it, rather they would welcome it if they felt there was a living international movement behind it. Miss Schlesinger and Mr. Kaufmann then proposed that a committee be appointed to immediately take the necessary steps to rebuild the Goetheanum throughout the world through the will and efforts of the Anthroposophical Society. This motion was unanimously adopted.

Now the situation with the authorities is as follows. According to the information we have received from these authorities themselves in response to our enquiries, we will receive the insurance sum and the reconstruction will be allowed. It would take something quite unexpected for this not to be the case, but in our view that will not be the case. So there will be no obstacles from the authorities. The only thing missing to build the structure is the construction fund, the money. Dr. Steiner said that the construction would cost about double the sum insured.

We then immediately began to work on this matter. Dr. Wegman in particular set to work with great energy. She suggested that each member, if they were able, donate a thousand francs, and that would actually make it possible to start building, if it could be carried out. This plan was then immediately tackled, and in three days we raised 35,000 francs here in Dornach.

In St. Gallen, too, Mr. Knopfli immediately set to work and also raised a relatively large sum there. So there is something of an—in a good sense—epidemic of giving money. This is because a truly energetic and kind-hearted person has taken the initiative to do so, and precisely such a person, whose job it is to prevent epidemics in his daily work, has already succeeded in many respects. I do not wish to pre-empt the report of the laboratories here, but I would like to say that a meeting of doctors was recently held in Zurich which recommended the hay fever remedy, and that, as a result, I believe 200 doctors have turned to the laboratories to order this remedy. So you see, here everything comes from a willingness to make sacrifices. We know that Dr. Wegman is truly very willing to make sacrifices. She takes in many sick people to the clinic for free, and that should actually also prompt us to support her in this. I would ask you in general to really look at the inner being.

Nature is making leaps. So it will, because the Goetheanum is also to be built on a natural foundation, so to speak, it will also make leaps in that respect and lead people to us who really give donations. But it only makes leaps, nature - I mean in a spiritual way - when there is a spiritual foundation, that is, when people come together and have a heart, when they really have a willingness to make sacrifices. For nature certainly makes leaps in such a case, namely when one knows: Here spirit is present. Then nature will give. But if there is no spirit, then nature will not cause a person to give anything. For example, a person who is happy to give a thousand francs will perhaps quarrel over ten francs in another case. I would therefore like to ask Swiss society to come to a decision and pass a resolution urgently asking Dr. Steiner to take over the construction of the Goetheanum. This resolution was passed by the delegates yesterday, and I will read it out in general terms, as it has not yet been precisely formulated.

There is another important point, esteemed attendees, on this occasion. We have often experienced that Dr. Steiner's work is discredited by people who do not properly represent anthroposophy. At the very least, Dr. Steiner should be guaranteed complete freedom at the Goetheanum to rebuild it; that is, no one should interfere with him; that he should be able to choose the workers he wants to help rebuild the Goetheanum himself, and not have them imposed on him; that he should be able to carry out everything according to his own plans and so on. This is also expressed in the resolution. There are two versions, so perhaps I will read one first.

“Resolution. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland expresses the wish in today's general assembly that Dr. Steiner may take the reconstruction of the Goetheanum into his own hands. The Society grants Dr. Steiner full authority to carry out this reconstruction in every respect at his own discretion, without interference from the members.”

It is a bit bluntly put; perhaps it could be softened a bit. But I think we all agree with it, and I now ask you to take the floor on this matter. Before we move on to something else, we really want to come to a decision here. I believe that if we do this, we will really have a foundation on which society can grow and flourish again.

Harriet von Vacano: Asks everyone present to accept Mr. Steffen's proposal by acclamation and present the fact as a given. (It happens.)

Albert Steffen: The most pressing matter, of course, is how to get the building fund off the ground. Mr. Metaxa has already tackled this issue in England and will perhaps say a few words about it himself.

George Metaxa: Since Mr. Steffen has already read part of the minutes of the General Assembly that was recently held in London to you, perhaps I may just tell you now that the committee that was formed to discuss the matters of reconstruction was of the opinion that the reconstruction of the Goetheanum should be an international matter in the fullest sense. Members in all countries should really feel that they can participate in this reconstruction even if they are not able to come here themselves. And as you know, only very few are able to do so. Therefore, a proposal was made, approved by Dr. Steiner, and I am authorized to officially announce it to you. It is that we would like to call an international assembly of delegates here at the end of July, at which members from all countries would be represented. Then the matter of raising funds for the reconstruction could truly become an international affair, and all anthroposophical forces could be utilized for it. There could then perhaps also be other matters to discuss, so that the full strength of the anthroposophical movement could really be made available there too. If this proposal for an international assembly of delegates is officially accepted here by the Swiss Society, then the date could be announced. Details could perhaps be discussed with Mr. Steffen.

Albert Steffen: Such a proposal can of course only be most warmly welcomed by our Swiss Society.

Emanuel van Leer: My dear friends, at the last meeting I already had to talk about the financial situation at the Goetheanum. The intention was to start a major campaign immediately to raise the funds, 2 to 3 million francs. In the meantime, I have had the opportunity to get to know the strong initiative in Switzerland that Dr. Wegman had introduced. I have also been to England, and it seems to me that it is not possible to rush into something, but to do something very carefully. I do not want to use the general word “programme”, but I would like to say, as Mr. Metaxa suggested, that an international assembly of delegates should take place at the end of July. We can set it for July 22 or 29. The most important thing today and in the next few days is to communicate exactly what is being done and what is intended here, that certain plans be specified and that the various countries then discuss all the various issues in their own country and that the delegates who are really delegates come together, not that it works like in Stuttgart. You went there and perhaps first had to hear: What do the people in Stuttgart actually want? There was a chaotic mass of ideas and the delegates were often not authorized to say anything binding when it came to something. If we discussed it earlier, this and that could be done, then the delegates went to their countries, but the results were rather weak. We should now try the opposite. We should give people four weeks to think up their ideas, so that the countries come up with their various proposals. It is of course right for Switzerland to ask Dr. Steiner to build up. But as Mr. Metaxa said: It depends on the international. If we get the call from everywhere and the delegates come, we will be seen as one big body. Ideas are as cheap as blackberries. It is important to stick with them. For example, our British friends stand by their ideas. I must say that in some respects the British proposals seem more pleasant and more congenial to me than our Swiss ones, for the reason that up to now all the proposals have always come from Switzerland. In England, the attitude is: we want to do it together, but we also want to have a say in it. — The form in which this is done can still be discussed, but the important thing is to make it international. I am convinced that Mr. Steffen did not mean it to be Swiss. But so far everything has been done from Switzerland. The English believe that if they get behind the cause, it would be good. I would like to suggest that if these proposals seem acceptable, we will send out an appeal or a program or whatever you want to call such a paper in the next few days, stating that we will hold an international assembly and specifying exactly what is wanted here, so that the various groups in the different countries appoint their delegates, who also know what they want. It is not factual to say: those who are currently in Dornach are our delegates. If all countries send their delegates, I believe that only then will the results of today's meeting come out.

Albert Steffen: It is quite natural that the structure is an international affair. I just wanted to express what seems necessary to me in our Swiss Society, and we, the branches of the Swiss Society, the branch leaders have met and they have unanimously agreed to work towards raising a building fund. I think we can never do too much in this regard, if we make an effort, so to speak. This will in no way affect the international aspect, it can only inspire it. I think it should be the case that delegates from the various countries should now come together in the next few days, because they are here after all, and consult with each other, and that we might have the pleasure of having Dr. Steiner with us, who alone can give us the right advice. We don't want to interfere with his work in such matters. So my suggestion would be that we, the various friends from abroad who are here, gather separately – because such things cannot be discussed in sufficient detail in the plenary session – under the chairmanship of Dr. Steiner.

Wilhelm Nedella: Dear friends! I am allowed to say a few words, not only on behalf of those friends from America who cannot be with us today and whose names do not appear among those listed by Mr. Steffen, especially those of the St. Michael Group in Chicago. When the painful news of the destruction of the Goetheanum reached us and we had recovered somewhat from the heavy blow, the unanimous wish was: will we be able to have a Goetheanum again? Impossible without Goetheanum! This wish was intensified by the last general assembly. (A letter from the St. Michael Group to Dr. Steiner is read out.) ^{1This letter is not available.} These words apply from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. There is a definite layer in America that is sincerely seeking a spirituality, that is listening to what is coming from Dornach, and there is not only pain over the loss, but also a strong will to be able to work on the new creation of the Goetheanum, a new creation in a different material. We see the destruction of the Goetheanum as a challenge to our best efforts, a test of how serious our will is and how great our devotion to the work is, and we hope that we will be equal to this test in every respect. What comes from Switzerland is always seen in America as an inspiration, an encouragement. This is on behalf of all absent friends in America who cannot be here today.

Albert Steffen thanks Mr. Nedella for his words.

George Kaufmann: Dear friends! Regarding the matter that has just been discussed by Mr. van Leer and answered by Mr. Steffen, I would like to say from the English side that what we have proposed is not intended to interfere with this Swiss assembly, so to speak, not at the beginning of this assembly, and also not, as was expressed in rather strong terms by Mr. van Leer, that the initiative for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum should be an international one — not that this could be understood in any immodest sense, because according to the external facts we in England have no reason at all to be immodest in this sense, but it is really practical, with a view to the best results for the future. And we are convinced that if the new initiative for the reconstruction comes entirely from the International Anthroposophical Society, also in formal terms, it will have the best results for the financing and for the ongoing support of the building work, which would also be necessary in the years to come. If, for example, it were to happen that now, since, as it happens, these or those representatives, these or those members should I say, are present from different countries, these are consulted for discussions and then let these discussions be the final ones and sent the members back to their countries, who then report what has been decided, that is not quite the same as when the members come as authorized delegates from their countries. They might not receive an explicit answer, but an implicit one: But who authorized you to decide something like that? — And so we think that a delegate assembly, a real delegate assembly, would be a good thing. But it can only be determined from this discussion whether or not this is a practical proposal. Perhaps, among the international members here, the right agenda for the delegates' meeting and a practical call from Switzerland to the various countries could be sent out, based on the discussions that Mr. Steffen proposed. This will only make practical sense if this meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland now discusses further what Mr. Steffen has suggested. When the General Assembly was in England two weeks ago, the report from the last General Assembly was presented here, but not yet the knowledge of the very gratifying action initiated by Dr. Wegman. It would be very nice if the decision and the taking up of the work and also the bearing of responsibility on the part of the friends in the various countries really emerged and the societies in the various countries know that they have taken it upon themselves, that they then bear the responsibility through their own will. Letters should be sent to all branches; the feeling is that contact should be established in a modest but friendly way between anthroposophists in all countries, as it could perhaps come about in a practical way on this occasion of the reconstruction of the Goetheanum.

Albert Steffen replied to George Kaufmann's words that we are indeed dependent on the help of the foreign branches and societies and that such a meeting of delegates is therefore really the most necessary thing. As proposed by Kaufmann and van Leer, this meeting could take place on July 22.

There are other matters that need to be discussed, but I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to say a few words about the structure of the Goetheanum.

Dr. Steiner: I myself have nothing to add to what you have said. I would just like to say this: if this meeting of delegates from different countries comes about, I do not want to chair it, I just want to be there, but I want the chair to be taken by someone else.

Albert Steffen: I would like to suggest that the chair should be taken by Mr. van Leer or Mr. Metaxa or Mr. Kaufmann or whoever you decide on at the time. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter?

Willy Storrer: Mr. Kaufmann said very nicely that the proposals of our foreign friends cannot prevent us from expressing our will and taking a stand on the reconstruction. In other countries, practical discussions have also taken place about the fact that there is no longer a Goetheanum and that a Goetheanum must be rebuilt. Anthroposophy contains world forces and not philistine forces. I think we can express our will today in general and in specific details. This has already been done to some extent by the resolution that Mr. Steffen read out, and then by the initiative of Dr. Wegman and various others, for example Dr. Wachsmuth and Mr. Pfeiffer in Dornach and Mr. Knopfli in St. Gallen, who are working in this field. I would like to make a motion that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society as a whole should try to pay a contribution of one thousand francs towards the reconstruction of the Goetheanum for each of its registered members within a year. This would make a contribution of 700,000 francs towards the reconstruction of the Goetheanum for the Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

Mr. Koller: What I wanted to say has now been partly said by Mr. Storrer. My suggestion would be that despite all that has been said, we can still declare our agreement, which is expressed in the resolution. Since we are all present, whether it is internal now or serves as a basis for inviting international delegates, we can now confirm by show of hands that we agree with what has been written in the resolution.

Mr. Steffen: Yes, is anyone not in agreement? Let them raise their hand. I believe we can consider this point settled for the time being. I would now like to give Dr. Blümel the floor to report on what we discussed yesterday at the delegates' meeting.

Dr. Ernst Blümel: He reported on the meeting that took place yesterday afternoon at 3:00 p.m., in which the question of rebuilding the Goetheanum was the first item on the agenda, and in which the resolution that was read was essentially formulated. Then the actual internal affairs of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society were discussed. Various voices were raised that the way the internal administration of the Society is organized, and indeed the whole internal structure of the Society, as it exists here at the moment, is not up to the demands that will increasingly arise. In particular, certain possibilities for reorganizing the office at the Goetheanum were considered, so that a clearer relationship with the branches and the council, which represents the Anthroposophical Society, must be tackled. Mr. Storrer then resigned as managing director at the Goetheanum. A provisional decision was taken to the effect that until this question of the office is definitively settled, the current officeholder will continue to be commissioned until this matter is resolved at the next conference of delegates. In connection with these questions, it was then natural that the financial side of anthroposophical affairs should also be addressed, since what is currently going on in this direction is quite unable to meet the demands. A proposal was then made as to how certain tasks could be set for the Society and how much the Society would need in order to fulfill those tasks, which are initially of a purely social nature. It turned out – and these proposals were then adopted in plenary – that it would be necessary to finance the purely administrative side in such a way that it could really count on a fixed subsidy in the appropriate manner, so that these difficulties would not arise again and again, and that something like a sum of 6,000 francs a year would be needed, partly for administrative purposes and partly for a certain contact between the office and the various branches. For library support, 2,000 francs; for the creation of something similar to a reserve fund for sick and disabled care – something similar would also be tackled – about 2,000 francs. And then perhaps, which could be one of the most pressing tasks, to actively promote the payment of contributions in Switzerland. Now it is 12,000 to 13,000 francs a year. On the other hand, the current membership fee that is paid in is actually only so much on average, so it is only 7,000 to 8,000 francs a year. The necessity for an increase in membership fees arises from this. It has become apparent that it was not possible to raise the actually necessary membership fee of CHF 20 per member, which is to be paid to the headquarters. One can only demand CHF 10 from the members. It would be good to also get the opinion of those gathered here. It has been suggested that a consortium or committee appointed by the association should maintain close contact with the headquarters here, which would manage this committee, so that it would take responsibility for the finances. So that what may be a small seed here will have the opportunity to become a strong plant. And if our society were to set a good example, perhaps the other societies would also make a certain contribution. Funds are needed for the reorganization as a foundation, but the most necessary funds are not available for this.

Edgar Dürler: Mr. Steffen has given me a suggestion, namely to report on my impressions as a Swiss in New Zealand. It is very remote from Europe, but there are good seeds for anthroposophy there. An anthroposophical group or section has been formed there that wants to join the general anthroposophical society. Mr. Crompton-Smith has led the work there, along with a few others. He has been in New Zealand for two years and in Paris for a year. He very much regrets not having known, for example, that Mr. Collison had traveled to New Zealand and given lectures there to a small group. They had had no support so far at the Swiss headquarters, which is why he had to miss the opportunity to hear Mr. Collison there. Mr. Dürler emphasizes the necessity of an international society, which is absolutely necessary, and says that it can only be welcomed when an international center of the Anthroposophical Society is created.

Albert Steffen: This is, of course, a point that must also be discussed, which has become urgently necessary in recent times; but now we must remain on the point at which we are, with the things that Dr. Blümel has suggested.

Willi Aeppli: Hopes that this financial matter will be settled very quickly: the contribution must be increased; it is impossible to finance anything with Fr. 3.50; it is easier to do something with Fr. 7. And if we have further plans, such as a library and financing of the school system, the contribution will later have to be 10 francs and possibly increased again. Perhaps some of you would like to comment on this?

Albert Steffen: I have just been asked to say that in this case a consortium would be formed, on the one hand, from the working committee at the Goetheanum and, on the other hand, from representatives of the branches in Bern, Basel, Zurich, St. Gallen and Olten. They would each have a representative in this consortium, so that the Society would really be represented peripherally and would take on a certain responsibility in the regulation of financial matters.

Willy Storrer: I would like the individual members to pay 20 francs instead of 15 francs a year, or to give 20-30 francs of it now and have the individual members pay 20 francs, so that the groups do not miss out.

A gentleman, not recorded by name, proposes that the groups should charge 25 francs.

Both proposals are accepted, both that for the branch members an increase of Fr. 5 to Fr. 10 occurs, and the second that for the individual members who are not connected to branches, a total of Fr. 25 is to be paid to the central location.

Albert Steffen: There is still a question to be answered as to how it should be in 1923, because neither the individual members nor the branches paid an amount.

Karl Keller: It is not possible to do it retroactively; it has to be determined from July 1.

Willy Storrer: With regard to the Basel branch, he proposes: retroactively to January 1.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: Supports the Keller proposal.

Albert Steffen: Is actually also in favor of the Storrer proposal... It seems to me that Mr. Storrer has won.

Dr. Blümel: If the branches do not receive this money from their members, then perhaps they could be introduced to receive the full amount. They simply received what was paid in, not what the members should contribute.

Willy Storrer: Is of the opinion that the representatives cannot decide practically on their own; they have to go back to their members and ask what can be guaranteed; whether they can pay for the contribution of all members. There is actually only one large branch in Switzerland: 650 branch and 50 individual members. He believes that if individual personalities are available to do so, they can make up the difference for the members who cannot pay [so this would be the best].

The assembly agrees with this proposal.

We are here as the General Assembly and have a quorum. We have voted on this and it has been adopted. It is simply a matter of courtesy that the money be received. How we deal with members who are unable to pay is our business, not that of the General Assembly.

Dr. Blümel: There must be contact with the head office. Perhaps voluntary donations and so on should also be obtained for the society. One can also look in other directions.

Dr. Steiner: I really do not have a say in these matters, but I would like to add a small comment. As I already had the opportunity to mention at the last general assembly here in April, the establishment of the individual national societies is currently underway. I said that this must be the goal. Isn't it true that the German Anthroposophical Society was established by carving itself out of the general world society? The Norwegian Anthroposophical Society was established during my last visit to Norway. The Swedish Anthroposophical Society has existed for as long as the Anthroposophical Society has existed. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland exists here. And so, with due regard to the fact that proper administration can be established in small areas, these national societies will form. But it will be a matter of course that once a sufficient number of these national societies have been formed, they will have to join together to form the unified, international society, with its center in Dornach. This has not yet happened, but it must grow, so to speak, with the idea of rebuilding the Goetheanum and the like.

So, we have to think today about the fact that in a relatively short time, the individual national societies will again merge into an international society based in Dornach, and that the international center in Dornach will also have very important work to do, namely, precisely such work that, for example, if someone is in New Zealand and wants to know whether someone can be met there and the like... [gap in the protocol].

And even if not in a detailed way, it will still be necessary for the individual national societies to make contributions – however modest – to the international center, so that it can function once it is in place. This is something that has to be deferred, but it has to be thought of, as do the other things. For it is connected with the living conditions that such an international Anthroposophical Society be created here in Dornach as soon as the individual national societies have been established in an appropriate way.

Albert Steffen: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Steiner for these remarks. They actually form the framework for our work so that we can really take up Dr. Steiner's work properly. Our idea — I think it is the idea of all of us who understand the work here correctly — is that we have to make something out of Dornach like a new Weimar. And we want the Anthroposophical Society to have the same kind of relationship with Dornach that Grand Duke Karl August had with Goethe. In other words, the Anthroposophical Society should enable Dr. Steiner to spread his impulses throughout the world. I would say that the Society is the only organization that has a real chance of lasting today. We see how today's communities are collapsing one after the other. We see it in socialism, in Bolshevism, how it really leads to murderous catastrophes. But on the other hand, we also see how religious communities take away people's freedom. Here in anthroposophy, there really is the possibility for everyone to be a person who can have an interest in society out of freedom. And if we really bring about such an organization, then we have actually achieved the ideal.

But now, I believe, there are still matters to be dealt with that concern us in Switzerland.

I would like to ask: Who would like to take the floor regarding what Dr. Blümel said? — namely, regarding the matters we discussed at the delegates' meeting yesterday and which Dr. Blümel read out in the summary?

If that is not the case, then we will have to postpone these matters for about four weeks, where they will be discussed again at a meeting of delegates. I believe that this is the will of the assembly.

Dr. Blümel asks whether this assembly is actually supposed to be the last one in these days.

Albert Steffen: If those gathered have something to report, then of course it is not the last. I hope it is the first of many. There are so many matters in the Society that really need to be discussed. I would like to say, for example, the matter of the enemies -- I have to run the “Goetheanum”, the magazine; but I stand there all alone. I really need to be supported by our friends so that I can write certain things; they should report to me about it. So far, this has been the case to a very small extent. The only ones who have kept me up to date have been Dr. Stein in Stuttgart and Dr. Hugentobler here in Switzerland. Through him, for example, I know exactly the hostile mood that prevails in certain editorial offices in Zurich. And through others, for example from Bern, I am also quite well informed about what is going on in the circles of pastors. For example, reports from pastors' meetings are brought to me, which I may not be able to use directly, but I still get an impression of what is going on in Switzerland. But this should be done from all sides. When meetings take place in Zurich, Bern or Geneva, some of our members should really go and write down what is going on there so that I can act on it. For example, there was a recent lecture in Zurich at a linguistic society about Professor Beckh's small brochure on speech sounds and so on. One of our members should have been there. It was a very important discussion among the linguists. Professor Beckh was presented as an important phenomenon, but he was also rejected. It would have been good to have a presentation here that had not been passed through the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” and that would have been more objective. But that is how many things are. I don't think any of you are really familiar with the excellent organization of the enemies. A year ago in Berlin, a conference of “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” was held, based on the work of our former member, if one can call it that, Dr. Goesch, and on the lectures of private lecturer Dr. Leisegang [see $. 795]. I cannot read this to you in full. But I would like to read to you what these people decided at the end about how to fight anthroposophy. ... [The protocol is very sketchy here, as a lot is quoted, not only about this Berlin conference, but also in relation to other cases.]

Dr. Steiner: Even at the risk of repeating myself, I would still like to say a few words. And I will now really have to touch on some things that I already said at the general assembly in April.

I would like to take up what our dear Mr. Steffen said about the association - because that is what it must be called - of non-anthroposophical connoisseurs of anthroposophy. What is behind it and how things are run was probably clear to you from Mr. Steffen's words. But I would like to tie in with the fact that these people are indeed able to work and organize themselves so well. And so the organization emerged from this society for lecturers, who are now sent around and who, at the individual locations that are considered appropriate, put forward the things with which they are appropriately equipped. A directory has been produced by this organization listing everything that the people concerned have to say in the individual places. And now, on a large scale, I might say, in all the areas to which these people have access, the program developed by this center is being put forward. I ask you to accept this as a fact for the time being and again as proof of how extraordinarily well our opponents understand organization.

Now, I have often emphasized this, especially at the last delegates' meeting ^{on April 22nd.}

Therefore, a clear distinction should be made – this is what I said at the last delegates' meeting – between the content of the opponents' objections, so to speak, and the content of our reply. In this respect, anthroposophy will go its way. This should be clearly distinguished from something else. You see, if opponents had emerged over the last two decades and only raised factual objections to anthroposophy, these opponents would have achieved nothing. They would have achieved nothing at all if they had only raised factual objections. But they know that and that is why they make factual objections, well, one or the other – depending on the case – more or less dishonestly. But that is not the point in the question of opponents; they invent untruths, they lie; and we must make a sharp distinction between what they object to, so to speak, factually, and what is simply a lie. We have often had occasion to become acquainted with the capital lies invented by our opponents. How often has the Frohnmeyersche lie not appeared, about Christ having ideal features above and animal features below, and the like. So these lies as big as your fist, they have to be faced, because it is through them that the opponents achieve something, and that is because people believe the matter. And as long as we do not have the courage to really face the mendacity of a very, very large and ever-increasing opposition, to face the mendacity, we will achieve nothing. And I would say that in many cases the courage to do so is lacking. People shrink from saying to this or that person who is in a certain position and is not really allowed to lie, but who does lie, “You lied, it is not true; you are just lying, you are not telling the truth.” As long as we do not face this, nothing will be achieved in the whole question of opponents. We must have the courage to face up to the eminently immoral behavior that has allowed the opponents to achieve their great successes.

But you see, I would also like to cite evidence for what I have just said. Summarizing what I have said, I would like to say: Anthroposophy has within itself the potential to spread and penetrate human hearts. What harms it are the lies of its opponents, not the refutations. And I would like to prove this to you, again with reference to that association of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy. You see, they now have their speakers. One of them – I believe his name is Schweitzer – gave a lecture in Hamburg to a large audience, in which he listed all the untruths. Now, when you are listening to such a lecture, you have to distinguish between the two things I emphasized: the inner power of anthroposophy and the power that the opponents have because they lie.

Now, the proof of the inner strength of anthroposophy was the next consequence of the fact that this emissary of the non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy gave a lecture in Hamburg – the opponents did not come, because, as you know, they are not interested in talking back and forth, but in slandering; so the opponents did not come, of course — and it turned out that the lecture was a real success — not Mr. Werbeck's lecture, which was only a defensive lecture and was very good, and must be greeted with extraordinary gratitude, but Mr. Schweitzer's lecture, and that was insofar as 200 people have registered who now want to hear something directly about anthroposophy, because they want to hear the other side of something that is being attacked in such a cynical and frivolous way. And these 200 people who have come forward are serious people who will probably take it very seriously. So there you have the inner strength of anthroposophy. Schweitzer's lecture in Hamburg has made 200 people aware that it is actually time to hear something about anthroposophy. So we don't need to be concerned about the clout of anthroposophy, my dear friends. But we have to get beyond the fact that our water is being cut off every day by dishonesty, untruthfulness and slander. And this requires more courage than to present oneself and refute the opponents of anthroposophy, to say something of what one knows but which the other does not know because he does not understand it after all. But to prove to people that they are telling untruths is something that must first be learned in the Anthroposophical Society, because people shy away from it. They think: You can't! He is a pastor or a professor, after all; you can't tell such a person that he has lied, that's not done!

You see, we have to face this squarely and find ways of dealing with it. It is really the case that the empty principle of internationality must take hold there as well. You see, in Switzerland it is already possible, if you have the courage, to tell someone in a very tangible way that they have lied. But in England, for example, you could not say it in the same way, because there it is much more frowned upon to tell someone whom science believes cannot do it to say that he has told an untruth. We must learn to handle such matters everywhere. But it is absolutely necessary to draw attention to this again and again, otherwise you will experience that Anthroposophy will spread... [gap].

At the same meeting [of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy in Berlin], Dr. Jeremias, who lectures at the university as a private lecturer, even made the comment: What we like about anthroposophy, what we find in it, what we can use, we want to take. But we want to wipe out Steiner and the Anthroposophical Society. That is more or less how it is stated in the report. This Dr. Jeremias is a special character, isn't he? He threw himself at the Anthroposophical Society and at me in a grotesque way, in a manner that one here in Central Europe calls “throwing oneself at someone”. He once got permission to attend a more intimate lecture. And when there was a eurythmy performance in Berlin, he came to me on stage, asked to be introduced to Dr. Steiner in the box as well, and so on. In short, he attached himself in an outrageous way in order to make the impression: You can have some of this. But afterwards he will spread it in a [different] institution. You see, there are people who would prefer me to be dead and the Anthroposophical Society to have scattered to the four winds long ago, so that they could take what they want from our books and put it into theirs. Because they are not interested in refuting the subject at all, only in what I have characterized for you.

If you, my dear friends, do not take this into account, if you continue to believe that opponents can be refuted anthroposophically, that mere anthroposophical refutations will suffice, then you are undermining the possibility of pursuing anthroposophy in a progressive way — so that not only the books are exploited —. Of course, you are also destroying the Anthroposophical Society.

You see, it is true: anthroposophy is very useful for opponents. When Mr. Werbeck, who is indeed writing a very witty book about the opponents, looked through the opponents' literature, he came across some strange things. Among all the rather stupid things that are said, he also found some very good counter-remarks, some very good objections to anthroposophy. But the style of these was somewhat different from those of those who always say that I have a bad style because they naturally want the good one. So they had a different style. He looked into the matter and now found that these objections had been copied from my own books. As you know, for years I have followed the practice of stating the possible objections myself at the relevant points. So it is easy for opponents to copy my own counter-remarks and counter-objections from my books if they want. Consider the logical implications of this: if they want to quote something they believe they can ridicule, then they quote “Occult Science”, page so-and-so-many, cycle so-and-so - because the cycles have long since been published by the opponents. But when they raise the objections that I put forward as an example, they do not quote me; they present them as their own views. Yes, that has become a method in a number of opponents' writings. What inner hypocrisy lies in the opponents' entire fight against anthroposophy! For us, it is important to be aware of this and to know how to behave in this world, to have the courage to act accordingly. I have to keep emphasizing this.

Please forgive me, I am terrible at this, always having to repeat myself. But I really want to emphasize this to you, because you always hear from some people, very good-naturedly, that they say: Yes, everyone can have their own opinion. Of course, but one's own opinion must not go so far as to lie, because that happens in a way that is very familiar to opponents.

So that is what confronts one, I would say, with primeval significance, that it is said in a good-natured way: Yes, the anthroposophists do not need to complain that other people have different opinions. Of course we must not give the impression that other people should not have different opinions; but we must insist with all our might that lies must not be told about us and that we wish to defend ourselves against them. That is what I would like to say again today, even though I have already said it many times.

Willi Aeppli: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Steiner and Mr. Steffen for enlightening us about this question of opponents. Because, to be honest, we are extremely harmless and naive! I believe that we have been convinced that we must be more attentive and work harder on this point, and above all, that we must actually support Mr. Steffen in this exhausting struggle. Mr. Steffen has already revealed the possibilities for us to inform him about the opponents' methods and, secondly, to work as hard as we can to familiarize ourselves with them. It seems to me that the opponents' method of fighting has changed somewhat. For example, Dr. Stein mentioned the Frohnmeyer pamphlet. This pamphlet was written with a sinfulness and carelessness, with a falsehood that, coming from a man who comes from the circles we know, is truly astonishing. But he has also made a fool of himself with this writing. His intellectual heirs are well aware of this. One might think that this would be the end of his pamphlet. One might think that one lesson could be learned from it and that one should hold back. But that is not the case. Frohnmeyer's pamphlet will be published again in the next few days: revised, expanded, supplemented. Prof. Heinzelmann in Basel, who was asked if he would do the reworking, declined after a moment's reflection; I don't think it was because he was put off by the untruthfulness, but because as an academic, as a university professor, he was afraid. So an Indian missionary, a pastor in Zurich [Alfred Blum-Ernst], took on the task. I must now note: Frohnmeyer has not read the writings of Dr. Steiner at all; the editor, he has read them, and indeed both the public ones: “Philosophy of Freedom”, “Riddle of Philosophy”, “Theosophy” as well as the cycles. This cycle question is a difficult question! He has read 32 cycles – not just 31, but 32 – and from these he has gained his knowledge of anthroposophy. From these public writings and these cycles, he has now formed a tool with which to give anthroposophy another push. The purpose of this book is to bring the circles of the Basel Mission, etc. to a final judgment of anthroposophy, to impose a judgment on it. So the fact is that a writing that has been presented as untrue by the anthroposophical side, that it has been reworked and is appearing a second time, and that the untruthfulness, the mendacity, is continuing. This is an example of the psychology of the opposition.

Miss Simons, Mulhouse in Alsace: In Berlin we were previously affiliated to an organization. Since the peace agreement, the matter has been left hanging in the air. I would now like to ask whether we should join together with France or whether we Alsatians – I can only speak for Mulhouse, not for all Alsatians – can join here in Dornach? It would be easier for us to hear Dr. Steiner here in Dornach than to have to wait a long time for Dr. Steiner to come to Paris. The beautiful work in Alsace is lying fallow. We can only harm the cause if we join in Paris; besides, nothing has happened in Paris yet. I would be very grateful if these matters could be discussed, since Miss Sauerwein is here.

Emanuel van Leer: Perhaps it would be possible to talk about the task that Miss Sauerwein has taken on, whether she feels supported by Kolmar, Strasbourg, Mulhouse? If you say: You want to hear Dr. Steiner here – so what? You can go to Dornach every week! – The things are in preparation. Dr. Steiner will be in England in August and was in Scandinavia last month. It will be carried out in such a way that there will be a French Society. So just support Miss Sauerwein in her efforts.

Miss Sauerwein wants to meet with the friends concerned to discuss the matter.

Albert Steffen: The question now is whether the meeting should continue this afternoon, because I fear that many people will no longer be here tomorrow. If there really are people here who want to continue talking, which I very much hope, then they should speak up. Or is there no one left who has anything to say? — As for myself, I would like to continue the meeting.

George Kaufmann: I am not quite sure whether this assembly of delegates, which we have requested, is accepted from here! The invitation would have to come from here and so on, all that would have to be determined. If it is the will of this assembly that this be done, for example, through the working committee here, before -

Interjection: It will happen!

Albert Steffen: In my opinion that has already been settled. I believe we have decided that after all? My view was that we might talk about it afterwards, but in principle the matter is self-evident.

The meeting is adjourned. It will be continued this afternoon at 2:30.

Afternoon, 2:30, continuation

Albert Steffen: Dear attendees, we don't have much longer to continue the discussion, because at 4 o'clock the hall has to be cleared for the eurythmy performance; so let's jump right into the matter at hand. Dr. Blümel would like to talk about school matters.

Dr. Blümel: Please report on the plans that are in place to ensure that the school movement in Switzerland can grow in size and understanding.

Albert Steffen: Dr. Schmiedel will perhaps say something about the clinic?

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: I am not very good at talking about the clinic; maybe someone else wants to do it?

Albert Steffen: Miss Vreede has now come forward for the library report.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: Dear friends, I can only say a few words. The library came into being at the time when our old Goetheanum was being built, and was originally intended to bring together some reading material for the carpenters and workers on the building site. It was created from donations and was later systematically expanded, as far as limited funds allowed, by Miss Hanna Günther, who is unfortunately very ill. It contains works from the time of the idealists, especially Goetheanists, that she collected, and the very writings that Dr. Steiner referred to as significant in his lectures.

As for the library's external situation, once it had reached a certain size – it did not arise from external initiatives but from a private initiative – it was, in a sense, transferred to the Goetheanum Association by mutual agreement, with the branch at the Goetheanum being responsible for it. Since this situation has existed, since last October or November, the branch at the Goetheanum has contributed 50 francs a month to this library, which is a tiny sum for new acquisitions, because the other work has been done voluntarily. Hopefully, an opportunity will arise to develop this library on a larger scale. If the whole Anthroposophical Society were to take an interest in this library, it would be very good. But it could also be used in a much larger circle. And perhaps there will be an opportunity to take a look at it during the week. It would, of course, be very gratifying if the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland were to help here. The branch at the Goetheanum has just taken on the obligation, but is happy to share it with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Ita Wegman is asked if she would speak about the clinic. She says that she is not a speaker, but rather a woman of action.

Albert Steffen: An argument that cannot really be refuted. Will Dr. Schmiedel perhaps say something about it after all?

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: I do not think I need say very much about the clinic, because everyone is aware of what Dr. Wegman did there. Many of you are already very grateful to her for your healing. I would like to give more information about the work in the laboratories. In general, not very much seems to be known about the laboratories. I do believe that it is very important for society to take more interest in these laboratories and the efforts associated with them. One of the laboratories' most important and central tasks is to make the impulses given by Dr. Steiner in the medical and therapeutic fields fruitful for a larger number of people, to make them more and more useful to the general public. If a pharmaceutical industry, laboratories, is to be brought into the world, one has to struggle with great obstacles in the external field. The pharmaceutical market is overcrowded. For us, the difficulty is even greater. Not only do we have to deal with this overabundance, but we also want to take a completely different path than conventional pharmaceutical science, namely to initiate a new therapy. On the other hand, there is the difficulty that all these endeavors are met with a certain animosity. So we are in a much more difficult position in the world than everyone else. It's all happening gradually.

But we can now look to the future with increasing hope and confidence if a number of doctors decide to use our preparations, which in and of themselves already do the advertising and speak for themselves. Recently, we have been trying to promote the hay fever remedy to doctors more actively. To this end, a special report on the cases collected to date was prepared with the assistance of Dr. Knauer. This article has been sent to a large number of Swiss doctors, and there is great interest. Usually, when such things go out, we get 2-3% inquiries; this time we had four times as many inquiries as usual. Requests for samples were made. We have already received a number of orders and messages about how well the remedy works. From a report on the cantonal doctors' meeting about hay fever... [space in the post script].

This is how we will be able to gain more and more ground. You also know the name. We called ourselves “Internationale Laboratorien A. G.”. The name was chosen with the following in mind: we would establish sister societies in all countries, which would in turn form 'national societies' that also have their own production facilities and work very closely with us, so that the individual national societies then supply and process the countries. This idea is based on roughly the same principle as the way in which the Anthroposophical Society is to be organized: that you have separate societies, so to speak, but which in turn form a unity. So far we have institutions in the following countries: 1. in France (St. Louis near Basel), 2. in the Netherlands and 3. recently in England (London). The latest, as far as we know, will also be possible in the near future: that we establish our own branch, company, in America. The matter is not yet completely settled, but it seems to be fairly certain. For the time being, it has not yet reached the stage where all the preparations are produced there ourselves, but it is still the case that we manufacture the things, send them in concentrated form, and then they are further processed and bottled there. As a result, the countries are already familiar with our products.

You also know that we owe a whole series of preparations to the suggestions and impulses of Dr. Steiner and that we deliberately do not yet bring all preparations into the larger trade. It goes without saying that we make the products available to all doctors who request them. A good number of doctors work with our products all the time and send us their reports regularly. The products are in their original packaging. But the more products we want to send out, the more money we need. Financially, we don't have as much support as we would like. We already have remedies for influenza, hay fever, chronic migraines - not to mention narcotics such as phenozin, aspirin and so on. A remedy for seasickness and motion sickness in trains will be coming out soon, along with a treatment for the early stages of sclerosis, which is already in the pipeline. You are also aware that we have brought cosmetic products such as tooth water, mouth wash, hair tonic and toothpaste onto the market.

I must touch on one point that has somewhat disappointed us. We thought that when we sent out these things, we would have an echo from all sides of the Anthroposophical Society, that in a very short time, when it became known that we were sending out such preparations under the impulses and suggestions of Dr. Steiner, which most of you need every day after all, we would not be able to meet the demand! They did not know where to get the things, they said. We have therefore sent out a list of all the depots. We have been disappointed because, unfortunately, the number of enquiries was not particularly high either. We could have easily met the demand. I would like to kindly ask you to make our endeavors yours as well. On the one hand, you will be doing yourself the best service by being able and having to convince yourself that what we publish is truly unrivaled and superior to all other means available in the trade. For the remedies are quite different products, from the source from which they flow, and will be useful in quite a different way. Therefore, one should not only use them oneself, as far as is necessary and appropriate, but also send or recommend them to one's acquaintances, doctors and friends. For example, the experiences with the hay fever remedy are already very encouraging; many doctors outside our movement are already using it. And the migraine remedy is also working excellently in England. The first settlement in May was already beyond all expectations. We cannot currently do such propaganda as in England in Switzerland to this extent. But if you all help personally, the newspaper propaganda will also increase. It is distressing when opponents arise from within, from people who are not on the outside. In our circles, some of you will know, I must say, the most untrue, the most dishonest things are being spread about the laboratories, and individual personalities are being attacked in the most insulting way. But I would ask you to inform yourself to the extent that you have the ability to judge. From the outset, the things are completely dishonest, and if there is any truth in them, the facts are so twisted. Some of these elaborations – we cannot, of course, get into all these things – but there must be a protest from some quarter about individual ones. In particular, a letter contains malicious accusations that are completely untrue and dishonest. You can truly have confidence that we work out of the best conviction and that if you support us and things can continue as they appear to now, we are heading for a very gratifying future in the laboratories. All the net profit that comes from the laboratories will be able to flow back to all the endeavors that are rooted in the Anthroposophical Society. All the financial complaints that money is missing here and there, for the school movement for example, will have to disappear sooner or later, given that we have so much capital from our industry that we are able to support spiritual movements such as the school movement.

We often hear complaints that our products are a little expensive or at least as expensive as the most expensive products from our competitors, and whether it would be possible to supply the usual toothpaste and so on at least at the same price? The entire processing method for mouthwash, toothpaste and so on is such that it cannot be done any differently. I would ask you to trust us and not think that we are making excessive profits from this.

Albert Steffen gives Dr. Usteri the floor.

Dr. Alfred Usteri: I would like to raise an issue here that seems to me to require a certain amount of negotiation. I have repeatedly spoken with the workers here. Time and again, I have heard complaints about the construction management. I am not here to play the accuser. The accusations may be unfounded, but it is important that the workers who have to work for us are satisfied in every way. However, I have also pointed out that it would be right to take these complaints, not to me, but to the appropriate authority. They said: We are just in a position and have to risk something happening to us, that we will be disciplined. — I would like the workers who are present here to be allowed to present their complaints, if they have any. They should be allowed to present their complaints. You can always hear: Yes, Dr. Steiner, we like him; but we want absolutely nothing to do with the Society as such. — The same motive was guiding: they don't want to say anything because it could happen to them that they would lose their jobs. If complaints are to be directed against me personally, I am prepared to give an account.

Albert Steffen: Who would like to speak about this statement? I have never personally heard such complaints; I can't really say anything about them. At most, I can imagine that individual members suffer from a certain inability to be polite, even to workers. But I would like to ask that the complaints be stated. Yes - perhaps some who get along well with the workers will speak on this topic.

Mrs. Bollig: Perhaps I can offer a small explanation that would not be in any way offensive to anyone in the group. But it is like this: the socialist spirit that fills these people has a certain antipathy towards us, so that they did not even want to speak to the ladies when they met them. So it is not a fault of the Society, but lies with the workers. The members could be twice as amiable in order to smooth things over.

Albert Steffen: I fear that the fault lies with our members; for when the workers say that they can't get along with Dr. Steiner, it cannot be because of the world view. I believe there can be socialism that is anthroposophical. But these are things that you also hear from non-workers: when a stranger comes to Dornach, he notices that he is not greeted. The second stage is that he hears moralizing.

Mr. Kaufmann Jr., Basel: He is just a simple proletarian and cannot express himself as he should. But there is something that makes workers feel deep inside that there is still something like a class difference here. I feel that too, he said, but I have risen above this attitude, I can overcome it. But other workers really have it much harder. In the tram, for example: workers who work at the Goetheanum have already complained – I have also heard complaints about the construction management, which people have exchanged among themselves and railed against. For example, I have heard the name Schleutermann and Aisenpreis. I met them often on the tram; they say: They can preach morals, but they do nothing in fact. — It is good to build a Goetheanum, but we did not eat with it — — The class difference is very strongly felt, so that it comes to the fore that one is just a despised proletarian. Especially those who have the money act very arrogantly, and that is felt. For example, the workers who live in Basel associate with many workers in Basel and bring these things to their colleagues. We have a tremendously difficult time with the socialist impulses in the “key points”; it is said: That is done with for us, they cannot bring us anything. — All sorts of complaints come through Schleutermann -

Albert Steffen: Does anyone wish to speak on this subject? You see, it would also have to be borne in mind that it is in the Swiss character to be coarse; but that when he is coarse, he does not mean everything so terribly seriously. I have heard a great deal of good about Mr. Aisenpreis, for example, here in the area, I must say, especially from the farmers. I have not heard anything bad about Mr. Schleutermann. But I would like to come back to one thing, namely the tram that goes from here to Basel. We have actually heard about conversations that take place in it. It may have been a year ago, there was a German in it, talking to a Swiss and saying: Yes, there is nothing here, it has to be organized quite differently in Switzerland! - and more of that kind of thing. And the people sitting in the tram naturally became angry. And when such angry people read the Kully paper, yes, then these statements, the lies of Kully, fall on fertile ground. That is quite natural, and it is then very difficult to eradicate. It might be wise not to speak in this way in the tram.

Mr. (name not noted): This topic, which has been touched on here, is an everyday one and seems to exist just as much here in Dornach among anthroposophists as on other construction sites. I myself am a construction expert and was in a leading position on construction sites for 35 years — you can never please everyone! I have had a lot of experience in this regard. You really have to be a very solid, I don't know how to put it, person to find your way around and to maneuver between the workers and the employers to do the right thing by both of these extremes. I have heard the name Aisenpreis; he is the foreman here at this construction site. You all know what it's like: the foreman is the first to be criticized. You have to take things as they are. People imagine that when they work here, they should be treated somewhat more socially than by other employers, who simply look at their profit. On the other hand, you also have to consider: the person who supervises the construction here also has a certain responsibility towards society. This must also be kept in mind. Society is always dependent on outside help; the members must constantly be begged, as we say in Switzerland, so that people are very much in demand to raise the funds to build again. We are also there to do our honest work, not only to get our wages, but also to do productive work. And if a superior should say something that hurts you, you have to remember: the man has a lot to live up to that other workers might not take on; he can't just stop working when the bell rings, that's when his work really begins. There should be mutual understanding on both sides and care should be taken to ensure that things are not needlessly made more expensive. But these are local matters; they should not really be discussed in a general assembly. Perhaps they could be discussed in a building meeting.

Albert Steffen: They are certainly local matters, but there is an important core to them, namely something that affects community life. If you have the right inner anthroposophical disposition, you will actually get along well with a worker, I think even better than with any other person.

(name not noted): I agree. In the Bern Lecture, given ^{on 36 April 1923, in CW 224.}, the doctor spoke a great deal about universal love; this should be seen in practice. It should be possible to achieve a better mutual understanding, and we should learn to understand each other better.

Dr. Steiner: I don't want to say much, but it seems to me that there is something underlying the matter. That seemed to me to emerge from various things. Anyone who is familiar with life knows that some of the things that have been criticized here do happen everywhere, and rightly so. But when we had the Annual General Meeting here in April, well, it seemed to us as if this Annual General Meeting had not been fully concluded. Mr. Steffen, in particular, felt that it had not been fully concluded, and he felt the need for a continuation. Not, he said to me at the time, but the continuation would then have to be combined with a lecture cycle. And then I thought about what topic it should be, and he said that perhaps a kind of anthroposophical etiquette for dealing with anthroposophists could be the topic. (Laughter) Well, that seemed to me to point to a certain feeling, and then, don't you think, all sorts of ideas come to mind. It's really true that if I were to present you with the voices that come to me from all the most diverse sides, one by one, you would be able to become a statistician, so many come from all sides. Well, they can be summarized because one remark is heard everywhere: Yes, anthroposophy, that would be quite nice, but we are not joining the Society. And when one then asks: Yes, why not? Then it is said: Well, this Society lacks philanthropy; and the people who are inside are so strangely arrogant.

Well, as you have seen, I changed the subject for the simple reason that I did not want to sin against what is expected of me with this topic. If one wanted to talk about an “anthroposophical etiquette”, one would immediately sin against it, because it is decidedly a kind of rudeness. But isn't it, from the outside it comes so often. I once heard the saying: “Politeness is an ornament, but you get further without it.” This is very often applied to anthroposophists. Recently, in a lecture ^{4Dornach, February 16, 1923, in GA 221.}, I spoke about various personalities and how they understood moral principles. I also mentioned a personality who included politeness among the virtues. I listed the virtues that this personality had mentioned, and that included politeness. And then it occurred to me that the audience found it so amusing that politeness should be a virtue. Of course nothing was said, but it was sensed; one knows how the audience feels. It was so striking for the audience: politeness should be a virtue. And, I certainly do not want to be impolite myself, but I would like to point out that this arises from all kinds of sectarian tendencies and from the fact that many members are only concerned with themselves, that there is little interest, natural interest in other people.

Of course, there are many theories of philanthropy and helpfulness, and in an emergency they are indeed there in reality. But on the one hand there is the general view of general philanthropy – and then: well, in an emergency it is there, this philanthropy, of course – but now something is in between. And unfortunately, everyday life also comes between us, and then human love is reduced to mutual accommodation. And there, there you sometimes see – when you pass by, how an anthroposophist encounters a non-anthroposophist - something that you then have to add to such an assertion, that people tell you: Yes, we cannot join when we look at the members. — And that happens in all sorts of ways. There is something inherent in the matter, which, if it were discussed now — I don't want to discuss it myself, but if people were to talk about it honestly, — much would come out, why the Anthroposophical Society remains so closed in many respects. The reasons for this seclusion lie in the fact that it is so difficult to find the generally human tone that lies beyond everything. Whether he is a grand duke or a laborer, he is a human being, and this universal humanity, this completely unbiased encounter, even without theory, is of course something that is not felt to any great extent.

So, there are real things underlying the complaints. And I don't think Mr. Steffen would have made this suggestion to me without a real underlying feeling: I am supposed to write an “anthroposophical etiquette guide” in front of you for eight days. Of course I will not do it out of a sense of etiquette. But I think it points to all sorts of things, and you can also recognize something symptomatic in it.

Albert Steffen: Does anyone else want to speak?

A lady: Since Mr. Steffen has already pointed out the need for politeness, I would like to say, since I am allowed to come here: You walk into the hall in the evening, happy and grateful to be here for once, and then there is a tumult and noise in the hall and a restlessness at the beginning and also at the end -- It seems like a discourtesy to Dr. Steiner.

Albert Steffen: I was instructed to say what the lady said in this meeting as well; but I thought someone might say it before me. I actually wanted to bring it up too. Anyway, when you go up to the Goetheanum, you should really know where you are going. I know that many of our friends almost always go up newborn. You know, they could not see everything they see, the flowers all around and the light and the trees, if they had not been deciphered for them. They have truly come to a new view, to a new view of nature. And that gives most of us, at least I think so, a solemn feeling when they come up there. And one should actually enter this hall with this feeling, and should have yet another feeling, namely that of experiencing history. Truly: here we experience history! What will be said about Dornach a hundred years from now? Looking back, Dornach will be recognized as the center of spiritual life! And everyone will say: if only we had lived at that time, if only we had stood face to face with this personality, even just once! To have heard him just once! — This feeling of joy, honored attendees, first of all, towards nature, which has been given to us anew through anthroposophy, and secondly, towards history, which we can experience here in its highest impulse, that is hardly ever encountered when one is here in the hall. There is a tumult and chatter, everyone is saying what they are going to cook for lunch tomorrow and so on, but it is terrible. Perhaps I am mistaken, in which case I would like to apologize.

Dear attendees, would anyone else like to take the floor?

Miss (name not recorded) from Strasbourg: Asks a question about the opponents, in particular the “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy”. They actually want to be fully acquainted with the document in question.^{5See page 795 ff.}

Albert Steffen: It is terribly long and sometimes very boring. But perhaps I could read out the most symptomatic parts if anyone wishes.

Questioner: Too little is known about it. There was talk of a league against it; can't that be set up soon?

Albert Steffen: Yes, this “alliance” should be society itself.

Questioner: One should meet more often when one is in Dornach and talk about it; one would be more up to date and could also get advice; otherwise it just peters out.

Albert Steffen: It is a fact that various people are already working on it. Yesterday Dr. Stein wrote to me about a medical personality who will look at the Goesch case from the medical point of view, in relation to delusions and the like. And Leisegang is also being worked on. There is no lack of people who want to do this, but they also have to get material from the others, and above all they have to find interest in the others. You will recall that in Stuttgart they did not want to listen to the lecture about the opposition at first? ^{6At the Stuttgart delegates' meeting, see page 385 f.} I must say that I find this topic particularly interesting for the present time. You can learn so much about the decadence of our time. And we Anthroposophists should really be healing what is sick. And so we have to get to know it. Everyone must do their best.

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: There is such a lack of correct information. Not everyone can go to Mr. Steffen. Could we not meet here once a month? We would be informed about the question of opponents or other vital questions.

Albert Steffen: Of course I am prepared to do so; but I myself would also have to be informed.

Dr. Steiner: Now the big difficulty arises, to draw attention to the fact that we have a eurythmy performance here in an hour, and because we don't have much time left, I don't want to waste many words. And when I say short words, it is particularly difficult to be polite, and I don't want to be impolite at this moment, do I? So I would like to ask you to kindly accept the invitation to enter the nature outside, and to do so as quickly as possible! (Laughter.)

End of meeting.

My dear friends,

A large number of anthroposophical friends have appeared at the Class today who have not been here before, so I am obliged to say a few introductory words about the School's arrangements. It is to be remembered in all earnestness that with the Christmas Conference at the Goetheanum a new element has entered into the anthroposophical movement. Especially the members of our Free School for Spiritual Science must be aware of this new element. I have often indicated this, but I know that many anthroposophical friends are here for the first time who have never heard it, so I must emphasize it once again.

It is true that before the Christmas Conference it was always emphasized that the anthroposophical movement and the Anthroposophical Society must be held strictly separate.

The anthroposophical movement represented the inflow of spiritual wisdom and life impulses into human civilization today which can and should be obtained for our present time directly from the spiritual world. This anthroposophical movement exists not because people like it to exist but because the spiritual powers which guide and lead the world and affect human history consider it right that spiritual light, which can come through anthroposophy, flow today into human civilization in the appropriate manner.

The Anthroposophical Society was founded in order to act as an administrative society for the body of anthroposophical wisdom and life. And it had to be continually emphasized that anthroposophy as such is beyond and above any societal organization and the Anthroposophical Society is the exoteric administrator.

That has changed since the Christmas Conference at the Goetheanum. Since the Christmas Conference the opposite is the case. And only because the opposite is the case was I able to declare myself willing, together with the Executive Committee (Vorstand) which was formed during the Christmas Conference and with whom the appropriate work to be done can be carried out, to take over the presidency of the Anthroposophical Society which was founded at Christmas. I can explain what this means in one sentence: Until then, anthroposophy was administered by the Anthroposophical Society; now whatever happens through the Anthroposophical Society must itself be anthroposophy. Since Christmas the Anthroposophical Society must occupy itself with anthroposophy. Every single act must have an esoteric character. The investment of the Vorstand was thus an esoteric measure, a measure which must be thought of as coming directly from the spiritual world. Only when our anthroposophical friends are conscious of this can the Anthroposophical Society thus founded thrive. So, the anthroposophical movement and the Anthroposophical Society have now become identical.

Thus, the Vorstand at Dornach is an initiative-Vorstand, as was emphasized during the Christmas Conference. Of course, there must be an administration. But that is not what it considers to be its principal task, but rather to make anthroposophy flow through the Anthroposophical Society and to do everything possible to achieve this objective.

The position of the Vorstand at Dornach within the Anthroposophical Society is therewith given. And it must be clear that from now on every relationship within the Anthroposophical Society will not be based on some bureaucratic measure or other, but it will be based on the strictly human. Therefore, at the Christmas Conference statutes that contain paragraphs which detail what members must believe or agree to were not presented; rather do the statutes describe what the Vorstand intends. And that is how the Anthroposophical Society is constituted. It is founded upon human relationships.

It is a minor thing, but I must emphasize it: every member is issued a membership card, which is signed by me, so that even if it's an abstract thing, the personal relationship is at least present. It has been suggested that I have a rubber stamp made with my signature. I'm not going to do that - despite it not being exactly comfortable to sign twelve thousand membership cards, little by little. But I will not have the stamp made, first of all because, although very abstract, a relationship is at least established to each and every member when, if only for minutes the eye rests on the name of the person who carries the membership card. Obviously, all the other relationships will be even more human, but by this means a concrete beginning is made within our society.

I must also stress that it must be clear to the members - I stress it because it has already been sinned against - that when the name “General Anthroposophical Society” is used, the agreement of the Vorstand at the Goetheanum is first obtained. In the same sense, when something comes from the Goetheanum and is then used as something esoteric, the use is based upon an understanding with the Vorstand at the Goetheanum. This means that nothing by way of formulations and teaching which appears in the name of the General Anthroposophical Society will be recognized by us here as valid unless an understanding with the Vorstand at the Goetheanum has taken place. In the future, no abstract relationship will be possible, only concrete ones. Anything said to come from the Goetheanum must really come from the Goetheanum. Therefore, the use of the title “General Anthroposophical Society” for lectures to be given somewhere or for the use of formulations and so forth which originate here and which an active member wishes to distribute, should write to the Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society at the Goetheanum, that is, to Mrs. Wegman, in order to obtain the Vorstand's agreement. It is important that in future the Vorstand at the Goetheanum be understood as the center of the anthroposophical movement.

Furthermore, the relation of this School to the Anthroposophical Society must be clearly understood by the membership. One who becomes a member of the Anthroposophical Society feels the inner heartfelt need to learn and live what circulates in the world as anthroposophical knowledge and living impulse. One assumes no responsibilities other than those which come to the heart and soul from anthroposophy itself. Once one has been a general member of the General Anthroposophical society for a certain time - presently the minimum is two years - he can apply for membership in the Free School for Spiritual Science.

In this Free School for Spiritual Science one assumes truly earnest responsibilities for the Society, for anthroposophy, that is, that as a member one wishes to be a true representative of anthroposophy to the world. That is necessary today. The leadership of the Free School for Spiritual Science cannot agree to work together with someone as a member under other conditions.

Do not say, my friends, that this is a limitation of freedom. Freedom demands that everyone involved be free. And just as one can be a member of the School and be free in this relationship, the leadership of the School must also be free to determine with whom it wishes to work and with whom not. Therefore, if the leadership for any reason is of the opinion that a member cannot be a true representative of anthroposophy to the world, it must be possible for the leadership of the School to either not approve that person's application or, in the case where he is already a member, to say that his membership must be revoked. This must be strictly observed in this future, so that in fact a free cooperation exists between the School's leadership and the members.

Step by step we will try to make arrangements so that those who cannot take part in the continuing work of the School in Dornach can partake in some manner. We can only take the fifth step after the fourth, not the seventh step after the first; we must take one step after the other and there has been much to do here since the Christmas Conference. But it will all be arranged to the extent possible. We will have a newsletter through which those who reside elsewhere can participate in the School's activities. We were able to make a beginning with a newsletter that Dr Wegman sent to the physicians who were thus able to participate in the work of the School. Things will develop as much as possible, and I ask that you be patient in this respect.

Something else to be mentioned is that the School must be understood not as having been established by a human impulse, but from the spiritual world. A decision made from the spiritual world has been obtained with the means which are possible. So that this School is to be understood as an institution of the spiritual world for the present time - as has been the case with the Mysteries in all times. Therefore, we may say today: This School must develop into a true Mystery School for our times. Thus, it will be the soul of the anthroposophical movement.

This makes clear how serious membership in this School should be understood to be. It is obvious that all the previous esoteric work achieved here will flow into the School's work. For this School is the esoteric foundation and source of all esoteric activity within the anthroposophical movement. Therefore, if anyone wishes to initiate any kind of esoteric work in the world without a connection to the Vorstand at the Goetheanum, they must either reach an understanding with the Vorstand or they cannot include things which originate in the Goetheanum in their teaching or impulse. Whoever wants to do esoteric work under conditions other than those just mentioned cannot be a member of this School. They must then do the esoteric work outside the confines of this School and unrecognized by it, but must clearly understand that it cannot include anything which originated in this School. Relations with the School must be clearly understood. So the members must understand that [the leadership of] the School must be able to consider that each member is a true representative of anthroposophy in the world, and that every member represents anthroposophy exoterically (sic) as a member of the School should.

Before I was President of the Anthroposophical Society an attempt was made to organize the Goetheanum in the way other universities are organized. But that doesn't work under certain circumstances. Here esoteric studies will take place which are not found in other universities. And there is no intention to compete with other universities in the world, but to begin with questions about any field of life posed by honestly seeking people, which cannot be answered outside the esoteric.

Therefore, in the future, especially for members of the School, nonsense which keeps being repeated must cease, because with the Christmas Conference something real has happened and for the Goetheanum to fulfill its mission all the members of the School must frankly and freely declare: I am a representative of the anthroposophy which comes given from the Goetheanum. Whoever will not do this, who thinks that one should be silent about anthroposophy, prepare people slowly, whoever wants to play politics and thinks that he can advance by denying us and then people will come to us - they generally don't - would be well advised to give up membership in the School right away. I can promise you that in the future membership in the School will be taken very seriously indeed. For those members of the School whose work is really about anthroposophy and not something else, this will be accepted readily and gladly. Those who continually claim that you can't confront people with anthroposophy immediately, that you must somehow talk them into it gradually, may choose to exercise their opinion outside the School.

These are the conditions which must be adhered to, and I had to mention them today because so many anthroposophical friends are present who had not yet participated in the School. And this is the reason why you have had to wait so long for the lesson to begin, and listen to this introduction. So, we can consider the lesson today to be a kind of preparation. I will hold a second lesson, date to be announced, in which no new friends may participate. So, I ask those who wish to attend in the future to have patience, because if every time a lesson is held here new people come, we would never get anywhere. Of course, one can still become a member, but only members who have attended today will be admitted to the next lesson. It will be a continuation of today's lesson.

I wish to begin today's lesson - without you taking notes, only listening at first - by speaking the mantric formula which points to what has resounded throughout the ages, first from the Mysteries, but previously for the Mysteries from the script written in the stars, in the whole cosmos, and which resounds in the human soul, in the human heart, as the great challenge to humanity to strive for a true knowledge of self. This challenge; “O man, know thyself!” rings forth from the whole cosmos.

We look up at the stars, which reveal an especially clear writing in the zodiac, which through their composition in certain forms reveal the grand cosmic script. For one who understands the script the cosmic words will sound forth: “O man, know thyself!”

When we look up at what the planets reveal by their movements, first the sun and moon, but also the planets which belong to the sun and moon, then just as the movements of the stars reveal the powerful, forceful cosmic word, so do these planetary movements reveal the heart and feeling content.

And through what we experience from the elements which surround us on the earth and in which we partake through our skin, through our senses, through everything in us, that enters into us and acts in our bodies - earth, water, fire, air - through them the will element pours into these words.

We can therefore let this cosmic word, which rings out to humanity, act on our souls through the mantric words:

O man, know thyself!
So resounds the cosmic-word.
You hear it strong in soul,
You feel it vast in spirit.

Who speaks so vastly cosmic?
Who speaks so deeply heartfelt?

Does it work through distant radiant space
Into your senses' sense of being?
Does it ring through waves of time
Into your life's evolving stream?

Is it you yourself who,
Feeling space, experiencing time

Create the Word, feeling foreign
In space's psychic vacancy,
Because you lose the force of thought
In time's destroying flow.

My dear friends, my dear sisters and brothers, there exists no knowledge which is not closely tied to the spiritual world. Everything we call knowledge which is neither investigated in the spiritual world nor imparted by those who are able to investigate in the spiritual world, is not real knowledge. We must be clear about the fact that when we look around in the world, in the kingdoms of nature, see the colors and the radiance manifested, see what lives above in the shining stars, in the warming sun, what springs up from the depths of the earth - it is all sublime, grand, beautiful, full of wisdom. And we would be very mistaken to ignore this beauty, sublimity, this wisdom. If one wishes to become an esotericist, if he strives for real knowledge, then he must have a sense for the world around him - an open, free sense. For during the time between birth and death, during his earthly existence, he is obliged to absorb his strength from the forces of the earth, and to return the results of his work to the forces of the earth.

But although it is true that man must really participate in all the colors on colors, sound on sound, warmth on warmth, star on star, cloud on cloud, creatures of the kingdoms of nature which surround him, it is also true that if when he looks out at all the grand, powerful, sublime, wise, beautiful things his senses convey, he still does not discover what he himself is. Rather is it just then, when he has a correct sense of the sublimity, beauty and grandeur of his surroundings in his life on earth, that he will realize: In this light-filled kingdom of earth the inmost source of my being is not present. It is elsewhere. Full recognition of this causes us to seek the state of consciousness which moves us on to what we call the threshold to the spiritual world. This threshold, which lies immediately before an abyss, we must approach and remember that in all that surrounds us in earthly existence the primal source of humanity is not found.

Then we must know: at this threshold stands a spiritual figure called the Guardian of the Threshold. This Guardian takes care - beneficially to man - that one does not cross the threshold unprepared, without having experienced deeply in the soul those feelings I have spoken about. But then, when he really is prepared with inner earnestness for spiritual knowledge - whether by means of clairvoyant consciousness or through healthy human understanding of what he has been told, for both ways are valid, only then is it possible for the Guardian of the Threshold to reach out with a helping hand and allow him to look over the abyss. There, beyond the threshold where the human being's inmost being originated, utter darkness lies at first.

My dear friends, my dear sisters and brothers, we seek light in order to see in the light the origin of our own being. At first darkness reigns. This light which we seek must radiate out from the darkness. And it only radiates out from the darkness when we become aware of how the three fundamental impulses of our soul-life, thinking, feeling and willing, here is this earth-life are held together by our physical bodies. Thinking, feeling and willing are conjoined in physical existence.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

If I schematically draw how they are conjoined, it looks like this. Feeling (green) extends into thinking (yellow); willing (red) extends into feeling. So, in earthly existence the Three are conjoined.

One must learn to feel that the Three separate from each other. And if more and more he uses the meditations suggested to him here by the School as the content of his soul life, he will note the following [drawing again]: thinking (yellow) is freed, detaching itself from feeling, feeling [green] is on its own as is willing [red]. For one learns to perceive without the physical body.

The physical body had held thinking, feeling and willing together, had pressed them into each other. [Around the first drawing an oval is drawn.] Here [in the second drawing on the right] the physical body is not present.

Through the meditations which he receives here at the School, one gradually comes to feel himself outside his body; and he comes to regard the world as self, and what self was, as world. We stand here on the earth in our earthly existence: we feel like human beings; we say, as we become inwardly aware: this is my heart, these are my lungs, this is my liver, this is my stomach. What we call our organs, what we call the physical human organization, we consider to be our own. And we point up: that is the sun, that is the moon, those are the stars, the clouds, that is a tree, a stream. We identify these things as being outside us. We are within our organs. We are outside of those things we indicated as: that is the sun, that is the moon, those are the stars, and so on.

When we have prepared our souls enough so that they can perceive without the body, that is, outside the body in the spiritual universe, then the reverse consciousness comes about. Now we speak of the sun as we speak of our heart here in earthly existence: that is my heart. We speak of the moon: that is the creator of my form. We speak of the clouds more of less as we speak on earth of our hair. We call our own organism what people on the earth see as components of the universe. And we point out: look there, a human heart, human lungs, a human liver - that is objective, that is world. Just as when we are in our physical bodies we look out from here to the sun and moon and to the world, when from the universe we look at the sun and the moon and clouds and rivers and mountains and they are within us. And when we look at man he is our outer world. The difficulty is only in the spatial relationships. And the difficulty will be overcome.

As soon as we leave our physical bodies with our thinking, we perceive this thinking as one with all that is manifested in the stars. Here on earth we call our brain our own, as the instrument of our thinking. But now we begin to feel the stars, especially the stars of the zodiac, as our brain when we are out in the universe and look down at man external to us.

And we perceive the circling planets as our own feeling. Our feeling follows then the course of the sun, of the moon, and of the other planets. Between what we experience as thinking in the fixed stars and feeling, is the sun in ourselves [the sun sign is inserted between the yellow and green of the second drawing]; and the moon lies between feeling and willing - which we also feel within us. [The moon sign is inserted between green and red.] And by simply meditating on this figure, it has the force to bring us closer and closer to spiritual vision. It must be realized that what I am saying here can really be experienced: leaving the physical body, expanding throughout the cosmos, feeling the elements of the cosmos - sun and moon, stars and so on - as one's own organs, observation of humanity as our exterior world.

What must be perfectly clear however, is that our thinking, our feeling and our willing which on earth is a unity held together by the physical body, now becomes threefold. And we learn to feel this threefold nature above all when we observe thinking.

Dear friends, dear sisters and brothers, this thinking which man uses on earth between birth and death is a corpse. It does not live. Whatever he may think with his brain about the beautiful, sublime, grand earth in his surroundings: these thoughts do not live. They lived in pre-earthly existence. They lived, these thoughts, when we had not yet descended to the physical world, but still lived above in the soul-spiritual world as soul-spiritual beings. There the thoughts which we have on earth were alive, but our physical body is the grave in which the moribund thought-world is buried when we descend to the earth. And here we carry the corpses of thought within us. And we think about our sense-perceptible surroundings on earth not with living thoughts but with the corpses of thought. But before we descended to this physical world a living thinking existed within us.

My dear friends, we only need to immerse ourselves in these truths again and again with inner strength and we come to the conscious conclusion that it really is so. One comes to know the human being in this way. One comes to know him and sees him so: This is the human head. [The outline of a head is sketched.] This human head is the bearer and support for earthly corpse-thinking. From it spring forth - but dead - the thoughts which spread over what is perceived by the eyes, by the ears, by the sense of warmth, by the other senses. We observe the thinking that corresponds to life on earth.

But gradually we learn to see through this thinking. Within the spiritual cell of the human head is the lingering sound of the true, living thinking in which we lived before descending to the physical world. When one looks at man, one sees at first his dead thinking [sketch: red part of the head]. But behind this dead thinking in the head's spiritual cell is the living thinking [yellow part of the head]. And this living thinking has brought with it the force necessary to form our brain. The brain is not thinking's creator, but the product of pre-earthly living thinking.

So when we look at the human being with the correct awareness, dead earthly thinking is manifested on the surface of the head; if we look within to the spiritual cell behind, we see the living thinking, which is like a will, such as the will we are otherwise aware of in the human motor system, which is really sleeping in us. For we don't know how thought descends to our muscles and so on - when it intends to will this or that. Then we observe what lives in us as will: we see it as thinking in the spiritual cell behind the sense oriented thinking. But then this will, which we become aware of as thinking, is creative for our thinking organ. For this thinking is no longer human thinking, it is cosmic thinking.

If we can understand the human being so that we look through the earthly thinking to the thinking which made the brain the basis for thinking on earth, then sensory thinking flows out into the cosmic void, and eternal thinking arises as will.

We become conscious of all this when we let the following mantric words act in us:

See behind thinking's sensory light,
How in the darkening spirit-cell
Willing arises from the body's depths;
Let flow through your soul's force
Dead thinking into the cosmic void;
And the will, it arises
As cosmic-thought-creating.

This imagination must gradually stand before you, my dear friends, this imagination of dead thinking directed toward the sensory world streaming out from the head. Behind it lurks - at first in darkness - the true thinking which glows through sensory thinking and which builds the brain as man descends from the spiritual to the physical world. It is, however, like will. And one sees then how from out of man the will arises [white lines from below to above], spreading in the head, to become cosmic thinking because what lives in the will as thinking is already cosmic thinking.

We should therefore try to better understand and bring closer the mantric thoughts which we can imbue in the soul in the following way:

[The first verse is written on the blackboard:]

See behind thinking's sensory light,
How in the darkening spirit-cell

- that is, one must look behind thinking - [“behind” is underlined]

Willing arises from the body's depths;

- one must become strong in the soul to let normal sensory thinking flow away -

Let flow through your soul's force
Dead thinking into the cosmic void
And the will, it arises
As cosmic-thought-creating.

These seven lines contain the secret of human thinking's connection to the universe.

We must not pretend to understand these things with the intellect, but must let them live in feeling as meditation. And these words have force. They are constructed harmoniously. “Thinking”, “willing”, “cosmic void”, “will” and “cosmic thought creating” [these words are underlined] are arranged here in inner organization of thoughts so they can work on the imaginative consciousness.

Just as we can look at the human head and it becomes a means for us to look into cosmic-thought-creating, we can also look at the human heart as the physical imaginative representative of the human soul. As thinking is the abstract representative of the human spirit, we can look upon the human heart as the representative of feeling. And we can look into feeling, as it applies to human earthly existence, but now no longer behind, but into it. [In the drawing a yellow oval.] For just as we perceive cosmic-thought-creating in the spiritual cell behind thinking, we can also perceive feeling, whose representative the heart is, streaming through something which from the cosmos goes in and out of man: we perceive cosmic life, cosmic life which becomes human soul-life.

As here [in the first verse] must be: “behind thinking's sensory light”, now it must be: “in feeling's” in the second mantra, which must be harmonically interwoven with the first.

See in feeling's psychic weaving
How in the twilight of dreams
Life streams in from cosmic distance;
Let in sleep through the tranquil heart
Human feelings drift away:
Cosmic spirit life becomes
Man's true force of being.

[This second strophe is written on the blackboard:]

See in feeling's psychic weaving
How in the twilight of dreams

Feeling is only a wakeful dreaming. Feelings are not as conscious as thinking is. They are as conscious as the pictures in dreams. Thus, feeling is a waking dream. Therefore:

See in feeling's psychic weaving
How in the twilight of dreams
Life

Here [in the first verse] “willing” arises from the body's depths; whereas here “Life” streams in from cosmic distance.

streams in from cosmic distance;

[In the drawing 4 horizontal arrows are added.]

As here [in the first verse] thinking is to flow into the cosmic void through strength of soul, now we let the dreams of feeling gust away, but in their place, we perceive in the psychic weaving of feeling what streams in as cosmic life. When feelings' dreams completely dissolve in sleep, when individual human feeling stops, then cosmic life weaves into man.

Life streams in from cosmic distance

[Writing continues:]

Let in sleep through the tranquil heart

Here [in the first verse] we need strength of soul; Here [in the second verse] we need complete tranquility, for the dreams of feeling dissolve in sleep, and the divine cosmic life streams into the human soul.

Let in sleep through the tranquil heart

[Writing continues, and the words “drift away”, “cosmic spirit life” and “Man's true force of being” are underlined.]

Human feelings drift away:
Cosmic spirit life becomes
Man's true force of being.

In these seven lines the whole secret of human feeling is contained, if it can become independent when the unity [of thinking, feeling, willing] becomes threefold.

In this way we can also observe the human limbs, in which the will is revealed [Drawing: white arrow pointing downwards]; here we cannot say: “See behind”, “See into”. Here we must say “See above”, for thinking streams down to the will from the head, although man with normal consciousness cannot see it. But the thoughts stream from the head into the limbs in order for the will to be able to act in the limbs.

When we observe the will acting in the limbs, when we see in every arm movement, in every leg movement how the will streams in, then we also realize how in this will there is a secret thinking, a thinking which directly grasps earthly existence. Actually, it is our being in earlier earthly lives, which grasps earthly existence through the limbs in order that in grasping it we can live our present life on earth. Thinking descends into the limbs. When we see how thinking descends, we are seeing thinking in the will [drawing: red descending from the head through the arm].

Then, because we are seeing with the soul, we see how thinking lives in the arms, in the hands, in the legs, in the feet, in the toes, a process otherwise hidden from us, then we must see how this thinking is light. Thinking as light streams through arms and hands, through legs and toes. And the will, which otherwise is sleeping in the limbs, transforms itself and thinking appears as a magical being of will that transplants the human being from earlier lives - after becoming spirit - into the present-earth life:

See over the will's work in the body,
How in sleeping fields of work
Thinking descends from the head's forces;
Let human will transform itself
Through the soul's vision of light;
And thinking, it appears
as the magical essence of will.

It conjures, that is, it acts magically on the invisible thinking in the will of the limbs. He understands the human being who knows that the thought which is not seen in the will - because we are sleeping in the will - acts magically in the limbs as will. And only by seeing as magical the thoughts which pass through the arms and hands, through legs and toes is true magic understood.

[The third strophe is written on the blackboard with the words “thinking”, “transform” and “magical being of will” underlined.]

See over the will's work in the body,
How in sleeping fields of work
Thinking descends from the head's forces;
Let human will transform itself
Through the soul's vision of light;
And thinking, it appears
as the magical essence of will.

Therein is contained the secret of human will, which creates magically from out of the universe into man.

Let us then, my dear friends, my dear sisters and brothers, consider this a foundation for building later on at a time to be announced, a foundation for again and again in meditation letting the mantric words flow through the soul.

See behind thinking's sensory light,
How in the darkening spirit-cell
Willing arises from the body's depths;
Let flow through your soul's force
Dead thinking into the cosmic void;
And the will, it arises
As cosmic-thought-creating.

See in feeling's psychic weaving
How in the twilight of dreams
Life streams in from cosmic distance;
Let in sleep through the tranquil heart
Human feelings drift away:
Cosmic spirit life becomes
Man's true force of being.

See over the will's work in the body,
How in sleeping fields of work
Thinking descends from the head's forces;
Let human will transform itself
Through the soul's vision of light;
And thinking, it appears
as magical being of will.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]