The Rudolf Steiner Archive

This English edition is based on the 1998 edition of the German edition of GA 97.

The lectures given in 1906 and 1907, notes and records of which are collected in this volume, were given at the same time as the lectures given in Berlin and published in the volume Original impulses for the science of the spirit (GA 96), and may thus be said to complement them. All these lectures were given for members of the then German Section of the Theosophical Society. The lecture on Wagner's Parsifal in Landin was given because Rudolf Steiner, Marie Steiner-von Sivers and some friends had been at Eugenie von Bredow's country estate for a short holiday and then seen Parsifal performed in Bayreuth at the invitation of Sophie Stinde and Pauline von Kalkreuth, the two leaders of the Munich branch.

Rather than follow the usual chronological order, the lectures have been organized under four major themes in this volume. In 13 lectures, Rudolf Steiner considered the spiritual content of the truths to be found in the Christian revelation; 3 lectures are on the nature and mission of the luciferic spirits, 5 on the Rosicrucian way of initiation and its specific nature compared to earlier ways. The fourth group are lectures, some of which were given to central anthroposophical insights, others in their application in different spheres of life.

The terms ‘theosophy’ and ‘theosophical’. At the time when he gave these lectures, Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophical spirit of the science was still within the context of the Theosophical Society and he would generally use the terminology familiar to its members. Yet from the very beginning he used the terms ‘theosophy’ and ‘theosophical’ with reference to his own independent spiritual researches. Taking up a suggestion he made at a later date, the terms have been replaced with ‘science of the spirit’ and ‘anthroposophy’ in these lectures except where they refer specifically to H. P. Blavatsky's theosophical stream. This is the case in the lectures given in Dusseldorf on 4 April 1906 and in Leipzig on 25 April 1906 and 12 January 1907.

For a glossary of repeatedly used Indian theosophical terms, see next chapter.

Sources. The lecture notes were made by members of the audience, some being better, others less good. Only 3 lectures (Basel, 19 September 1906; Karlsruhe, 4 February 1907, and Vienna, 22 February 1907) were taken down verbatim. All others are based on brief notes or summaries. The extremely brief record of the Parsifal lecture given in Landin has been extended by using Marie Steiner's notes. Although the sources were on the whole not very satisfactory, the lectures notes have been included in Rudolf Steiner's collected works because they give an idea of his lecturing activities at that time. They often complement each other, also with regard to important details.

For the 1998 German edition, the notes were revised and an index of names added. Text revision by Maria Balastèr and Ulla Trapp.

The volume was given its title by the editor of the first edition. The titles given to individual lectures are not by Rudolf Steiner.

Previously published lecture from this volume: The Structure of the Lords Prayer (Karlsruhe 4 February 1907. Tr. A. H. Parker. London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1971.

The following answers to questions (on the Tailor Example) given by Dr. Steiner at the “Seminar” which accompanied this course of lectures may be helpful to the reader:—

Q. X brings up for discussion the problem of the tailor. (Lecture IV.)

A. The illusion arises because the effect in relation to the single suit is extraordinarily small and therefore it needs a long time for this small effect to become visible in the tailor's accounts and for the loss to be really felt. Products become cheaper through division of labour. When you work, under division of labour, for a community your own products will also become cheaper than they would be if you were to work for yourself. This is due simply to the cheapening effect of the division of labour. If you interrupt it at a certain point, then you will make the article concerned, which you have made for yourself, more expensive. Now the single effect in relation to a single suit would naturally be small, but it would be marked if all tailors were to make their own suits. When a tailor, who makes his own suits, comes to make up proper accounts, he ought to price his own suits higher than the market price. He must reckon his expenses higher. Naturally, the supposition is that the suits should be bought, not from other tailors, but from the dealers in clothes, the clothiers. The price of a suit at the clothiers is cheaper than it would be if tailors worked without clothiers—otherwise the division of labour and merchanting would have no sense. Therefore the tailor ought to price a suit a little higher if he does without the merchant, because the merchant brings the single suit on to the market more cheaply than the tailor could bring it into use...

Q. Does the tailor depress the price of other suits of clothes by that one suit?

A. He depresses the price of suits by withdrawing one suit from the total number of suits with which the clothiers are dealing. He deprives the clothiers of the opportunity of making a profit on this suit. Therefore the clothiers must demand a higher profit on the other suits. This demand of the clothiers for a higher profit brings about a rise in clothiers' prices, but it means a drop in tailors' prices.

Q. Suppose there are considerably more clothiers than are economically justified?

A. In what I have said there is the presumption that exactly as many clothiers exist as are economically justified. We have to do not with progression in a straight line, but in a direction towards a maximum and a minimum. There is an optimum number of clothiers which will give the best commercial results. Anything over or below it would work uneconomically.

Q. Can the number be ascertained?

A. When you have rational management, then you will have a determinate number of clothiers, as of producers ...

List of relevant literature, published or distributed by Rudolf Steiner Press unless otherwise stated:

BY RUDOLF STEINER

The Threefold Social Order
The Social Future
The Inner Aspect of the Social Question
Anthroposophy and the Social question
Education as a Social Problem

BY FOLKERT WILKEN

The Liberation of Work (Routledge R Kegan Paul)

Notes by Alice Kinkel Third degree

The letter from Baron von Wrangell is read and thoroughly discussed by Dr. Steiner

The members as the disseminators of Theosophy or Anthroposophy. But you, who are gathered here, should form a core group. You should be careful and everyone should take care to ensure that the right views and the right judgments are spread about Theosophy. Everyone should pay attention and check who is accepted into the Society. Many a person must be accepted, but it will be up to us to ensure that they do not spread themselves too thinly.

With loving greetings and the instruction:
......................................
this shall be written in our soul.

The subject of the instruction is: CORE AND SHELL. We should not practice human complacency towards those for whom false concepts of tolerance are the right ones.

All materialistic culture, all the great technical achievements such as airships, railways, telegraphs and so on, belong to the shell of present-day human life. But this shell of culture later falls away; the core, however, is to become the savior of human progress. But the core is in greater danger than the shell; the core can be eaten by worms. We should remember that such a thing could happen!

Dr. Steiner speaks of the theosophical indecencies that have taken place in the Society, and cites Max Heindel's book as an example.

We should remember that we belong to the core group, supported by the leaders of spirituality and occultism. Man should not forget his original image; he should always strive to become similar to it. Conscience, an alert conscience and not lying lead to this. The Luciferic entities eliminate conscience and truthfulness. Conscience and compassion will disappear in part of humanity in the sixth epoch.

Each of us should keep the legend, the seven-step ladder and other givens in mind during the day, then the person will feel a consequence of doing these things right here, that is, the right forces will then flow in.

During the night, the human being can then come close to Hiram Abiff or Adoniram, Lazarus, who was initiated by the Lord Himself.

For this purpose, meditation is given: “I am not only in the world for myself, but to become similar to my archetype.” This striving is a duty - not selfishness.

These things are given in the first scenes of “Examination of Conscience” and “The Guardian of the Threshold”, as in the three dramas in general: they contain much, much material for meditation.

You should not forget that the spiritual powers are counting on you to help guide humanity.

Every person is a citizen of the spiritual world, but you should be aware of it! At night, you are always in a spiritual world, interacting with beings and judging. This can suddenly come to a person's awareness when waking up or at other times during the day: “I have to train myself to become a revealer of the divine archetype within me.”

Meditate on death: this is a very important matter.

In the last lecture we pointed out the significance of the fact that the Gospel of St. Mark begins by introducing the grand figure of John the Baptist, who is contrasted in a marked manner with that of Christ Jesus Himself. If we allow Mark's Gospel to influence us in all its simplicity, we receive a significant impression of John the Baptist; but only when we consider the Baptist against the background of spiritual science does he appear, so to speak, in his full greatness. I have often pointed out that we must interpret the Baptist in the light of the Gospel itself, for we know that he is clearly described in it as a reincarnation of the prophet Elijah (cf. Matt. 11:14). According to spiritual science, if we wish to investigate the deeper causes of the founding of Christianity and of the Mystery of Golgotha, we must look for the figure of the Baptist against the background of the prophet Elijah. I shall only allude briefly here to the topic of the prophet Elijah since I took advantage of the opportunity provided by the last general meeting of the German section of the Theosophical Society in Berlin to speak more fully on this subject (Turning Points in Spiritual History, London, 1934, Lecture 5). All that spiritual science and occult research have to relate concerning the prophet Elijah is fully confirmed by what is contained in the Bible itself. But many passages will undoubtedly remain inexplicable if we read the chapters relating to him in the ordinary way. I will draw your attention only to one point.

We read in the Bible that Elijah challenged all the followers and peoples of King Ahab among whom he lived, and how he pitted himself against his opponents, the priests of Baal, setting up two altars and causing them to lay their sacrifice on one of them while he laid his own sacrifice on the other. He then showed the triviality of what his opponents had said about the priests of Baal because no spiritual greatness was manifested by the god Baal, whereas the greatness and significance of Yahweh or Jehovah appears at once in the case of the sacrifice of Elijah. This was a victory won by Elijah over the followers of Ahab. Then in a remarkable way we are told that Ahab had a neighbor called Naboth who was the owner of a vineyard. Ahab coveted this vineyard, but Naboth would not sell it to him because he regarded it as sacred since it was an inheritance from his father. The Bible then tells us of two facts. On the one side Jezebel, the Queen, was an enemy of Elijah and proclaims that she will have him put to death in the same way as his opponents, the priests of Baal, were put to death because of his victory at the altar. But according to the biblical account, Elijah's death was not brought about through Jezebel. Something else took place. Naboth, the king's neighbor, was summoned to a kind of penitential feast, to which other important persons of the state were also called, and on the occasion of this feast of penitence, he was murdered at the instigation of Jezebel (I Kings 21).

Now we might say that the Bible seems to relate that Naboth was murdered at the urging of Jezebel. Yet Jezebel does not announce that she intends to murder Naboth but rather Elijah. There is an evident discrepancy in the story. Now occult research begins and shows us the real facts in the case, that Elijah was a great spirit who roamed invisibly through the land of Ahab. But at times he entered into and penetrated the soul of Naboth. So Naboth is the physical personality of Elijah; when we speak of the personage of Naboth, we are speaking of the physical personage of Elijah. In the biblical sense, Elijah is the invisible figure, and Naboth his visible image in the physical world. All this I have shown in detail in my lecture entitled, “The Prophet Elijah in the Light of Spiritual Science.”¹

But if we wish to consider the whole spirit of Elijah's work, and the whole spirit of Elijah as it is presented in the Bible, and allow it to influence our souls, we may say that in Elijah we are confronted by the spirit of the whole ancient Hebrew people. All that lives and is interwoven in this people is encompassed within the spirit of Elijah. We may refer to him as the folk spirit of the ancient Hebrew folk. Spiritual science shows him to have been too great to dwell altogether in the soul of his earthly form, in the soul of Naboth. He hovered over him like a cloud; and he not only lived in Naboth but went around the whole country like an element of nature, active in rain and sunshine. This is revealed ever more clearly the more we go into the whole narrative, which begins by saying that drought and barrenness prevailed, but that through Elijah's relationship to the divine spiritual worlds the drought was ended and the needs of the land at that time were fulfilled. He worked as an element of nature, a law of nature itself. We could say that the best way to learn to recognize what worked in the soul of Elijah is to let the 104th Psalm influence us, with its description of how Yahweh or Jehovah works in all things as a nature-divinity. Of course Elijah is not to be identified with this divinity itself; he is the earthly image of that divinity, an earthly image which is at the same time the folk soul of the Hebrew people. Elijah was a kind of differentiation of Jehovah, an earthly Jehovah, or, as he is described in the Old Testament, the “countenance” of Jehovah.

If we look at it in this way, the fact becomes especially clear that the same spirit that lived in Elijah-Naboth now reappears as John the Baptist. How does he work in John?

According to the Bible, and especially as is shown in the Gospel of St. Mark, he works through what is called baptism. What in reality is baptism? Why was it administered by John the Baptist to those who allowed themselves to be baptized? Here we must examine what was the actual effect of baptism on those who were baptized. The candidates were immersed in water. Then there always followed what has often been described as happening when a man receives the shock of being threatened by death, for example by falling into the water and nearly drowning, or by nearly falling over a precipice. A loosening of the etheric body takes place; it partly leaves the physical body. As a consequence, something happens that always happens immediately after death, i.e., a kind of retrospect of the past life. That is a well known fact and has often been described even by the materialistic thinkers of the present time. Something similar took place during the baptism by John in the Jordan. The people were plunged into the water. This baptism was not like the usual baptism of today. The baptism of John caused the etheric bodies of the candidates to be loosened and they saw more than they could comprehend with their ordinary powers of understanding. They saw their life in the spirit and the influence of the spirit on this life. They saw also what the Baptist taught, that the old age was fulfilled and that a new age must begin. In the clairvoyant observation that was possible for them for a few seconds during the baptismal immersion they saw that mankind had come to a turning point in evolution, and that what humanity had possessed in former times when it was in a group-soul condition was now in the process of completely dying out; quite new conditions had to come in, and they saw this while in their liberated etheric body. A new impulse, new capacities, must come to humanity. The baptism of John was therefore a question of knowledge. “Transform your minds, but don't merely turn your gaze backwards as would still be possible. Turn your gaze now to something else, to the God who manifests in the human `I.' The kingdoms of the divine have approached you.” The Baptist did not only preach that; he made it manifest to them by bestowing the baptism on them in the Jordan. Those who had been baptized knew then as a result of their own clairvoyant observation, even though it lasted but a short time, that the words of the Baptist expressed a world-historical fact.

Only when we consider this connection does the spirit of Elijah, which also worked in John the Baptist, appear to us in the right light. Then we see that Elijah was the spirit of the old Jewish people. What kind of spirit was this? In a certain respect it was already the spirit of the “I.” However, it does not appear as the spirit of the individual human being but as the collective folk spirit of the whole people. That which later was to live in each individual man was, so to speak, still in Elijah the group soul of the ancient Hebrew people. That which was to descend as the individual soul into every individual human breast was at the beginning of the Johannine age still in the super-sensible world. It was not yet in every human breast, and it could not yet live in this way in Elijah. So it entered into the individual personality of Naboth but only by hovering over it. Yet in Elijah-Naboth it manifested itself more distinctly than it did in the individual members of the ancient Hebrew people. This spirit, hovering, as it were, over man and man's history, was now about to enter more and more into every bosom. This was the great fact now proclaimed by Elijah-John himself when he said, as he baptized the people, something like the following, “What until now was in the super-sensible worlds and worked from these worlds you must now take into your souls as impulses that have come from the kingdom of heaven right into the hearts of men.” The spirit of Elijah itself shows how in multiplied form it must enter human hearts, so that in the further course of world history they may gradually take up ever more and more of the Christ Impulse. The meaning of the baptism by John was that Elijah was ready to prepare the way for the Christ. This was contained in the deed of the baptism by John in the Jordan, “I will make a place for Him; I will prepare the way for Him into the hearts of men. I will no longer merely hover over men, but will enter into human hearts, so that He also can enter in.”

If this is so, what may we then expect? If it is so, there is nothing more natural than to expect something to come to light in John the Baptist that we have already observed in Elijah. It becomes clear how in this grand figure of the Baptist there is not only his individual personality at work, but something more than a personality, which hovers over the individuality like an aura but has an efficacy that transcends it, something alive like an atmosphere among those within whom the Baptist is working. Just as Elijah was active like an atmosphere, so we may expect that as John the Baptist he would again be active like an atmosphere. Indeed, we may expect something further, that this spiritual being of Elijah, now united with John the Baptist, would continue to work on spiritually even if the Baptist were no longer there, if he were away. What does this spiritual being desire? It wishes to prepare the way for the Christ! We can also say that the physical personality of the Baptist may perhaps have left, but his spiritual being like a spiritual atmosphere may remain in the region where he was formerly active, and this spiritual atmosphere actually prepares the very ground on which the Christ could now perform His deed. This is what indeed we might expect. It could perhaps be best expressed if we were to say, “John the Baptist has gone away but what he is as the Elijah-spirit remains, and in this Christ can work best. Here He can best pour forth His words, and in that atmosphere that has remained behind, the Elijah-atmosphere, He can best perform His deeds.” That we can expect. And what does Mark's Gospel tell us?

It is very characteristic that twice allusion is made in the Mark Gospel to what I have just indicated. The first time it is said that “immediately after the arrest of John, Jesus came to Galilee and there proclaimed the teaching of the kingdoms of the heavens.” (Mark 1:14.) John therefore was arrested, that is to say, his physical personality was then prevented from working actively. But the figure of Christ Jesus entered into the atmosphere created by him. And it is significant that the same thing occurs a second time in the Mark Gospel, and it is a grandiose fact that it should occur a second time. We must only read the Gospel in the right way. If we pass on to the sixth chapter we hear fully described how King Herod had John the Baptist beheaded. But it is strange how many assumptions were made, not only after the physical personality of John had been arrested, but when he had been removed through death. To some it seemed that the miraculous forces through which Christ Jesus Himself worked were due to the fact that Christ Jesus Himself was Elijah, or one of the prophets. But the tortured conscience of Herod arouses a strange foreboding in him. When he hears all that has occurred through Christ Jesus he says, “John, whom I beheaded, has been restored to life!” Herod feels that, though the physical personality of John had gone away, he is now all the more present! He feels that his atmosphere, his spirituality—which was none other than the spirituality of Elijah, is still there. His tormented conscience causes him to be aware that John the Baptist, that is, Elijah, is still there.

But then something strange happens. We are shown how, after John the Baptist had met his physical death, Christ Jesus came to the very neighborhood where John had worked. I want you to take particular notice of a remarkable passage and not to skim over it lightly, for the words of the Gospels are not written for rhetorical effect, nor journalistically. Something very significant is said here. Jesus Christ appears among the throng of followers and disciples of John the Baptist, and this fact is expressed in a sentence to which we must give careful attention: “And as Jesus came out He saw a great crowd,” by which could be meant only the disciples of John, “and He had compassion on them ...” (Mark 6:34.) Why compassion? Because they had lost their master, they were there without John, whose headless corpse we are told had been carried to his grave. But even more precisely is it said, “for they were like sheep who had lost their shepherd. And He began to teach them many things.” It cannot be indicated any more clearly how He teaches John's disciples. He teaches them because the spirit of Elijah, which is at the same time the spirit of John the Baptist, is still active among them. Thus it is again indicated with dramatic power in these significant passages of the Mark Gospel how the spirit of Christ Jesus entered into what had been prepared by the spirit of Elijah-John. Even so this is only one of the main points, around which many other significant things are grouped.

I will now call your attention to one thing more. I have several times pointed out how this spirit of Elijah or John continued to act in such a way as to impress its impulses into world history. And since we are all anthroposophists assembled together here, and able to enter into occult facts, it is permissible to discuss this subject here. I have often mentioned that the soul of Elijah-John appeared again in the painter Raphael.² This is one of those facts that call attention to the metamorphoses of souls that take place under the impetus given by the Mystery of Golgotha. Because it was also necessary that in the post-Christian era such a soul should work in Raphael through the medium of a single personality; what in ancient times was so comprehensive and world encompassing now appears in such a different personality as that of Raphael. Can we not feel that the aura that hovered round Elijah-John is also present in Raphael? That in Raphael there were such similarities to these two others that we could even say that this element was too great to be able to enter into a single personality but hovered round it, so that the revelations received by this personality seemed like an illumination? Such was indeed the case with Raphael!

I could also say that there exists a proof of this fact, though it is a somewhat personal one, to which I already alluded in Munich.³ I should like to refer to it again here, not for the purpose of bringing out the personality of John the Baptist, but the full being of Elijah-John. For this purpose I will venture to speak of the further progress of the soul of Elijah-John in Raphael. Anyone who wishes honestly and sincerely to investigate what Raphael really was is likely to have his feelings aroused in a very remarkable way.

I have drawn attention to the modern art historian Hermann Grimm,⁴ and have mentioned that he was able to produce a biography of Michelangelo with comparative facility, but that on three separate occasions he tried to prepare a kind of life of Raphael. And because Hermann Grimm was not a so-called “learned man”—such a man of course can do anything he sets out to do—but a universal man who threw his whole heart sincerely into whatever he wanted to investigate and understand, he was forced to admit that when he had finished what he had intended to be a life of Raphael it did not turn out to be a life of Raphael at all. So he had to begin to do it again and again, but he was never satisfied with his work. Shortly before his death he made one more attempt, which is included in his posthumous works. In this he tried to approach Raphael and understand him in the way his heart wished to understand him, and the title his new work was to bear was indeed characteristic of him. He proposed to call the book Raphael as World-Power. For it seemed to him that if one approaches Raphael honestly, he cannot be described in any way other than as a world-power, unless one fails to see through to what is actively at work in world history. It is very natural that a modern author should experience some discomfort in choosing his words if he is to write as freely and frankly as did the evangelists. Even the best writers of modern times are embarrassed if they set to work in this way, but the figures that have to be described often force them to use the appropriate words. So it is very remarkable how Hermann Grimm wrote about Raphael shortly before his death in the first chapters of his book. It is really as if one can sense in the heart of Hermann Grimm something of the circumstances surrounding such a figure as that of Elijah-John, when he said, “If by some miracle Michelangelo were called back from the dead to live among us, and I were to meet him, I would respectfully stand aside to let him pass by. But if Raphael were to come my way I would go up behind him to see if by chance I might hear a few words from his lips. In the case of Leonardo and Michelangelo we can confine ourselves to relating what they once were in their own time; but with Raphael one must begin with what he is to us today. A slight veil has been cast over the others, but not over Raphael. He belongs among those whose growth will continue for a long time yet. We may imagine that Raphael will present ever new riddles to future generations of humanity.” (Fragments, Vol. II, page 170.)

Hermann Grimm describes Raphael as a world-power, as a spirit striding on through centuries and millennia, as a spirit who could not be encompassed within one individual man. And we may read yet other words by Hermann Grimm, wrung from the honesty and sincerity of his soul. It seems as if he wanted to express that there is something about Raphael like a great aura enveloping him, just as the spirit of Elijah enveloped Naboth. Could this be expressed in any other way than in these words of Hermann Grimm, “Raphael is a citizen of world-history; he is like one of the four rivers which, according to the belief of the ancient world, flowed out of Paradise.” (Fragments, Vol. II, page 153.)

That might also have been written by an evangelist, and it might almost have been written of Elijah! Thus even a modern historian of art, if his feelings are honest and sincere, is able to feel something of the great cosmic impulses that live through the ages. Truly nothing further is required to understand spiritual science than to come close to the soul and spiritual needs of those men who strive longingly to discover the truth about the evolution of humanity.

So does John the Baptist stand before us, and it is good if we can feel him in this way when we read the opening words of the Mark Gospel, and again later in the sixth chapter. The Bible is unlike a book of modern scholarship in which it is clearly emphasized what people ought to read. The Bible conceals beneath the grandiose artistic and occult style many of the mysterious facts it wishes to proclaim. And it is precisely in relation to the facts in the story of John the Baptist that the artistic and occult style does indeed conceal such things. Here I want to draw your attention to something that you can perhaps experience as truth only through your life of feeling. If you admit that there can be truths other than rational ones you may be able to see that the Bible tells us how the spirit or soul of Elijah is related to the spirit or soul of John the Baptist. Let us as briefly as we can see how far this is the case by allowing ourselves to be affected by the description of Elijah as it appears in the Old Testament:

So Elijah arose and went toward Zaraphta. And when he came to the gate of the city, there was a widow woman gathering wood. And he called to her and said “Bring me, I pray thee, a little water in a pitcher that I may drink.” And as she was going to fetch it, he called out to her and said “Bring me also a mouthful of bread.”

And the woman said, “As sure as the Lord your God liveth I have no bread, only a handful of flour in a bin and a little oil in a cruse. And see, I have gathered a few pieces of wood, and I am about to go inside and I want to make them ready for me and my son that we may eat and then die.”

Elijah said to her, “Fear not, go in and do as you have said. But first make a small cake and bring it out for me. Then afterwards you can make something for you and your son. For thus says the Lord, ‘The flour in the bin shall not be consumed nor the oil cruse run dry until the day when the Lord makes it rain upon the earth.’ ”

So she went in and did as Elijah had said. And he ate, and so did her household for a time. The flour in the bin was not eaten up, and the oil cruse did not run dry, according to the word he had spoken through Elijah. (I Kings 17:10-16.)

What do we read in the story of Elijah? We read of the coming of Elijah to a widow, and of a marvellous increase of bread. Because the spirit of Elijah was there it came about that there was no want in spite of the shortage of bread. The bread increased—so we read—the moment Elijah came into the presence of the widow. What is described here as an increase in bread, as the giving of bread as a gift, comes about through the spirit of Elijah. We can say therefore that the fact shines out from the Old Testament that the increase of bread is effected through the appearance of Elijah.

Now let us turn to the sixth chapter of the Mark Gospel. Here we are told how Herod caused John to be beheaded, and how Christ Jesus then came to the group of John's followers.

And when He came out He saw a great crowd, and had compassion on them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things. And as it had become quite late His disciples came to Him and said, “This is a desolate place and it is already late. Let them go so that they may go to the farms and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But He answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to Him, “Should we go there and buy bread for two hundred denarii and give them something to eat?” He answered them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and look.” And after they had obtained the information they said, “Five loaves and two fishes.”

And he ordered them all to sit down on the green grass as if it had been a table. And they lay down as if for bed, by hundreds and by fifties. And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before them; in the same way he divided the two fishes among them. And they all ate and were satisfied. (Mark 6:34-42.)

You know the story; again there was an increase in bread brought about by the spirit of Elijah-John. The Bible does not actually speak “clearly” as we understand the word today, but it expresses what it has to say through its composition. Whoever understands how to value the truths of feeling will wish to let his feeling dwell on the passage where it is related how Elijah came to the widow and increased the bread, and where the reincarnated Elijah leaves his physical body and Christ Jesus brings about in a new form what is described as an increase of bread. Such are the inner developments, the inner correspondences in the Bible. They demonstrate how fundamentally empty the scholarship is that talks about a “compilation of biblical fragments,” but also how it is possible for us to recognize the one single spirit composing it throughout, irrespective of who this single spirit is. That is how the Baptist is presented to us.

Now it is very remarkable how the Baptist himself is again introduced into the work of Christ Jesus. On two occasions it is indicated to us that Christ Jesus really entered the aura of the Baptist just when the physical personage was withdrawing more and more into the background, finally leaving the physical plane altogether. But it is shown in very clear words precisely through the very simplicity of the Mark Gospel how through the entry of Christ Jesus into the element of Elijah-John a wholly new impulse enters the world. In order to understand this we must envisage the whole description given in the Gospel from the moment when Christ Jesus appears after the arrest of John the Baptist and speaks of the divine kingdom, to the passage where the murder of John by Herod is related, and continue on with the subsequent chapters. If we take all these stories down to the story of Herod and consider them in their true character we find that the intention of all of them is to reveal in a correct manner the qualities that are characteristic of Christ Jesus. Yesterday we spoke of His characteristic way of acting so that He is recognized also by the spirits which live in those possessed by demons. In other words, He is recognized by super-sensible beings and this is presented to us in a sharply accentuated manner. And then we are faced with the fact that that which lives in Christ Jesus is something in reality quite different from what dwelt in ElijahNaboth for the reason that the spirit of Elijah could not wholly enter into Naboth.

The purpose of the Gospel of St. Mark is to show us that the being of Christ entered fully into Jesus of Nazareth and entirely filled his earthly personality. What we recognize as the universal human ego was working in Him. What then is so terrible to the demons who were in possession of human beings when they were confronted by Christ Jesus? The devils are compelled to say to Him, “You are He who bears the God within You.” They recognize Him as a divine power in the human personality, thus compelling the demons to allow themselves to be recognized and to come forth from the human beings who were possessed through the power of what lives in the individual personality of man (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7). This is why in the early chapters of the Mark Gospel the figure of Christ is worked out so carefully, making Him in a certain way a contrast to ElijahNaboth, and also to Elijah-John. For whereas that which was active in them could not wholly live in them, this activating quality was wholly contained within Christ Jesus. For this reason, although a cosmic principle lives in Him, Christ Jesus as an individual personality confronts other human beings quite individually, including those whom He heals.

It is true that at the present time people generally take descriptions that come from the past in a peculiar way. In particular many of the modern learned students of nature—monists, as they also call themselves—take these descriptions in a very peculiar way when they wish to present their conceptions of the world. We could characterize this attitude by saying that these learned savants and excellent natural philosophers are secretly of the opinion, though they might be too embarrassed to say so, that it would have been better if the Lord God had left the organizing of the world to them, for they would really have established it better.

Take, for example, the case of such a learned student of natural philosophy of our time who maintains that wisdom has come to mankind only in the last twenty years, while others believe it has only been during the last five years, and regard earlier ideas as mere superstition. Such a man would profoundly regret that at the time of Christ there was no modern school of scientific medicine with its various remedies. According to their notions it would have been much more clever if all these people, for example Simon Peter's mother-in-law and others, had been cured with the aid of modern medical remedies. To their minds he would have been a really perfect God if he had created the world in accordance with the conceptions of a modern knowledge of nature. He would not have allowed humanity to have been deprived so long of the knowledge of nature possessed by modern savants. The world as established by God is indeed bungled by comparison with what a modern natural scientist would have created. They are embarrassed to say it so openly, but it is possible to read between the lines. These things that whirr around in the minds of materialistic natural scientists should be called by their right names. If we could for once talk confidentially with one of these gentlemen we might hear him voice the opinion that it is hard to avoid being an atheist when one sees how little success God had at the time of Christ in curing human beings by the methods of modern natural science.

But one thing is not considered: that the word “evolution,” about which people speak so often, ought to be taken seriously and honestly. Everything about evolution must be understood if the world is to reach its goal, and it is pointless to go looking for a plan such as modern natural scientists would produce if they were able to create a world. Because they think in this way, men do not correctly realize that the whole constitution of man, the unity of the finer bodies of man, were formerly quite different. In earlier times nothing at all could have been achieved with the human personality through the methods of natural science. For then the etheric body was much more active, much stronger than it is today; hence the physical body could be worked on indirectly through the etheric body in a very different manner. To express it quite dryly, at that time there was quite a different effect when one healed by means of “feeling” from what it would be today. At that time feeling was poured out from one person into another. When the etheric body was really much stronger and still governed the physical body, psychospiritual methods of healing acted quite differently. Human beings were constitutionally different, so there had to be a different method for healing. If a natural scientist does not know this he will say, “We no longer believe in miracles, and what is said here about healing is really a question of miracles, and these we must leave out of consideration.” And if one is a modern enlightened theologian one is faced by a very special dilemma. He would like to be able to retain these ideas, but at the same time he is filled with the modern prejudice that there is no such thing as healing of this kind, and that such cures are necessarily miracles. Which leads on to the effort to make all kinds of explanations as to the possibility or impossibility of miracles. But one thing he does not know. Nothing described up to the sixth chapter of the Mark Gospel was at that time regarded as a miracle, any more than when today some function of the human organization is affected by one medicament or another. No one at that time would have thought of it as a miracle if someone stretched out his hand and said to a leper, “I will it, become clean.” The whole natural being of Christ Jesus that was poured forth here, was in itself the cure. It would no longer work today because the union between the physical and etheric body is quite different. In those days physicians usually healed in that way, so it was not something that should be particularly emphasized that Christ Jesus cured lepers through compassion and the laying on of hands. Such a thing was then a matter of course. What is worthy of note in this chapter is something quite different, and this we must picture to ourselves correctly.

Let us then first glance at the manner in which the great physicians and even the lesser ones were trained. They were trained in schools that were part of the mystery schools, and they were able to attain to powers that worked down through them from the super-sensible world. Such physicians were thus in a sense mediums for the transmission of super-sensible powers. Through their own mediumship these men transmitted super-sensible powers, and they had been trained for this in the medical mystery schools. When in this way a physician laid his hands on a person it was not his own powers that streamed down but powers from the super-sensible world. It was through his initiation in the mystery schools that he could become a channel for the working of super-sensible powers. It would not have seemed especially remarkable to a person of that time if he heard that a leper or someone suffering from a fever had been cured through such psychical processes. The significant aspect was not that someone appeared capable of curing in this way but that someone who had not been trained in a mystery school could heal in this manner, and that in the heart and soul of this man the power which earlier flowed from the higher worlds was present, and such powers had now become personal individual powers. The truth was to be made clear that the time was fulfilled, and that from now onward men were no longer to be channels for super-sensible forces, that this had come to an end. This had also become clear to those who had been baptized by John in the Jordan, that the old time was coming to an end and everything in the future must be done through the human “I,” through that which is to enter into the divine inner center of the human being. They recognized that now among the people there stands one who does out of His own self what others before had done with the help of beings who live in the super-sensible world and whose powers worked down on them.

So we by no means grasp the meaning of the Bible if we picture to ourselves the curative process as being something special. In the fading light of the era that was passing away, when such cures were possible, it is said that Christ performed cures during this era of the fading light, but that He healed with new forces which would be present from that time onward. Thus it is very clearly shown, with a clarity that cannot be obscured, that Christ Jesus works entirely from man to man. This is everywhere emphasized. It could scarcely be more clearly expressed than when Jesus comes in contact with a woman described in the fifth chapter of the Mark Gospel. He heals her because she approaches Him and touches His garment, and He feels that a current of force has gone out from Him. The whole story is related in such a way as to show that the woman draws near to Christ Jesus and takes hold of His garment. At first He does nothing else Himself, but she does something; she takes hold of His garment, whereupon a current of force leaves Him. How? Not in this instance because He has released it, but because she draws it forth, and He notices it only later. This is very clearly shown. And when He does notice it what does He say? “Daughter, your faith has aided you. Go in peace and be healed from your plague.”

He only then became aware Himself, as He stood there, how the divine kingdom was streaming into Him, and streamed out from Him again. He does not stand there before those who are to be cured as the healers of earlier times stood before those from whom they were to drive out their demons. Whether the sick person believed or did not believe, the power that streamed from the super-sensible worlds through the medium of the healer streamed into him. But now, when it depended on the ego, this ego had to participate in the process; everything now became individualized. The main point of this description was not that one could influence the body through the soul—in that epoch that would have been a matter of course—but that insofar as the new age was just beginning, one ego must henceforth be in direct relationship with another ego. In earlier times the spiritual lived in the higher worlds, and it hovered over the human being. Now the kingdoms of heaven came near and were to enter into the hearts of men, were to live within the hearts of men as in a center. That is the point. In a world view such as this the outer physical and the inner moral flowed together in a new way, in such a way that from the time of the founding of Christianity until today there could only be faith, which from now onward can become knowledge.

Let us take the case of a sick person in ancient times as he stood facing his physician who was to heal him in the way I have just described. Magical forces were brought down from the spiritual worlds through the medium of the physician who had been prepared for this in the mystery schools, and these forces streamed through the body of the physician into that of the patient. There was at that time no link with the moral element, for the whole process did not affect the ego. Morality had nothing to do with it, for the forces flowed down magically from the higher worlds. Now a new era begins, and the moral and the physical aspects of the healing worked together in a new way. Knowledge of this fact will enable us to understand another story.

Some days had passed when He came again to Capernaum. When it was reported that He was in the house many people gathered there, so that there was no longer any room for them, even in front of the door, and He preached the word to them. Then they came to Him with a paralytic carried by four men. And when they were unable to come close to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof of the house where He was and let down the litter on which the paralytic was lying through the gap. And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” (Mark 2:1-5.)

What would a physician have said in earlier times? What would the scribes and Pharisees have expected when a healing was to take place? They would have expected such a healer to have said, “The forces now pouring into you and into your paralyzed limbs will enable you to move.” But what did Christ say? “Your sins are forgiven you.” That is the moral element in which the ego participates. It was a language the Pharisees were incapable of understanding. They could not understand it; for someone to speak like this was a blasphemy to the Pharisees. Why? Because to their minds God could be spoken of only as living in the super-sensible worlds, and He works down from there; and sins could be forgiven only from the super-sensible worlds. They could not understand that forgiveness of sins had something to do with the person who healed. Therefore Christ went on further to say: “Which is it easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Stand up, take up your litter and walk?’ But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth” (turning to the paralytic) “I tell you to stand up, take up your litter and go home.” And at once he stood up, took his litter and went out in full view of everyone. (Mark 2:9-12.)

Christ combines the moral and magical elements in His healing, and in this way made the transition from the ego-less to the ego-filled condition, and this can be found in every single description. This is how these matters must be understood, for this is the way they are told. Now compare what spiritual science has to say with all that biblical commentaries have to say about the “forgiveness of sins.” You will find there the strangest explanations, but nowhere anything satisfying because it was not known what the Mystery of Golgotha actually was.

I said that it had to be taken on faith. Why on faith? Because the expression of the moral in the physical element is not developed in one incarnation. When we meet someone today we must not look upon a physical defect as the bringing together of the physical and moral elements within one incarnation. Only when we go beyond one individual incarnation do we find the connection between the moral and physical elements in his karma. Because karma was very little emphasized up to the present time or not at all we can now say, “Until now the connection between the moral and physical elements could be discerned only through faith.” But now, when we are approaching the Gospels in a spiritual scientific way, faith is replaced by knowledge. Christ Jesus stands here beside us as an enlightened one, telling us about karma, when He makes known, “This person I may cure, for I perceived from his personality that his karma is such that he may stand up and walk.”

In such a passage as this you can see how the Bible is to be understood only if it is provided with the means given by modern spiritual science. It is our task to show that in this book, this cosmic book, the profoundest wisdom concerning the evolution of man is truly embodied. Once we are able to grasp what cosmic processes unfold on the earth—and this we shall emphasize increasingly in the course of these particular lectures since the Mark Gospel especially points to them—then we shall discover that what can be said in connection with this Gospel in the future can in no way be offensive to any other of the world's creeds. True knowledge of the Bible will, because of its own inner strength, stand firmly on the ground of spiritual science, attaching equal value to all the religious creeds of the world. This is because true knowledge of the Bible, for the reasons given at the end of our last lecture, cannot be truthfully confined within one denomination or another, but must be universal. In this way the religions will be reconciled. What I was able to tell you in my first lecture about the Indian who gave the lecture, “Christ and Christianity,” seems like the beginning of such a reconciliation. This Indian, no doubt subject to all the prejudices of his nation, nevertheless looked up to Christ in an interdenominational sense. It will be the task of spiritual scientific activity within the different religious confessions to try to understand this figure of Christ. For it seems to me that the task of our spiritual movement must be to deepen the religious creeds so that the inner nature of the different religions can be understood and deepened.

I should like in this connection to indicate something I have often pictured for you in the past, e.g., how a Buddhist who is an anthroposophist would conduct himself in relation to an anthroposophist who is a Christian. The Buddhist would say, “Gautama Buddha, who after first being a Boddhisattva then became a Buddha, after his death reached such a height that he no longer needs to return to earth.” The Christian who is an anthroposophist would reply, “I understand, for if I find my way into your heart and believe what you believe, I myself believe that about your Buddha.” This is what it means to understand the religion of the other person, to bring oneself to the other's religion. The Christian who has become an anthroposophist can understand everything that the other man says.

And what would the Buddhist who has become an anthroposophist say in reply? He would say, “I am trying to grasp what the innermost core of Christianity is. That with Christ we do not have to do with a founder of religion but with something different. In the case of the Mystery of Golgotha we have to do with an impersonal fact. Jesus of Nazareth did not stand there as the founder of a new religion, but the Christ entered into him, and He died on the Cross, thus accomplishing the Mystery of Golgotha. What is really the issue is that the Mystery of Golgotha is a cosmic fact.” And the Buddhist will say, “In future I shall no longer misunderstand, now that I have grasped the essence of your religion, as you have grasped mine, which was the issue between us. I will never picture the Christ as someone who will be reincarnated. For you the central question is what happened there. And I should be speaking in a very odd manner if I were to say that Christianity could be improved upon in any respect—that if Christ Jesus had been better understood He would not have been crucified after three years, that a religious founder should have been treated differently, and the like. The point is precisely that Christ was crucified, and the crucial consequences of that death on the Cross. There is no point in thinking that an injustice occurred at that time and that Christianity today could be improved upon.” No Buddhist who is an anthroposophist could say anything else than, “As you truly strive to understand the essence of my religion, so will I truly strive to understand the essence of yours.”

And what would be the result if people of different religions were to understand each other in such a way that the Christian were to say to the Buddhist, “I believe in your Buddha just as you do,” and if the Buddhist were to say to the Christian, “I understand the Mystery of Golgotha in the same way you do?” If something like this were to become general among human beings, what would be the consequence? There would be peace, and mutual acceptance of all religions among men. And this must come. The anthroposophical movement must consist of a true mutual understanding of all religions. It would be contrary to the spirit of anthroposophy if a Christian who became an anthroposophist were to say to a Buddhist, “It is untrue that Gautama after he became a Buddha will no longer reincarnate. He must appear in the twentieth century again as a physical human being.” Whereupon the Buddhist would say, “Can your anthroposophy lead you only to deride my religion?” And as a result instead of peace discord would arise among the religions. In the same way a Christian would have to tell a Buddhist who insisted on speaking about the possible improvements in Christianity, “If you can maintain that the Mystery of Golgotha was a mistake, and that Christ could return in a physical body so that He could succeed better than before, then you are making no effort to understand my religion, you are deriding it.” It is no task of anthroposophy to deride any religion, old or new, that is worthy of respect. If this were the task of anthroposophy it would be founding a society on mutual derision, not on the understanding of the equality of all religions!

In order to understand the spirit and the occult core of anthroposophy we must write this in our souls. And we can do this in no better way than by extending the strength and love that are working in the Gospels to the understanding of all religions. The later lectures in this cycle will show us how this can be achieved most particularly in connection with the Gospel of St. Mark.

• 1. Berlin, December 14th, 1911. English translation in Turning Points in Spiritual History (London: Rudolf Steiner Publishing Co., 1934).
• 2. Raphael. Raffaello Santi, 1483–1520, Italian painter, famous especially for his Madonnas and for his paintings in the Stanza della Segnatura in the Vatican, especially The School of Athens and the Disputä.
• 3. ... proof to which I already alluded in Munich. In a lecture of August 31, 1912, not translated, entitled, “Theosophy and the Spiritual Life of the Present.”
• 4. Hermann Grimm, 1828–1901. The books on Raphael written by him appeared under the title Das Leben Raphael (The Life of Raphael) 1872, 1885 and 1896. Raphael als Weltmacht (Raphael as World Power) appears in his posthumously published Fragments, Vol. II.

From yesterday's discussions, you were able to see how, in our time, the human being is part of the overall development of humanity. It was shown what, as it were, approaches the individual personality through the development of humanity itself, and how this development of humanity absolutely requires that the urge to fire and awaken the inner soul awakens more and more, so that man will find progress less and less as an external influence, so to speak, but that he will have to acquire it from within himself. That is the purpose of spiritual science: to enable human individuality to progress further, whereas in ancient times, simply by being born into humanity, a person had a certain amount of experiences that matured him to a certain degree. You will feel that the realization of such a fact, as we were able to describe it yesterday, is of tremendous importance and thoroughly illuminates what is needed in our time, what is needed by people of our time.

One can only really get into these things, as one should in the sense of a spiritual scientist, by looking with open eyes at the way in which people in the present day relate to the whole of earthly evolution. One can make discoveries of infinite significance. One must only make these discoveries in such a way that one is in a position to evaluate the facts. There are certainly people in our time who feel that something is needed to lead the soul, as it were, beyond itself, that is, beyond the twenty-seven years. But the courage and energy that accomplishes such wonders in external fields today, the courage and energy to really develop the inner soul forces, are not so common today. And so it happens that we meet people who have a certain striving in their nature to find something other than what can be offered by the culture of our time and the tasks of the world around us. But they do not have the courage to approach the kind of work and attitude that wants something truly new: spiritual science. And so we learn that such people do not clearly say to themselves, but feel: In the past, the environment gave people more, so we must again seek what the world gave people in the past, we must find the connection to earlier human gifts again.

That is why people who are more longing for the spiritual, I would say, out of powerlessness, take refuge in all sorts of things that have actually already been extinguished within human development. We could cite examples of this everywhere. Let us quote a very characteristic example from the writer Maurice Barres, who in his youthful impetuosity once wanted to storm, one might say, the spiritual heavens, but then, because he did not find the courage to join some new spiritual movement, sought to join Catholicism, as so many do in the present day. But it is a strange attitude that seeks a way backward instead of a way forward. And the words with which Barres describes his striving for Catholicism are characteristic, for these words testify to how a dispirited, energy-less soul, because it does not want to seek the new, reaches for the old. But how he reaches is the characteristic thing. Take the words of a man of this kind of mind, who has grown entirely out of the education of today, stands entirely in it, and out of this education has developed his inclination towards Catholicism. Take these words: “It is a futile effort to seek the hereafter. It may not even exist!” Imagine someone who has sought this connection to Catholicism talking about the hereafter: “It is a futile effort to seek the hereafter. It may not even exist; and however we approach it, we cannot learn anything about it. Let us leave all occultism to the enlightened and the conjurers; whatever form mysticism may take, it contradicts reason. But let us turn to the Church, first of all because she is inseparably linked to the tradition of France. And then, because it formulates, with the authority of centuries and great practical experience, the rules of that ethic that must be taught to nations and children. And finally, because it, far from abandoning us to mysticism, defends us directly against it, silences the voices of the mysterious groves, interprets the Gospels and sacrifices the generous anarchism of the Savior to the needs of modern society.” You see the motives of a man who is characteristic of the present age, driven to seek the spirit of his own kind: he reaches for what humanity once had without human effort. But he takes it without really laying any claim to the full meaning of what he takes. One would be tempted to say that such a thing is cynical or frivolous if it were not for the great seriousness of the endeavor. But that is precisely the fatal thing: the seriousness of the endeavor itself becomes frivolous due to the conditions of the time. Do not take this word lightly! The great damage of our time is rooted in the fact that people are always inclined to take things lightly. Examples like that of Maurice Barres could be cited countless times. What is characteristic of our time, in the sense of what has just been explained, would emerge everywhere in the most diverse ways.

We ask ourselves: What is the cause of this? We ask ourselves this question because it is important for us to recognize how we must do things differently. However, we can only find our way around in this if we have a little insight into the plight of the time, into what underlies such an attitude. We must look back a little into the meaning of human evolution if we want to understand what we must understand in the present if we are to move forward. If we go back in the evolution of European humanity and the Asian part of humanity that belongs to it — we only need to go back to the first third of the post-Atlantic period — we find today, even by outwardly scientific means, that people in those days clearly distinguished between the three basic components of the human being, and that the old, albeit more vague and dreamlike, understanding has come to the point that people knew how to distinguish between the three basic components of the human being. And this, in turn, is the reason why I emphasized with particular clarity in my 'Theosophy' that these three basic components must be taken as the basis for the whole structure of the human being. If we go back, we find everywhere that people can see how the human being can be traced back to body, soul and spirit. But just think about the lack of clarity that has arisen today, even among those who seek clarity, with regard to an overview of the human being in terms of body, soul and spirit! You can pick up one philosophy after another today, you can study Wundt, who was not only famous in Germany but world-famous, with great zeal, and you will see that the gentleman is unable to distinguish the soul from the mind, even though distinguishing the soul from the mind is one of the most fundamental necessities today. When did it actually come to light that people have confused the soul with the spirit? As I said, you can find it everywhere: man is divided into body and soul, and the soul is confused with the spirit, without any distinction. This was clearly expressed in 869 at the Council of Constantinople, where the spirit was abolished, excuse the harsh expression, because the teachings that were formulated at that time essentially culminated in making it a dogma that man has a thinking soul and a spiritual soul within him. Thus the spirit was done away with, and what little spirit was still sensed at that time was smuggled into the soul by saying: It has the power of thinking and something spiritual as well. Then came the Middle Ages with their scholastic research, which was admirable in many respects; but this was everywhere subject to the strict constraints of dogma, and so-called trichotomy was strictly proscribed. Spirit had to be left out everywhere. And this is also the source of the way in which modern university professors, who, according to their own statements, pursue science without preconditions, think – or do not think – about soul and spirit. But they are unaware of the prerequisites, namely the decrees of the Council of 869. The fact that they have no idea what they actually depend on is the reason why they call themselves unconditional. That is the way things are, and they must be heard and vigorously considered; there is no point in closing our eyes to them. For if spiritual science oriented to anthroposophy is to become for man what it must become according to the laws of human evolution, then such things must above all be faced, and man must be given back an understanding of the threefold constitution of the human being as body, soul and spirit. Just as on the one hand there is the body, which between birth and death or conception and death, is the physical mediator of consciousness, so the spirit must be recognized as the spiritual mediator of that higher consciousness that man has to develop between death and a new birth. But this is connected with the deep inner, significant life circumstances of modern humanity. Let us take a characteristic example from our time. In many cases, public life is based on three abstract ideas, even though people have deviated from them here and there. And particularly in our time we see these three abstract ideas being wielded by the whole world against the center of Europe. But this center of Europe will only spiritually grasp its task if it is willing to make the three abstract ideas into concrete ideas imbued with reality. These three ideas were forcefully called into the consciousness of mankind at the end of the 18th century in the words: fraternity, freedom, equality. They almost remind us of three very concrete ideas, which are only now being understood in a very abstract way, but which were meant very literally in their time when they were incorporated into the consciousness of mankind. They remind us of faith, hope and love. But let us dwell on the three ideas of brotherhood, freedom and equality. It is a shadowy thinking that one seeks to visualize these three ideas in the whole modern world. All the efforts that the human soul makes in this direction are based precisely on the fact that people do not have the inclination to enter into reality. They do not approach these three great, these three cardinal ideas any differently than they would the idea of reorientation: that every person should stand in the place that is best for them. They declaim beautiful ideas, make abstract concepts out of these ideas, but have no inclination to engage with reality. And this reality lies in understanding spiritual science.

Just as one muddles mind and soul, so one also muddles freedom, equality and fraternity. The idea of brotherhood will only be grasped by humanity in the right way when it becomes clear that man is only fully present here on the physical plane with one part of his being, the part we call the body. It is with the body that man stands here on the physical plane; but this body connects man with the whole human race through blood and other ties. Let us think back to older times, especially with regard to the way the physical human being relates to the physical human being here in the world. After all, the human being does not only have within him what he has inherited from his parents; he carries within him the part of immortality that passes through birth and death. But this is divided into embodiments in the physical body. In ancient times, as I discussed yesterday, the human being was able to perceive the spiritual in the environment by going through eating, digesting and breathing; he was capable of that. In this way, something was instinctive in him, so to speak, which we can call a sum of feelings, sensations, perceptions and concepts that regulated his behavior towards his fellow human beings. Instinctively, this was in him. We see this instinctive element diminishing in more recent times, and the terrible explosions of hatred that we are now encountering can only be understood if we understand their real basis, if we understand how the old instincts are diminishing. These instincts of hatred are much more serious than is still recognized today. We will experience terrible things as a result of this state of affairs. And if that which must be conquered in the sense of the developmental history of mankind could not be conquered, the instincts of hatred would grow ever greater and greater. For even if, especially in this age of freedom from authority, in this age of the unconditioned nature of science, there are individuals who particularly strive to be led by the hand again and again, the feelings that arise from the unconscious do not allow this. Today, such people seek out all kinds of leaders. The more unnatural it is for them to strive to follow these leaders unconditionally, the more they are exposed to the danger of their so-called love turning to hatred. This is not something that can be remedied by mere criticism, because it is deeply rooted in the entire laws of human development. The more philanthropy is preached as an abstract idea, the more fraternity is preached in the abstract, the more mutual antipathy between people will develop. This is also a truth that must be taken very seriously and deeply into consideration if one wants to understand the present. What must happen is that what we call the view of repeated lives on earth is transformed into feeling. Merely adhering to the theory of repeated lives on earth does not account for it!

But if we take together all that is being attempted to be gathered together in order to extract from the laws of human development, in the course of time, that which does not present itself to us as an abstract idea but as a concrete fact, that something lives in every human being that goes through birth and death, then the abstract idea is transformed into feeling, not into instincts like those that existed earlier, but into conscious instincts, into a certain way of relating to other people. Today, there is still all too much of an urge to interpret what one takes on board as the idea of repeated earthly lives in an egotistical way. And how much of it have we experienced, that one person or another is above all keen to know some earlier incarnation of themselves very well indeed! This cannot be the practical consequence of the idea of repeated embodiments, of the idea of repeated earthly lives. The genuine consequence must be that we learn more and more to look at each person as if there were much more to him than he can live in one earthly life, in which he is now standing before us. Above all, what is often mentioned is the sense of distance, the right measure, the feeling for finding the right relationship with the other person: without deifying him, but always seeking deeper and deeper what belongs to infinity in him.

It is a false mysticism to brood within oneself. The mysticism we need is the one that guides us to a practical, but intuitive knowledge of human nature, so that we do not approach a person from the outset as either sympathetic or unsympathetic, but with the awareness that every human soul is actually an infinite mystery. If we take the idea seriously, something streams forth from repeated earthly lives, and from this outpouring into our soul there wells up what should be experienced in the right sense for later humanity as brotherhood, as brotherly love. Such brotherly love will not typically and repeatedly want to help people only according to the idea that appeals to us; it will want to respond to people so that we help them in a way that is appropriate for them, that helps them as their deeper selves require. But such an idea will also keep us from the thoughtless criticism that often erects a barrier between us and the other person, especially today, which does not allow us to look impartially at what lives in another person. Only when the idea of repeated earthly lives is alive and practically working in our soul, then the idea of brotherhood for what people in their corporeality are for each other will be able to take on the right form.

A second factor that must be taken into account in the development of humanity is that we not only recognize the physicality of the human being, which materialism alone wants to recognize today, but that we also recognize the soul of the human being, that we consciously ascribe soul to every human being. But we do not ascribe soul to him if we only seek to violate this soul in our attitude, that is, if we think that we really respect the soul by expecting this soul to have our thoughts, especially the form of our thoughts. We must grant freedom to the soul; we cannot grant it to the body. Freedom is only the basis in the interaction between soul and soul, that on which it depends. And the fundamental nerve of freedom is, namely, freedom of thought. If we come to understand this second link of humanity, the soul alongside the physical, then we will no longer confuse freedom and brotherhood, but will say: brotherhood is necessary because people must establish a social order in the sense of brotherhood. A social structure in the sense of brotherhood must come about, and until people are seized by right, practical ideas of brotherhood, they will not be able to find state structures in which people can live together reasonably. But if people do not recognize that within the state structure man lives not only as a body but also as a soul, they will never be able to grasp the idea of freedom in the appropriate way. For freedom lies in the relationship from soul to soul, not from body to body. The freedom that bodies need comes about of its own accord as a necessary consequence when soul to soul expands in the sense of freedom of thought. Above all, however, this requires that we finally learn to no longer want to impose our own thoughts on people, but that we learn to duly respect the direction of thought in every soul. But above all, we must acquire a sense of reality, for there is no field in which more sins are committed than in the fields of science and religion.

I can only refer to an example that I once encountered in a town in southern Germany. I gave a lecture on wisdom and Christianity. It was a town in southwestern Germany, so two Catholic priests were also at my lecture. After the lecture, they said: Yes, after what you said today, there is not much to be said against your assertions in terms of content, but one cannot agree. — I said: Yes, why? — Yes, the main thing, said the two gentlemen, is that you talk about all these things in relation to Christianity in a way that can only be understood by certain people with a certain level of education, with certain needs and so on. But we are seeking a way of speaking that is for all people; we are formulating our thoughts so that everyone can agree. — I replied: Pastor, how I or you think about what is good for all people depends on you or me, you and I can certainly form ideas about that; and when we do form such ideas, we will of course be fully convinced that they are right. We would be strange old fogies if we formed ideas that we did not believe were suitable for all people. But what matters is not what you or I think, according to our particular development, that something is suitable for all people. In the end, that is completely irrelevant. We have to get beyond that through proper, active, practical self-knowledge. What matters is to study reality and ask: What does reality dictate, what does the time and its content teach us as necessary for people, what do people's longings teach us? But then a question arises that is different from the one you ask: Do all people today go to your church? If you spoke for all people, everyone would go to you. — There they could not help saying: It is true that not all people go to church anymore. — So, I said; you see, and among those who have sat here are mostly those who do not go to church, but who also have the right to find the way to Christ, and I speak for them.

One must not form an idea about what people need according to one's own stubborn opinions, but according to what reality says. But it is more uncomfortable to study reality. There one must always and again apply the sense of observation accordingly, always and again have the will to ask: What are the needs of the time? How does what is necessary in our time present itself? — And until this sense, this practical sense, which must underlie freedom of thought, enters into the souls of men, we will not come to a corresponding relationship from soul to soul. Just as the social structure towards which humanity must strive depends on arriving at a correct understanding of the body in the sense of spiritual science and being able to understand the idea of brotherly love, so we must learn to gain understanding for souls and to help realize the idea of freedom of thought in the field of science and education, in the field of religious sentiment.

And a third aspect is the spirit. If we now really succeed in reinstating the rights of the spirit, in reversing what the Council of Constantinople in 869 recognized, then the spirit, too, will come to what, in a practical sense, leads the life of the people of the future. We already have two tendencies today: one tends to move in the same direction as the Council of Constantinople, that is, to abolish the spirit. A monistic world view also seeks to abolish the soul, and anyone who thinks that scientific monism has so much tolerance – as the word is used today – that it would not be able to hold a council and ban the soul is thinking wrongly. The tendency is already moving towards abolishing not only the spirit but also the soul. And those who are today the little monists will want to grow into quite great monists, and even if they disdain to hold councils, for they are free spirits, because they have freed themselves from all spirit, if they disdain to hold councils, then they will have a certain custom naturalized. And it will come - do not let this be a joke! —that the soul will be abolished. In addition to the various physical remedies that exist today, a series of others will be added that will be designed to treat those who talk about such fantasies as spirit and soul; they will be cured, they will be given medicine so that they no longer talk about spirit and soul. The spirit could be done away with in a trice; the soul can only be driven out of man by treating the body in the right medical way. However grotesque it may appear today, there is a tendency in a certain direction to invent means by which all kinds of stuff is instilled into the child, so that his bodily organization is so enfeebled that the materialistic attitude lives quite well in him, and it does not even occur to him to treat the old idea of soul and spirit as anything other than something in which the old days believed and into which it is a great delight to look.

Of course, saying such things is considered madness by a great many people today; but if one does not have the courage to admit these things to oneself, one will never find the energy to bring spiritual science spirituality to full bloom and to spark it in the souls of others. Therefore, in addition to this tendency, which I have just characterized and which will also cure the soul because it will be considered an illness, the other tendency must be added: the tendency to assert again energetically that, in addition to the body and the soul, the human being also carries the spirit within himself. For this, however, it would be necessary that knowledge of the spirit take hold, that spiritual science really becomes established, that it is recognized by man what belongs to his nature when he has passed through the gate of death. And one of the old folk proverbs that so often carry old good views into the new time is this: In death, all are equal – because all become spirit, and because the idea of equality is the one that corresponds to the spirit. Equality to the spirits! One cannot confuse the three ideas – liberty, fraternity, equality – but one must know in the concrete, in reality, what man is, and that he should be free according to the soul, fraternal according to the body, that men must be equal

must be equal in spirit. For the inequality that exists among people is that specialization brought about by body and soul, in that the spirit specializes in body and soul. Pneumatology, spiritual teaching, spiritual insight is the basis for the idea of equality. And so we have the strange fact that at the end of the 18th century the idea of brotherhood, freedom, equality was shouted out all over the world in a chaotic way, but that gradually it must be understood how the ideas of brotherhood, freedom and equality can only be realized if one is also able to carry the knowledge of the threefold nature of

human being, in body, soul and spirit, into reality. This was the underlying reason for the attempt in my Theosophy to carry out this division into body, soul and spirit in such an energetic way: This division is a demand of our time and the near future. But it is only by realizing these ideas in practice, by learning to see humanity in this way, that one can go beyond the twenty-seven years; otherwise one gets stuck in the twenty-seven years. And just imagine the prospect: our fifth post-Atlantic period will be followed by a sixth and a seventh. In the sixth, general humanity will yield that which, in the individual development, corresponds to the time between the fourteenth and twenty-first year. No matter how clever the people are who direct education in the outside world, they will not be able to get more than what corresponds to individual development up to the age of twenty-one. One will not be able to live past the age of twenty-one, even if one does not die there. And in the seventh post-Atlantic age, one will not live beyond the age that corresponds to the fourteenth year of life in individual development. If one does not grow older through the inspiration of the inner being, then an epidemic of juvenile feeble-mindedness will seize humanity. Anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, and does not live thoughtlessly, can, armed with such ideas, already evaluate many phenomena of the present in the right way!

Let us take just one area: Where has our present age brought us in our understanding of, say, the Christ impulse? How many people are quite close to Barre's idea that the Savior's generous world view has been adapted by the Church to the needs of modern society, and that it is precisely for this reason that we can get along so well with the Churches? Who is making an effort – perhaps there are still individuals who do, but generally speaking – who is really trying to resurrect from the Gospels the teachings of Christ that were directed against the other, the principal opponent? How are the most significant and profound teachings of Christianity understood today? I would like to mention just one central Christian concept: the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. Even Blavatsky ridiculed the prediction that the Kingdom of Heaven would come, saying that at the time it should have come, no more wheat had blossomed than before, the grapes had not grown larger, in short, the Kingdom of Heaven had not come to earth.

One thinks oneself clever; but from this cleverness nothing else comes out than this judgment, and this cleverness does not allow the deeper question: Could not perhaps the Christ have meant something else? — One already recognizes the Christ today, but in such a way that one wants above all that one's own ideas, precisely as one has conceived them oneself, also live in the Christ. The socialist makes a good socialist out of him, the liberal a liberal, the Protestant a Protestant, and so on. A modern school theologian constructs him in the image of Professor Harnack, and people listen to how Professor Harnack speaks about the most important concepts of Christ Jesus. Once it happened that I had to give a lecture in a club whose chairman was a man well versed in the Bible and also in modern 'T'heology. In the course of this lecture I said that Harnack actually had a strange concept of resurrection, because in his “Essence of Christianity” there is the strange sentence: “Whatever may have happened in the Garden of Gethsemane, we can no longer judge it today, because it exceeds human knowledge and also exceeds the legitimate demands of faith. But from the garden in Gethsemane came the belief in resurrection, and this has become especially valuable to mankind. Whether it is true that the Christ was resurrected in some way is not the point! One should believe that from the garden in Gethsemane came faith. That is Harnack's doctrine. The man who was the chairman of the association said: You were mistaken, because in that case Harnack would be nothing less than a Catholic – the man in question felt quite Protestant and exalted – it would be just like the Catholics who say: Where the piece of clothing that is venerated as the Holy Robe of Trier comes from, or where any old knucklebone comes from, it doesn't matter, what matters is that faith has spread, that these things come from a particular saint. But that is Catholic, said the person concerned. Of course, we cannot believe in something like that. And it would be all the same if Harnack said that it does not matter whether it is true that Christ was resurrected in some way, but that people believe that faith originated in the Garden of Gethsemane. So, he said to me, you must have been mistaken. – So I said: Yes, you know, but it is written in 'The Essence of Christianity'. – No, he replied, it cannot be written there. Have you read it? – Oh, often, I said, tomorrow I will send you a postcard with the page and line from the book 'The Essence of Christianity' where it says that.

The man, who knew theology so well and was so well-versed in the Bible, could not read so carefully that he knew what was in the book. But it is in there. That is how today's thinking is. In all areas, it is quite strange, especially when one endeavors to make it so popular.

But not only theologians are guilty of sin; natural scientists are guilty too. There is a little book called “The Mechanics of the Spiritual Life”. I do not know whether there is already a book about the stiffness of iron. The author's name is Verworn. I esteem him, as I do many of those I criticize. In this little book he also deals with dreams and asserts that in dreams a subdued, paralyzed brain life takes place, that brain life is only partially active. If someone were to tap a pin against a windowpane, Verworn says, we may dream that cannon shots are going off one after the other. That is a well-known dream. Verworn says this at the top; then he says something in between, and at the end he says further down on the same page: The dream has its peculiar character because the brain is tuned down in its activity. Now imagine the cleverness: when we have a full brain, we hear the soft taps, the soft pinpricks; when the brain is down, less active, we hear the thunder of guns. — That is an explanation that is accepted, like much of Freud, and accepted with pleasure, because a few lines are in between.

But this is the basis of our time: the will to really go through with thinking what comes to one is very rare in our time. And so it is not particularly incomprehensible that one does not easily want to understand something like the coming of the “Kingdoms of Heaven”, because it takes a lot to do so. Until then, until the Mystery of Golgotha, the Kingdoms of Heaven approached man as in a dream. Before the Atlantean catastrophe, they were even assimilated through digestion. But now they had to come down. They came down, but in such a way that man had to exert his mind to grasp the Kingdoms of Heaven. It is not meant that the grapes become larger, that the ears of wheat become fuller, but that the kingdom lives in the midst of us, but we must find it through the preparation of our own spirit around us. |

This, as I have briefly outlined it, underlies the grandiose conception of Christ Jesus. This is, however, a conception that demands energy from our soul if we want to empathize with it. And so are many Christian conceptions. With these the Christ opposed the Imperium Romanum, the Roman Empire, which developed in complete opposition to Christianity. This Imperium Romanum, which had developed into Caesaranism, brought the old mysteries under its control through its tyranny. Augustus was the first Caesar who, because of his external power, had to be initiated into the mysteries. And his successors, Tiberius, Caligula and others, were people initiated into the mysteries. They only applied the mystery view to the external realm of the world; they did not, like the Egyptian temple priests, carry the realm of the spirit into the realm of the world. Commodus even had himself made an initiator, and when he initiated another man whom he had to initiate, he is said to have given him such a strong blow, symbolically, that he killed him.

So there were two powerful contradictions facing each other: the Imperium Romanum and Christianity. This contradiction must find its resolution. It has not yet found it to this day. We must become capable of recognizing the spirit and also of introducing the spirit into life. I only want to say so much about this point, because in our thinking, in our feeling, lives on in many ways that which has moved into people as the logic, the way of thinking and feeling, as it was dominant in the Roman Empire. Our grammar school pupils learned Latin first and with it the way of thinking of the Imperium Romanum, which has been passed on. We do not know how much of this is at the innermost nerve of our lives; we still do not know how to seek and find the spiritual path to Christ in the right sense. But this path can only be one that has the will to think, which has particularly declined in our time; one could say, intelligence itself. Our time, so proud of its intelligence, actually lacks intelligence because it lacks conscientiousness on the basis of thinking.

A much-read booklet, which deals with “Christianity in the ideological struggle of the present”, reproduces lectures that have been given to thousands upon thousands of people by a very leading spirit of the present day, who has of course thoroughly studied philosophy and theology. Ideas are developed there that make you want to climb up the walls! Finally, you come across a beautiful sentence, yes. Goethe is supposed to have said:

No created spirit can penetrate into the innermost nature

,

Happy the one to whom she only

reveals the outer shell!

We would actually have to get to that point in order to recognize something like that! The man knows his Goethe so well that he cites this saying of Haller as a saying of Goethe, despite the fact that Goethe said:

I curse it, but furtively.

Nature has neither core nor shell;

All at once it is everything.

You alone are tested most of all,

Whether you are core or shell.

So today people are talked into believing as a Goethean view what Goethe himself said: “I curse it”! But people listen willingly to it, that is the general thinking of today. It is of no use to look up with desire at certain ideas that come from spiritual science. These ideas must fully enter into the life of the soul, then the other current will establish itself, the spiritual current, which does not allow today's way of thinking to take over humanity, but allows people to develop individually so that they can bring into the general development that which can now be released from what is there by itself. But much must still come before such things are grasped in the right concrete sense, grasped in such a way that thinking really based on reality reaches people.

A very fine book has been published: “The State as a Form of Life” by Kjellen, the famous Swedish political scientist. I mention him because he is a man who has been very sympathetic to our cause, to my cause, so that one should not think that I am angry about anything. But for that very reason I may mention him as typical of certain ways of life.

In this book, he attempts to gain ideas about the state that may lead out of many an error. He naturally comes back to the idea of the state as an organism. He is further along than Wilson. Wilson in his time criticized very sharply the fact that in Newton's time people did not think independently about the state, but were so influenced by the theory of gravity that they judged the various impulses in human thought according to abstract gravity. One must think about the state as one would about an organism. In doing so, he fails to realize that people thought in Newtonian terms and he in Darwinian terms. Kjellén also thinks that the state is an organism; the individual people are then the cells. Now, of course, you can compare a whole that has impulses of life within it with an organism and its parts with cells. But you can actually compare anything if the ideas are not willing to delve into reality, ultimately even a lizard with a pocket knife. Everything can be compared. Only when one has a sense of reality does comparison lead to the right conclusion. In Kjellén's comparison, one state would be understood as a single organism and the other as a neighboring organism. However, anyone who can think realistically cannot possibly think of people as cells. The comparison could apply if one compares the whole of the states with an organism and the individual states as cells; but then the whole person does not merge into the state. Only social life over the whole earth can then be compared with the organism. But if one wanted to insert the human being now, it would look like this: if we imagine an organism, the cells would have to stick out everywhere. A strange kind of hedgehog would come out of it. But if that were the case, an organism with living things coming out everywhere, then that would be an organism with which we can compare the whole social life on earth.

But that means that the entire life of man cannot be absorbed into the state order at all. It must everywhere protrude into the spiritual from what the state is able to encompass. In practice, this is all too often forgotten in all areas today, and one could cite institution after institution that would prove how this is forgotten, how one forgets, in addition to the external, modeled on the Imperium Romanum, to establish the kingdom of the spirit that the Christ wanted to bring over the earth. It was very necessary to take this thought in its full seriousness.

You know, where it comes to the concrete, thinking usually does not extend. Think how in recent times everyone has sought to push back the autonomy of scholarly education in such a way that all the things that are associated with learned institutions have been pushed back and the principle of the state has been placed above them. Today, in order to become a medical doctor, one must first pass the state examination, and then one can receive the medical doctorate as a kind of decoration. The autonomy of the medical school as such has been completely suppressed. We could cite many examples where there is a real enthusiasm for moving in this direction. People cannot do enough to nationalize all titles. The word engineer was associated with “ingenium”. Now they no longer strive to do that, but they do strive for the diploma. If it says on it that you are an engineer, then you can call yourself that; otherwise the ingenium is of no use. This is a step away from a spiritual understanding of the world. People do not think about that. On the contrary, they are enthusiastic about this fight against the spirit in all areas. One would have to, in order to make this noticeable, because one likes to swear by words so much today, perhaps invent a new word and say: people are 'beleibert' for de-spiritualization. Then perhaps some would begin to pay a little attention to the direction one is taking! But the fact that people do not pay attention is precisely the proof of the thoughtlessness of life, of the hatred that one has almost against the will to think.

So you see how necessary it is to really introduce spiritual science into the most everyday life. Spiritual science is a serious matter. Therefore, in addition to yesterday's significant matter, the immediate current situation had to be mentioned. For the aims of spiritual science must not be compromised by its becoming philistine and ossified, by the Anthroposophical Society creating obstacle after obstacle for what spiritual science wants. Of course, reasonable people will always understand that the people who come to the Anthroposophical Society are those who have somehow come into conflict with life, and so strongly that they have lost their balance. The question then always arises: Do we want to accommodate these people, or be hard? — Sometimes such people change so much that they lose their balance even more, or they change so much that they tell stories like the ones they are telling now, which are likely to turn a sacred matter into gossip, into slander, into vilification. If what I said yesterday is considered unjust – that basically little is made of what I say – then of course that is the individual's prerogative. I only said: Outside, people speak of 'blind followers'. For the teaching, this is not necessary, because it can be examined. Only for some things that relate to institutions is trust sometimes necessary. But it is just in such matters that the opposite of what I myself mean usually happens. And so what I presented yesterday as a necessary measure may be felt to be unjust. But this measure will be maintained, although on the other hand it will be ensured that anyone who really wants to undergo it can go through the esoteric development. We must give it a little time. How many things will be revealed through the economy of the Anthroposophical Society, how much will be exposed to misunderstanding and calumny in the world! People who are well aware of how long some things have taken will be convinced that books that have not appeared will appear when this measure has been in force for some time. At the time, I was forced to print the cycles, which I cannot review. It was not my will; it was the will of others who want to read them. Certainly, one does not have to insist on one's will; it has been yielded; but you can read the accusations that are made, saying it would be a trick, and that the cycles have a style that one must only criticize. Everything is ultimately distorted by ill will. But, my dear friends, if spiritual science is to have the right relationship to the Anthroposophical Society, then the Anthroposophical Society must also feel connected to the life of spiritual science as such. But how many feel connected only to their own personal life!

There are, of course, and always have been, numerous people in the Anthroposophical Society who have simply said, in one form or another, that they actually only join the Anthroposophical Society in order to discuss this or that esoteric matter with me, and who refuse to trust people whom I myself trust. In this respect, something particularly bad is being experienced. It is of no use at all that I myself trust this or that friend in this or that society; they do not want the person concerned, and they try to ignore him. Now, these things all have their origin in the fact that so much, so much personal is brought into this Anthroposophical Society. Do you know which word I have really heard most often in the so-called esoteric discussions? Do not think that I heard most talk about such matters as freedom, equality, the evolution of humanity, and so on. Most of all I heard the word “I” from each individual. People come there with their most personal matters. This was also gladly taken into account, but it cannot go further, for the reasons given yesterday. And that must be understood.

I know that it will be best understood by those who really work devotedly and understandingly with the anthroposophical development, who are able to see in the anthroposophical development a task for humanity, who do not merely seek to facilitate their family or other personal affairs by belonging to the Anthroposophical Society, who are not merely seeking a back door to avoid the law because they would withdraw if it came to publicly opposing the materialistic medical system; but they are seeking a back door to be cured, apart from this materialistic medical system! There is no other way to counter all the things that have emerged from society to harm the Anthroposophical Society than through these measures, which I spoke of yesterday and which will certainly not be abandoned in the near future. Only in this way will it be possible to truly fight against what has become so terribly entrenched. The Anthroposophical Society will flourish ever better and better precisely because of this. And esoteric life too — I will see to that — will flourish ever better and better precisely because of this. As for those inventions — and this is what matters — to which I referred yesterday, it may still be possible to somewhat undermine them if only the two-part measure mentioned yesterday is vigorously implemented. Please understand this, because by understanding this you show understanding for the nature and task of the anthroposophical movement. There are enough people outside today who do not feel able to fight anthroposophy, as it is meant here, [objectively]. That is also too uncomfortable for them, since it is necessary to first know anthroposophy. This is an uncomfortable thing for many who want to fight it. But to allow oneself to be slandered and vilified and to spread these things provides a means of fighting anthroposophy without understanding it. For our contemporaries are indeed very susceptible to slander and vilification. Nothing is read with more relish than calumny and vilification. If we take the task of Anthroposophy seriously, if we grasp the seriousness of the situation, then we will also be able to cope with this measure. In this spirit, we want to conclude. Hopefully we will remain, working in the appropriate way with our strengths, together.

Above all, I thank Dr. Zeylmans and all of you for giving me the opportunity to express some thoughts here about the – if I may say so – medical consequences of the anthroposophical method of research. Of course, it will only be possible to give a few brief hints in the two short hours, and given the deviation of the point of view that I will have to choose from the one in use today, it will also be particularly difficult in the two short hours to get beyond the fact that much of what needs to be said, from today's point of view – from the point of view that one is used to – may seem quite paradoxical, perhaps more than paradoxical. But those present will know how, in the course of the historical development of mankind, we have learned to rethink many things; and so, at least to begin with, there will also be a certain tolerance for the fact that a point of view that arises out of genuine, conscientious research must appear paradoxical.

But the first thing I would like to say in the way of an introduction is that the medical consequences of the anthroposophical research method are not about opposing anything that would have to be absolutely “new” to what today's conscientious medicine, built on the natural science that has become customary for centuries, has to say. The research method I am talking about does not want to overthrow, but rather the opposite: by looking at the various things that have emerged from natural science for medicine in recent times from conscientious sensory-empirical methods, it has to take on board the fact that modern medicine points everywhere to an area that is still difficult for it to enter, for the reason that, yes, because the research methods are basically so conscientious has arisen, that modern medicine refers everywhere to an area that is still difficult for it to enter, for the reason that, yes, because the research methods are basically so conscientious, so exact, so exact in relation to the sensory-empirical methods that we are all familiar with. But precisely because of what natural science has become great, because of what has enabled it to provide such a meaningful basis for medicine, precisely because of this, certain paths to knowledge of the human being and thus to healing have been made impossible. And so allow me to start today by mentioning some principles and then to go into the peculiarity of some of our remedies, which are typical, which are characteristic, tomorrow.

We did not choose this path from the outset, saying to ourselves: Anthroposophy must know everything, so it must also have something to say about medicine. That is the agitator's method. But we, on truly anthroposophical ground, want to take the standpoint of genuine scientific knowledge, at least in our fundamentals. And so it has come about that this medical movement has arisen within the overall anthroposophical movement, because doctors, especially doctors in Germany, but basically doctors in all countries, have found that current science and medicine raise questions that cannot be answered with the methods in use today, at least not from diagnosis, from pathology, to rational therapy. Then these doctors came and asked whether anthroposophy, with its special kind of knowledge of the human being, might have something to say about medicine, about a knowledge of the human being that can go somewhat deeper into the human being than one is able to do with the methods currently in use. And so, I would say, the challenge, especially from those medical doctors who were dissatisfied or who had fallen into a certain skepticism as a result of their studies and practice, led to the development of what I will be talking to you about today and tomorrow. From the outset, we did not take the view that we could now introduce all kinds of amateurish ideas into a conscientiously conducted field of research that had been put into practice. And when the founding of Kommender Tag in Stuttgart and Futurum in Switzerland suggested that the field of medicine should now also be cultivated, it came about that I said: Certainly, what Anthroposophy has to give can throw light on the preparation of remedies, but one should not simply start from preparing remedies, but everything that is done in this direction should be in the strictest connection with medicine, with real practice. And so our institutes came into being, which are indeed institutes for preparing remedies using the methods I will talk about; but these institutes are connected to clinical institutions, and in the course of time I will often refer to that clinical institute which has now become exemplary in the first place: that of Dr. Wegman in Arlesheim, which is directly connected with the Goetheanum, our anthroposophical university in Switzerland. There it is indeed possible, through constant contact with the sick, to enter into a living connection with regard to therapy, which, through the anthroposophical method of research, is to be cultivated as the great question of our time.

But we have not yet been satisfied with that either. We have affiliated actual research institutes to these institutes. And we have affiliated a biological institute and physical institutes, but I will not speak of them for the time being, as they are still in the early stages of their work. At the Biological Research Institute – which I want to mention so that you can see that we want to work with the same exactitude that is otherwise required – we have already recorded two findings. Please don't take it as silly vanity of mine when I express my conviction – oh no, it's important to honestly express what one can be convinced of based on the available results – when I say: Despite some individual methodological objections that one could still make, these two results are such that they can point the way to how we can strive for the same exactitude that is otherwise striven for today in the scientific basis of medicine.

The first work to come out of our research institute is a work on the function of the spleen, and since I can only give you two lectures, only suggestions, you will forgive me if I can only point out some of them. In the course of anthroposophical research work, the function of the spleen has become particularly interesting to me, and I will have to speak about what can be called the spiritual scientific method. Through these methods, it has become clear to me how special the spleen function is in the human organism as a whole, which, as you know, is a kind of crux for anthropology. The human being - I can only hint at this now - carries within him the most diverse processes, including those that require rhythm. These processes include not only breathing and blood circulation, but also rhythms of a larger scale, for example, the rhythm of digestion. Now, the rhythm of digestion is something that is demanded by human nature itself, but which, in the way it is demanded by it, can never be maintained. According to the demands of his organism, man should actually eat and drink with an enormous rhythmic regularity. He cannot do this, because even if he organized the times for his meals with great pedantry, this would not yet result in the rhythmicity demanded by the organism actually being able to be maintained. For one day one eats this, the next day something else, and one would have to proceed with an almost immeasurable knowledge of the details if one were to do all this. Breathing and blood circulation have it easier, but the rhythm of digestion is, because we are dependent on our contact with the outside world, something that cannot really be met. Now the functions of the spleen are designed to compensate for and correct those irregularities that necessarily occur in the digestive rhythm, by combining these spleen functions with the entire digestive function in the broadest sense. That is what I realized at the time. Now, at our Biological Research Institute, through methods that are as exact as the clinical methods of today, even if some objections can be raised with regard to the details, this has been fully empirically confirmed by the work on spleen function. It is a work that one would like to believe, if it had been done in an ordinary clinic, would have made a great impression in the field of medical thinking. That this has not happened – and this is not a case of silly vanity, I assure you – and that this work, carried out with such enormous dedication by Dr. Kolisko, is still relatively unknown today, is solely due to the fact that it was created on anthroposophical ground.

The second work is such that a scientific-medical “belief” has been made to the extent that it can become an exact science.

It is historically understandable that, given the tremendous successes that have emerged in the last few centuries, at least in the natural sciences, in the 19th century, humanity was, so to speak, hypnotized by what sensual-physical observation and exact experimentation could yield. But as far as knowledge of the human being is concerned, and even in terms of ordinary physical knowledge of the human being, it is not possible to go so far with these research methods that an inner understanding of the nature of the human organization emerges. And this is simply because, on the one hand, great and tremendous progress is being made in our knowledge of the human physical organization, but, on the other hand, precisely because of the exact and fruitful nature of these research methods, a whole part of the human being, which is just as real as the physical human being, is simply being excluded. The greatness of scientific research can also be seen from the fact that it has thrown out of our knowledge of man with tremendous energy that which is the spiritual-soul man, who - as we shall see - must be understood in the medical sense no less as a reality in practice than the physical man. To do this, it is necessary for me to first tell you a few basic principles about the anthroposophical research method in general, especially insofar as it leads to knowledge of the human being.

The fact is that today, in all our research, we simply stop at how we have become in our soul constitution, which also includes our cognitive ability, through what culture has already brought up as our school education, as education within the conventional sciences. That is where we stop. We do not say to ourselves: as a two- or three-year-old child, we still look quite unlike our soul mood and constitution in later life. We develop; we become quite different in the course of, say, fifteen years of our human youth. In our eighteenth or nineteenth year, we have abilities that we do not have as a two- or three-year-old child, let alone earlier; these develop from within us. Why should it not be possible to raise the question: Is it not possible for an adult to remain relatively capable of development? Is it possible to arbitrarily, so to speak, complete this development of the soul life? Of course, at first it is a question of inner trial. But anyone who tries, who really tries to go beyond what is today considered the norm of human soul development, to attain other soul abilities, can do it, will succeed! More details about this can be found in my books “How to Know Higher Worlds”, “Occult Science: An Outline” and others. In principle, I will only hint at this, that we are able to develop further what we otherwise have as thinking, what we know from its application not only in ordinary life but also in current science when we experiment and interpret observations. When this is said, people usually start saying: Yes, now he is coming up with a “mystical development.” But if you want to contemptuously point to the mystical development — if you want to use the word — that I am talking about here, then you should also contemptuously point to mathematics and geometry. The essence of mathematics and geometry is this: that one moves in full deliberation from one position to another, that there is absolutely nothing of the subconscious, in which suggestive can play a role. This deliberation, this full awareness, must follow us everywhere in the object, in mathematics and geometry. The same thing that we do inwardly with the object, when we proceed exactly, can be applied to the development of our own soul. Not in that mystical conspiracy, with which one often speaks about mysticism, but in full clarity, the soul can be further developed in relation to its ability to think, but not by brooding within itself, but by proceeding from quite definite, clearly comprehended ideas and from there — just as it happens in mathematics for the object — now taking in nothing but that by which one can pass with full composure from one content of consciousness to another. If this is applied as a truly inwardly exact method of developing the soul for a sufficiently long time — it takes longer for some, shorter for others — then one does indeed gradually come to grasp thinking, not as it is otherwise passive, but in its activity; so that one, while otherwise passively following with one's thoughts what one can observe, comes to experience an inner activity.

This inner activity of thinking gives the first real insight into what is supersensible in man, the first stage. I would like to say: if one approaches man from the outside – and one can chart the whole blood dynamics – then in the blood dynamics one has, so to speak, a picture of man, of a part of man, seen from the outside. But by proceeding as I have indicated with regard to thinking, one comes to experience oneself inwardly filled with a second human being, with the human being who is independent of the physical organism.

Anyone who thinks that something suggestive is occurring is ignoring the fact that the methods I am referring to here are absolutely exact methods, in which everything is experienced in full composure; so that one can arrive at precisely what might be even the slightest suggestion in the depths of the soul and reject it. The path one follows with this method is exactly the opposite of that which can introduce anything suggestive or autosuggestive into consciousness. But one comes to the following:

If one observes the gradual development of the child with the precise observation that one acquires through such a development of thought, then a significant difference arises between the whole constitution of the child up to about the change of teeth, up to the seventh or eighth year, and after that. The difference that exists between the earlier and later stages is such that one must first acquire the ability to pay attention to it. Otherwise one overlooks it, does not pay attention to it, but one must start precisely there, I would say, with the courage to approach the human being and such observations really as precisely as one has otherwise become accustomed to in physics in the course of more recent research. In physics we speak of latent warmth and of warmth that actually occurs. We speak of the fact that through some process a state of warmth that would otherwise remain latent in some substance, that is, within the substance, can come out. Whatever external physical science has arrived at, we must also arrive at. We must be able to have the courage to do this, the courage with regard to the development of the human soul, for example. And if one has this courage to do research, the following emerges: one sees — one only has to understand how to focus one's attention on it — how, in the case of a child who has changed teeth, inner soul forces arise that were not there before. Not even education has progressed so far as to be able to say anything about this, because it is not observed precisely, because the curves do not rise steeply and fall deeply, but because it is a matter of subtleties and these subtleties must be observed with a different, spiritual eye; that is why little attention is paid to them today. But for those who acquire the ability to conduct spiritual research, it turns out that everything we call the ability to remember, for example, is radically changed when the teeth change. The ability to remember is one that, with a certain elementary power, still allows the organism to shoot out what the child presents in their memory. That special kind of memory experience, where one goes back and has the feeling that one is going back to the experience, that only occurs with the change of teeth.

So countless things in the mental experience only occur with the change of teeth. They are then there; they did not reveal themselves before in the child's nature. Where were they? They were in the child's nature, just as latent warmth is in a substance; and those organic processes that have only their external symptom in the change of teeth have brought out what was previously in the organism and working on it, just as some physical process brings out the latent warmth from a substance. Today, psychology speaks of psychophysical parallelism and the like; it cannot come to the conclusion that there may be a connection between what we have in psychology today: the soul, thought of in a completely abstract way, and what comes to light anatomically and physiologically, because the two things are such that, if you look at them in such an abstract way, you cannot find a bridge from one to the other.

But the human being is, after all, a developing being. If we look at what is present in the soul after the change of teeth, what has emerged in the soul, we can say: the same forces that now confront us as the metamorphosed thinking in the soul were previously organic forces, acting as forces for the growth of organs in the child; so that here we have an empirical relationship between the life of soul and the life of body, which one must seek only at the right time in human development.

If we now carry out the mental exercises I have mentioned, we come once more to something similar in this thinking, something that is as strong and active as the thinking still in the organism. That is the second person that one discovers in oneself: it is on a higher level than the ordinary, merely passive thinking, but what we have as a second, etheric body - I ask you not to be offended by the term - thoroughly organized. So it is not a matter of the anthroposophical research method that one now speaks of an imagined etheric body, but that one can in fact - I can only give hints here - empirically show how what one finds through the special methods of knowledge is really active in human nature; because when we look at a child, what we later find in thought is at work. If I want to understand the forces of growth in the child, if I want to know how there is something particularly vitalizing in it, then I have to do it in what I call imaginative knowledge, because that makes it an inner content of consciousness. If, for example, the forces that are growth forces in the child later pass over into the life of the soul, but then work passively, and if there are healing powers in these growth forces, then I can only explore these healing powers if I now, in turn, come to look at and inwardly experience what the vitalizing forces are, using the actual spiritual scientific method. This makes it possible to see in these things not mere fantasy but something that is active in the human organism, and thus to make outer anthropology a real anthroposophy through inner empiricism.

And just as one finds this second human being through a special training of thinking, so, if one goes further, within these two humans, the physical and the etheric, a third can still be found. But do not be put off – because terminology is needed everywhere – if I call it the astral human being, anthroposophy already indicates the reasons for this. I will only hint at the constitution of man himself.

When one has come so far as to really experience this second, etheric man inwardly independent of the physical man, then one has a content of consciousness. With reference to this, I can say: One feels almost as secure in it as one feels in one's physical body in normal waking consciousness. One already feels this second man. Therefore, the next step, which must follow, is much more difficult inner work: to find out what I have described as the etheric human being. Because you only get the rest by gaining the strength to sucker out this etheric human being. This must now be done very consciously, so that you, as it were, drive out again after driving in. Generally speaking, the preliminary exercise for this is not easy. Ideas that have stuck with you for a long time, that were so present that they occupied your entire consciousness – but again in full consciousness, so that there is nothing suggestive about them – are difficult to switch off, because they work in consciousness with much stronger force than ideas that are fleetingly established in everyday life and from ordinary observation. But once one has practiced freeing one's consciousness in general, in a more conscious way, from whatever may be present in it, then one can also learn to use suggestion to make this figment of one's own imagination disappear and to create an empty consciousness. This consciousness is then exactly in the state in which man would be if, after entering the ordinary dreamless sleep, he were suddenly to perceive around him a different world, if he were to wake up not in the body but outside the body, and also not in the physical world but in a spiritual world.

This awakening can be brought about by doing what I have just described: after first energizing the consciousness in the strongest possible way, so that it acquires an etheric content, one then empties it again, has the empty consciousness, the mere awakening, without any of the content one otherwise has in life or in science. To produce empty consciousness – you know how difficult that is in ordinary life, because when you let the sensations of the senses disappear in ordinary life, the person simply falls asleep. But in this way, as I have described it, you come to the empty consciousness that merely watches, but it does not remain so for long. Then the spiritual world enters, above all a third human being, a person who is actually now only an inner function, only inner mobility and activity. The second, etheric human being, is the vitalizing one, the third, astral human being, is mobility, activity.

Then there is a fourth human being that makes it possible for us to be human in the fullest sense of the word. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to elaborate on this in the course of the lectures; for now I will only hint that this is the actual I-human being, because what I have described so far is also possessed by the animal: physical body, etheric body and astral body. But the human being also has the possibility of experiencing this combination of his limbs within himself, not in the abstract but in the concrete. If the human being not only produces empty consciousness, thereby grasping the spiritual world, but if he now goes further and energizes the experience of the spiritual world even more, then he comes up to the full conception of the I.

In this way, one can form a picture of what gradually becomes the content of the human being through anthroposophically exact methods. This content of the human being is now truly there. Just as warmth, which was first latent and then brought up and became real warmth, manifests itself in its physical effects, so that which is etheric body, astral body and I definitely manifests itself in the human being. And we only understand the human being if we can truly consider this interaction of the four members of his being.

Let us look at a single aspect. Let us look at a single aspect so that we can form an idea of how these things can interact, for example the kidneys and kidney function in humans. In every single aspect of the human being, the four aspects of human nature interact to a greater or lesser extent. When we study kidney function, what we can observe in the corpse or otherwise is only the sum of physical effects. However, this sum of physical effects is energized by what I initially called the etheric body, that is, by that part of the etheric body that contains the vital functions for the kidney in particular. But this is again permeated by the astral body, and it is only in the interaction of these members of human nature that we can inwardly comprehend the human being, whether in the case of a single organ or a system of organs. Now let us take the case of detecting some kind of irregularity in kidney function. I need only refer to this in general terms, since you are a professional in this field. And anyone who sees through the whole thing as I have indicated will see that in some way the physical kidney function and the etheric kidney function oppose the astral kidney function. So that is a typical case. One can come to the conclusion that the physical and etheric kidney organization offer resistance to the astral kidney function — which one only gets a view of when one has established empty consciousness. But now it is like this: when a living organ, the kidney, offers resistance through its physical and etheric organization to the astral, then, because otherwise the organ would atrophy, the astral organization must intervene more thoroughly more energetically; and therefore, in special cases, of course (I always relate to specific cases), we have a particular concentration of the part of the astral organization that corresponds to the kidney on the kidney activity. In other words, the astral kidney function becomes much stronger in itself than it is allowed to be called upon to be according to the whole constitution of the human being; so that the one who sees through the kidney function in this way has the picture: Here the astral body is performing work in the kidneys that it withdraws from the totality of the human being in which it must be active; it develops a process in the kidneys that should not actually be there. Due to the particular abnormal developmental aspects in the physical and etheric kidneys, the astral kidneys are overburdened.

Now it is a matter of pushing the diagnosis to this point. It is known that the astral part of the kidney now has something to do that it does not actually have to do in the normal functioning of the organism; it performs something that it should not actually perform, but which the kidney, as it is in its diseased, pathological state, or as the etheric kidney, now demands of this astral part. This leads to the first part, to the very first link in a view of the nature of the patient. The disease processes should actually be the greatest mystery for the thinking person, because they are, after all, natural processes. But the normal processes are also natural processes. How do these abnormal processes, these disease processes, come to be in the midst of the normal processes? As long as one regards the human being only as an equally valuable tissue of physical substances and functions, one does not actually arrive at a possible distinction between what is physiological and what is pathological; but one does arrive at it when one knows that the kidney can undergo a metamorphosis in which it develops physical processes that the normal kidney does not develop because in the normal kidney there is a right harmony between the physical, etheric and astral kidneys. This is what one first sees.

The question now is: how can this disease process, which must simply be explained in terms of an excessive demand on precisely a supersensible part of human nature, possibly be eliminated? How can we get the astral person to function normally again?

In these discussions, I always want to look at something very specific and individual. I do not want to talk about a severe kidney disease, because the principle of the matter can also become clear to us in the case of a mild kidney disease. But just so that I can indicate how to deal with such a kidney, I would like to start from a very specific example.

What we know is, first of all, that we must now free the astral body from its work on the kidney, which is deformed in the broadest sense. There is a process going on there that the human astral body should not be doing; we have to get it out of the abnormally running process of the kidney.

If we now gain the kind of knowledge that first looks at the human being and then at the world, the following emerges with the method I have described. We turn our gaze from the human being to the outer nature. We come to study the special nature of Equisetum arvense. If we study this horsetail, not so much emphasizing the individual substances it consists of, but rather looking at the process that lives in it, then we come to the following: Today it is common, because materialistic thinking has taken hold of everything, that we state for everything organic: it consists of so much protein, fat and carbohydrates and so on. We look everywhere for what the external chemistry can indicate as the individual components of a substance, and in this way we arrive at the elements, as they were called; but that is not what is of primary importance in what I have in mind here. What interests us most about equisetum is that when we analyze it, that is, when we break down its functions, we find that silicic acid is the main constituent among the substances that remain. It must therefore be present in such a strong way that it predominates, still exerting its silicic acid function in equisetum. In analyzing, we do not recognize the substance as such, but we do recognize what significance the substance has. And that must also be recognized.

Equisetum is a plant; in it we do not find an astral body, but we do find a physical body and an etheric body. We study Equisetum arvense and find that silicic acid plays a particularly important role. Of course, there are other plants that contain silicic acid. We also find that certain sulphuric acid salts play a role and finally we find that the most important constituents that still assert their nature, their essence, in Equisetum, are silicic acid — but not the “material”, but the silicic acid function — and the sulphur function. And now we find something very remarkable. If we are able to see through the special kind of connection with the spiritually developed powers, what is around the sulfuric acid salts in connection with the silicic acid, SiO2, we find that there is there is a process, a functional connection that we can now transpose into the human organism, either orally or – in the case of other processes we do not have to choose the oral route – through a bath or by injection. The significance of these individual methods will be discussed later. But if we introduce the equisetum into the human organism in a certain way – but it is better not to use equisetum as such now, and that is the basis of the essential way we prepare our remedies, because although the effects are there, visually, they are not as permanent – if we now study the functional relationship between silica and sulfur and then try to imitate it in the preparation, we have the opportunity, by implementing what can be studied in the case of Equisetum in the more or less inorganic preparation, to develop stronger effects on the human organism than those achieved by using the mere plant as a tea or the like. This is particularly important for the production of our remedies.

If I now introduce into the human organism the functional relationship between sulphur and silicic acid in the right way, then simply through the special quality of this functional relationship the following happens: the process that the human astral body has to carry out while the disease is present is now taken from the kidney. If I introduce into the kidney the functioning of sulphur and silicic acid in Equisetum arvense, I relieve the human astral body of what would otherwise have to be done by the deformed kidney (deformed in the widest sense); I let the disease process, so to speak, be done by something that I have introduced into the body.

This is the beginning of every healing process. You have to know the disease process. You first have to have a rational pathology, you have to know the disease process and you have to research where in nature something can be found that can exactly reproduce this disease process. For one must not believe that one can always fight the disease process everywhere in a disease, but one must actually catch it. What the disease process is, must be caught by something that is known in its dynamics, as here with Equisetum sulfur and silicic acid. Then one gets out that which, as in this case of kidney disease, used to function as the astral body. And by getting this out, one must also ensure that the person is strengthened internally through diet and so on, so that they can apply all their inner strength more energetically than usual. That is, one must devote some energy to the entire astral body. Then one gets the astral body, which has now been released in its entirety in this way and in the corresponding case, to extinguish the disease by means of the healthy part of the astral body, if one first has the excessive activity of the astral body take over from an external function.

This is how one arrives at a rational concept of healing. As a rule, this healing always consists in intercepting the disease process by means of an inserted process from outside and then, by energizing, inducing what is already in the person to overcome the disease process, while one cannot do this as long as — as in this case — the astral body has to turn its activity one-sidedly towards the kidney, which is different from how it should be. What I have just described is the case, or can be the case, with all those disease processes that are based on organ irregularities that - as I would like to call it - have a centrifugal effect, an inward centrifugal effect. The kidney is a secretory organ that first secretes inwards, even if the excretion goes outwards, it secretes inwards. And if you take my point of view, pathological processes must be understood in such a way that the cure consists in inducing a centrifugal process in the kidneys by introducing Equisetum arvense, a process that radiates out from the kidneys.

There are other processes that show us the polar opposite of what I have just mentioned. And here I do not wish to mention a serious illness, but rather, to discuss the principle, something that, although it only attracts more or less distant attention compared to the actual deeper illnesses of the human being, is, above all, extremely unpleasant for the patient: that is hay fever, hay fever catarrh. If we want to combat this, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a very serious constitutional disorder. Ultimately, however, it can be traced back to a weakening of the astral body with its powers, this third, internally mobile human being, which occurs peripherally in the human being. We can trace hay fever back to early childhood, where we have general illnesses that we usually do not pay much attention to, which then specialize into what occurs later in life as hay fever. And if we know that this hay fever is based on the astral body weakening in relation to certain functions, not reaching the physical body and etheric body, then it must be our primary concern to energize this astral body inwardly, to lead it back to its proper functions, so that when we have to deal with more outward-directed centrifugal effects in the pathological, we now counteract them with something else. In the example of kidney disease, we have, as it were, intercepted the disease; we have considered the astral body in such a way that, when it is freed from its abnormal work, we only need to energize it, to strengthen it; then, when we relieve it of what it had to do with the diseased kidney, it will already be working in the direction of health. This is not the case with processes such as hay fever. In such cases we must not try to stop the disease process; instead, we must set in motion a process that is the exact opposite of the disease process. It has been found that we can stimulate the astral body to perform a function that it can no longer perform because it no longer has access to the physical and etheric bodies. This can be done by using certain fruit juices that which have skins, and which actually show centripetal effects within the fruit, and when we prepare the corresponding preparation from these fruit juices, as an ointment for milder cases and as an injection for more severe cases. We drive it back to the physical body and ether body, and in this respect, we can indeed show some very nice successes. Dr. Wegman has injected numerous patients with our hay fever remedy and has had the most wonderful successes in this area. It is entirely possible, from this way of thinking, to bring about a meeting between the astral body, which has become sluggish, and to energize it, so that one can see in this process, which one causes with the injection – these processes then have a certain affinity to particular organs; so if we use a particular fruit juice, it has a particular affinity to particular organs; one then one has to find out the particular points and know the currents in which the affinities express themselves – one can see how those physical functions that occur through that which has become sluggish and inert in the astral body, which would not occur if they were held by the astral body, how these functions really cease to occur when we now intercept the astral body itself. Before, we intercepted the disease process; now we intercept the process in the particular area on which we want to act. Thus, with regard to the preparations we use, we have to distinguish between processes that work more centrifugally, as I described in the case of the kidney process, and healing processes that work more centripetally, as for example in the case of the hay fever remedy.

When you consider these things, you might think at first that they are imaginary. Most people in the present day also believe that they are imagined. That is why I attach great importance to the fact that we not only produce such remedies, but that our institutes work in line with this medical way of thinking. Now, when examining these remedies, one is in a different situation than when trying out remedies in a purely empirical way. In the latter case, one is mainly dependent on statistics, which tell us: if the number of cases in which a remedy has helped is very large in relation to those in which it has not helped, then statistics will help us. But if we start from a method such as I have described, we see to a certain extent from our understanding of the disease process what must occur in a particular healing process. Pathology and therapy become one! Because the thing is this: if I recognize through diagnosis what is going on in the diseased kidney, then it is the same process, only on a different level, that I have to apply in therapy: I have to intercept the process; I have to introduce something into the human organism through the combination of sulfur and silicic acid so that I myself produce what presents itself to me as a pathological process. I heal by developing a therapy that is an imitation of the disease process at a different level, and that must be carried out by the astral body. For example, if I introduce the function of equisetum into the human organism, I leave it in the etheric body, and I relieve the astral body of its work on the diseased kidney.

In this way what is otherwise juxtaposed and can only be found together by pure empiricism – pathology and therapy, is transformed into an absolute unity. If we recognize the nature of the disease process in this way, we must find in the outer nature how, for example, a particular kidney process is imitated in Equisetum arvense; or if we recognize that the bile secretion process in the liver is really its inner nature in certain forms of the disease, we find this form of disease of the gall secretion process, for example, in Cichorium intybus, then we are able, through the way in which the function proceeds in Cichorium intybus, to relieve the astral body of the liver in the gall secretion process of what it would otherwise have to do. We thus advance in healing in such a way that pathology itself is actually nothing other than therapy. This is how therapy becomes a truly rational science. — If, for example, we are familiar with the wonderful connection that exists between iron and certain mucilaginous plant components and salts of Anisum vulgare, we can see how there is something functional in this aniseed, particularly in the seeds of Anisum [Pimpinella anisum], which is one with certain hyperinflammatory blood disease processes. We can relieve the blood of these disease processes by using a preparation that is modeled on the connection between certain plant mucilages and the iron in aniseed. In this way, we not only free the astral body, but, when it comes to blood diseases, the ego organization is also involved.

In this way, we come to turn our gaze to the whole of nature. What is beautiful nature outside is actually nothing but an imitation of disease processes. In the human being, these are disease processes on the inside, while outside it is the wonderfully beautiful nature. But one must understand the connection and know how to bring disease functions into the human being from the wide field of natural processes and thereby relieve the supersensible members of human nature of disease processes. Now one no longer has to rely on statistics! For if one recognizes such a connection by inner insight, and observes how the effects must occur, then it is the same as in a physical experiment carried out correctly in an exact scientific way. There one does not proceed according to statistics either, but one knows, for example from Mariotte-Gay-Lussac's law, that this is an exactly executed experiment which, if it is carried out exactly, is also conclusive. With human beings it is not as simple as with a physical experiment, but it is actually the same if one can see through the process of the illness and say: this or that must work, and then see step by step how it works. What is necessary – and this is precisely what is available to such a high degree in the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute of Dr. Wegman in Arlesheim – is that one really banishes all medical skepticism; because that is actually what continually puts the strongest obstacles in one's way. What Dr. Wegman has is the courage to heal. The courage to heal is part of everything! Then you also come to see the disease process and start to counter it, so to speak, intercepting it. But then it becomes particularly important to see how it all actually happens, if you don't want to be sloppy; but to follow the healing process step by step. And then you also know where something is not in order; then you have to go back and investigate where you have overlooked something. But if you then have the courage to heal in every single case and actually do not presuppose anything else, do not want anything other than healing, than courageously healing the disease processes, then you have that, from which you can feel most strongest stimulus, as a scientific basis for medicine that does not merely want to work out rational therapy from an exact pathology as a consequence, but which already has the healing process in the diagnosis. Then one cannot speak about the disease process other than that one already has the therapy at the same time as the diagnosis. One then describes the kidney disease in such a way that the description is very similar to what happens in Equisetum arvense: one transfers what one sees in the kidney to an external natural process; so that one describes in such a way in the diagnosis that the diagnosis contains the healing process.

Roman Boos: It should be noted that today's lecture will be followed by a discussion, and that it will also be necessary to have a further discussion on specific economic questions after this lecture in a smaller group.

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees! It has already been said that these two lectures or discussions, Sunday and today, are essentially taking place at the request of individual circles and that the main purpose is to say a few words in response to certain questions and requests that have been expressed. Today, after I mentioned a few preliminary remarks on Sunday, I will therefore address the specific questions and requests that have been put forward. First of all, the problem of associations in economic life seems to be causing a few headaches for many people. I would like to say something about this in general terms.

You see, my dear attendees, when you think practically, it is always a matter of considering the very nearest circumstances and taking the point of application for your actions from these very nearest circumstances. Just consider how little fruitfulness there is in imagining all kinds of beautiful, theoretical images of the situations we are facing today, of this or that association and of everything that should or should not be done in such associations. Once you have discussed such matters at length and have formulated all kinds of fine utopian ideas, you can confidently go home and believe that you have done a great deal to solve the social question; but you have not actually done much. What is needed is to intervene in what is immediately at hand. We are, after all, dealing with specific economic conditions, and we have to ask ourselves: what are the most urgent things to be done? And then we have to try to bring about the possibility of intervening in these most important things. Then it will be much better to move forward – which, given the circumstances, really must be very rapid if it is not to be too late – than to come up with all kinds of utopian schemes or to raise questions that are no less utopian. However, we also have to recognize to a certain extent the underlying causes of the great damage of the present. And then, with a certain overview of how these problems have arisen, we may be more likely to muster enthusiasm for the next necessary step than we are for all kinds of utopian phrases. And here I am now in a position to tie in with one of the questions that, incidentally, recurs among the 39 questions – it is the question:

How can we not only carry the impulse of threefolding into the rural population, but how can we specifically think about agriculture as such in terms of the threefolding of the social organism?

Now, no one will come to terms with this thinking who does not see the radical difference in the whole way of production, in all economic contexts, between agriculture and industry. It is necessary to see this because, before the world war catastrophe struck, we were stuck in a completely materialistic, completely capitalist way of thinking - it was, so to speak, international capitalist thinking and and because, precisely, a departure in the direction conditioned by capitalism and which capitalism will continue to pursue, because precisely in that an ever-widening divergence of the agricultural and industrial enterprises must emerge. Agriculture, by the very nature of its being, is incapable of fully participating in the capitalist economic order. Don't misunderstand me; I am not saying that if capitalist thinking became general, agriculture would not also participate in capitalist thinking; we have seen to what a high degree agriculture has participated in capitalist thinking and action. But it would be destroyed in its essence, and it would no longer be able to intervene in the appropriate way in the whole economic process. That which is most eminently suited in economic life, not only to develop in a capitalist way, but which tends to lead to outright over-capitalism – please allow me to use this word, people today will understand it – that is, to assume a complete indifference to the way it works, even to the product of labor, and to be concerned only with acquiring something: that is industry; industry carries quite different forces within it than agriculture. This can only be understood by someone who has really taken a long, hard look at how it is quite impossible to transition to large-scale capitalist agriculture as it is the case in industry. If agriculture is really to be properly integrated into the economy as a whole, then – simply because of what has to happen in agriculture – a certain connection between the human being and the whole of production, the nature of production, and thus all that is to be produced in agriculture, is necessary. And a large part of what is needed for production, if it is to be produced in a truly rational way, requires the most intense interest of those who work in agriculture. It is quite impossible for something like that absurdity to arise within agriculture – it is an absurdity that I will describe in a moment – that absurdity, for example, that has always been held up when you have had to discuss with the proletariat in recent decades. You see, the absurdity I mean is the following.

As I have often related, I was a teacher at a workers' training school for many years. This brought me into contact with the people of the proletariat, and I had the opportunity to discuss a lot with them, and also to get to know everything that was there in terms of psychological forces. But certain things, brought forth by the whole development of modern times, simply lived as an absurdity precisely within the proletarian endeavors. Suppose that, as a rule, the proletarians' deputies rejected the military budget. But in the moment when, in the discussion, the proletarians were reproached: Yes, you are against the military budget, but you still let yourselves be employed or hired by the cannon manufacturers as workers; you still fabricate with the same state of mind as anywhere else – they did not understand that, because that was none of their business. The quality of what they produced was none of their business; they were only interested in the amount of their wages. And so the absurdity arose that on the one hand they manufactured cannons, that they never went on strike anywhere because of the quality of what they produced, but at most because of wages or something else, but on the other hand, out of an abstract party line, they fought the military budget. Combating the military budget should have led to the production of no cannons, according to the laws of the triangle. And if they had done that, for example, at the beginning of the century, much of what happened from 1914 onwards could have been avoided. Then you have, regardless of whether they are capitalists or proletarians who participate in any kind of production, absolute indifference to the quality of what they are working on; but the whole organization of industry depends on that. This is not possible in agriculture; it would simply not work in agriculture if there were such indifference towards what is being worked on. And where this indifference has occurred, where agriculture has been infected, I would say, by the industrial way of thinking, it withers away. It withers away in such a way that it gradually takes on the wrong position in the whole of economic life.

What is actually happening there? The following is actually happening to what I have called the original cell of economic life: with agriculture on the one hand and industry on the other, and with agriculture by its very nature constantly resisting capitalization, while industry, on the other hand, strives towards over-capitalization, a complete falsification is taking place, a real falsification of the original economic cell. But because the products have to be exchanged – because, of course, the industrial workers have to eat and the agricultural workers have to clothe themselves or have to be consumers of industry in some other way – because the products have to be exchanged, a counterfeit arises quite radically in the exchange of agricultural products and industrial products. This economic unit cell, which in a healthy economy simply consists of everyone having to receive as much for a product they have produced – if you include everything else they have to receive, which is, so to speak, the expenses and so on – as they need to satisfy their needs to produce an equivalent product. I have often hinted at this by saying, in a trivial way, that a pair of boots must be worth as much as all the other products - be they physical or intellectual - that the shoemaker needs, that he needs in order to make another pair of boots. An economic life that does not determine the price of boots by some kind of calculation, but that tends to the fact that this price emerges by itself, such an economic life is healthy. And then, when economic life is really healthy through its associations, through its mergers, as I characterized them the day before yesterday, then money can also be inserted in between, then no other means of exchange is needed, then money can be inserted as a matter of course, because money then quite naturally becomes the right representative between the individual products. But in recent times, on the one hand, agriculture, by its very nature, increasingly resisted capitalization – it was, of course, capitalized, but it resisted it, and that was precisely the corrupting factor – and, on the other hand, other hand, industry was striving towards over-capitalism, it was never possible for any agricultural product to be priced in such a way that it would have corresponded to an industrial product in the way I have just characterized the economic primordium. On the contrary, it became more and more apparent that the price level for the industrial product was different from what it should have been. As a result of this price level of the industrial product, money, which had now become independent, became too cheap, thereby disrupting the whole relationship between what should have come from agriculture to the industrial worker and from the industrial worker to agriculture.

Therefore, the first thing that is opposed is associations that are formed precisely between agriculture and various branches of industry. Certainly, this is the first, I would say most abstract principle, that the associations consist of different sectors. These associations will work best when they are formed between agriculture and industry, and in such a way that the creation of such associations actually leads to efforts being made towards a corresponding price structure. But now you cannot do much in associations that would first have to be created, of course – this would soon become apparent. If associations could be created in such a way that industrial enterprises were linked together with agricultural enterprises, and if the matter were handled so cleverly that they could supply each other, then some things would immediately become apparent – I will mention the conditions under which this can happen in a moment; some things can of course be done immediately.

But what is necessary first? Yes, my dear attendees, it is first necessary to be able to establish something like this in a truly rational and meaningful way. Let me give you a concrete example. In Stuttgart, the “Der Kommende Tag” has been founded. The “Der Kommende Tag” naturally proceeds from its idea, which is to be given by the principles, by the impulses of the threefold social order. It would therefore have the primary task of introducing the associative principle between agriculture and industry, to the extent that the association of mutual purchasers would actually [influence prices] by turning those who are consumers in some areas into producers in others. In this way, a great deal could be achieved in a relatively short time in establishing a truly correct price. But take the coming day in Stuttgart: it is quite impossible to appear reasonable now, for the simple reason that you cannot purchase all goods independently because they would come up against today's corrupted state legislation everywhere. Nowhere is it possible to produce what is economically necessary because the state is opposed to it everywhere. Therefore, the first thing to do is to realize that strong associations must first be created that are as popular as possible and that can thoroughly prevent state intervention in all areas of economic life in the broadest circles. Above all, every economic action must be able to be based on purely economic considerations.

Now, state thinking is so strongly ingrained in our present humanity that people do not even notice how they basically long for the state everywhere. For decades I have repeatedly characterized this by saying: The greatest longing of modern man is actually to go through the world with a police officer on the right and a doctor on the left. That is actually the ideal of the modern human being, that the state provides both for him. To stand on one's own two feet is not the ideal of the modern human being. But above all, we must be able to do without the police and the doctor provided by the state. And until we take this attitude on board, we will not make any progress.

Now, however, all those institutions are in place that do not allow us to get close to the people who come into consideration for such an education of associations. Take one of the last great products of capitalism, take the one out of which the strongest obstacles for our threefolding movement have arisen, apart from the lethargy and corruption of the big bourgeoisie: that is the trade union movement of the proletarians. This trade union movement of the proletarians, ladies and gentlemen, is the last decisive product of capitalism, because here people join together purely out of the principles, purely out of the impulses of capitalism, even if it is supposedly to fight capitalism. People join together without regard to any concrete organization of economic life; they join together in industries, metalworkers' associations, book printers' associations, and so on, merely to bring about collective bargaining and wage struggles. What do such associations do? They play at being the state in the economic sphere. They completely introduce the state principle into the economic sphere. Just as the production cooperatives – the associations formed by the producers among themselves – are opposed to the principle of association, so too are the trade unions. And anyone who really wants to study the development of the present-day revolutions, which are so sterile, so barren, so corrupt, without prejudice, should take a closer look at trade union life and its connection with capitalism. By this I do not just mean the capitalist affectations that have already been drawn into trade union life, but I mean the whole intergrowth of the union principle with capitalism.

This brings me to what is now certainly necessary in a certain sense. The day before yesterday I characterized the associations: they go from sector to sector, they go from consumer to producer. This is how the connections between the individual sectors arise, because it is always the case that whoever is the consumer of something is also a producer at the same time; it all goes hand in hand. It is only a matter of beginning to associate. As I mentioned the day before yesterday, it is best to start by bringing together consumers and producers in the most diverse fields and then, as we have seen today, begin to form associations primarily with what is close to agriculture and what is pure industry. I do not mean an industry that still extracts its own raw materials; that is closer to agriculture than an industry that is already a complete parasite and only works with industrial products and semi-finished products and so on. One can get quite practical there. If one is willing and has sufficient initiative, one can start forming these associations. But above all, we need to recognize that the associative principle is the real economic principle, because the associative principle works towards prices and is independent of the outside world in determining them. If the associations extend over a sufficiently large territory and over related economic areas, over areas related to some economic branch, then a great deal can be achieved. You see, the only thing that hinders progress is that when you start forming an associative life today, you immediately encounter people's displeasure at associative formations in the outside world; you can notice this in the most diverse fields. People just don't realize what things are actually based on. Therefore, allow me to come back to an example that we have already practiced ourselves. It is, of course, an example where one has to work economically with intellectual products, so to speak, but in other areas we were not allowed to work.

Now, you see, that is the peculiarity of our Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, as I have already mentioned. At least at first it works in complete harmony with the associative principle, because of course it has to connect with printers and so on in many ways, and so it enters into other economic areas. This makes it difficult to achieve anything drastic, but it can serve as a prime example. All that is needed is for what is being carried out in it to be extended to other sectors, and for the associative principle to be further expanded. And the first step is to gather together those who are interested. For example, if someone were to set about gathering a thousand people who would agree to buy their bread from a particular baker, I would specify a certain number. So it was that in the Anthroposophical Society — which of course was not founded merely for this purpose, but everything also has its economic side — so it was that in the Anthroposophical Society the people came together who were the consumers of these books, and so we never had to produce with competition in mind, but we only produced those books that we knew for sure would be sold. So we did not needlessly employ printers and paper makers and so on, but we only employed as many workers as were necessary to produce the quantity of books that we knew would be consumed. Thus, goods were not unnecessarily thrown onto the market. This really does establish an economic rationality within the limits of book production and book sales, because unnecessary work is avoided. I have already pointed out that otherwise you print editions, throw them onto the market, and then they come back again - so much unnecessary paper production work is done, so many unnecessary typesetters are employed and so on. The fact that so much unnecessary work is done is what destroys our economic life, because there is no sense of working together rationally through associations, so that production actually knows where it is selling its products.

Now, do you know what will disappear? You have to think this through: what will disappear is competition. If you can determine the price in this way, if you can really determine the price by combining the industries, then competition ceases. It is only necessary to support this cessation of competition in a certain way. And it can be supported by [the various industries forming associations]. Of course, there has always been a need for people in the same industries to join forces; but this joining together of people in the same industry actually loses its economic value because, by not having to compete in the free market, it no longer has the necessity to undercut prices and the like. Then, however, the associations, which are essentially based from industry to industry, will be permeated by those associations, which we could then call cooperatives again. These associations, however, need no longer have any real economic significance; they will increasingly drop out of actual economic life. If those who manufacture the same product join forces, that will be all well and good, but it will be a good opportunity for more intellectual interests to develop, for people who work from common lines of thought to get to know each other, for them to have a certain moral connection. Those who think realistically can see how quickly this could be done: the associations of the same industry would be relieved of the burden of setting prices, which would be determined solely by the associations of the unequal industries. I would like to say that the moral aspect would be incorporated into the associations of the same goods, and this would be the best way to create a bridge to the spiritual organization of the three-pronged social organism. But such associations, which have arisen purely out of the capitalist economic system, such as the trade unions, must above all disappear as quickly as possible.

I was recently asked by someone who is involved in economic life what should actually be done now, because it is really very difficult to think of anything to somehow have a favorable effect on the rapidly declining economic life. I said: Yes, if they continue in this way at the relevant government agencies, which are of course still decisive for economic life – and today are more decisive than ever – if they continue in this way, then it will certainly continue into ruin. – Because what would be necessary today? What would be necessary is that those who should gradually work their way out of citizenship to become members of economic associations would be less concerned with the direction that could be seen in Württemberg, for example, where there was a socialist ministry. Yes, especially at the time when we were particularly active, these people sometimes promised that they would come. They did not come. Why? Yes, they were always excused because they had cabinet meetings. You could only ever say to these people: If you sit down together, you can plot whatever you want, but you will not help social life. Ministers and all those who now held lower positions, from ministers downwards, would not have belonged in the cabinets at that time, but everywhere in the people's assemblies, in order to find the masses in this way and work among them; those who had something to teach and do would have belonged among the workers every evening. In this way, we could win the people over, and the trade unions would gradually disappear in a reasonable way. And they must disappear, because only when the trade unions, which are purely workers' associations, disappear will association be able to take place, and it does not matter whether someone today tends towards the direction of the trade union or the employees' association or even the capitalist association of a particular branch - they all belong together, they belong in associations. That is what matters: that we work above all to eliminate the things that tear people apart.

You see, that is the greatest harm we have today. It is quite impossible today to somehow introduce into the rest of the world what is reasonable, especially in economic life. I told you that the Coming Day simply comes up against the laws of the state at every turn; they do not let it do what it is supposed to do. And you see, the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press, how could it work in a sensible way? It was able to work in a charitable way by not employing unnecessary workers, unnecessary typesetters, and so on. It was able to work by turning its nose up at the whole organization of the rest of the book trade, trivially — turned up his nose at all these people who act like a state, turned up his nose, didn't care about that, but only cared about the association between book production and book consumption. Of course, all those who constantly and forcefully demanded that the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press should be different did not consider this. Certainly, today we are faced with something quite different from when the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press could work in this way. It needs to have a broader impact. But it is not possible to shape the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House with its production and its prosperity directly in such a way as to shape something that leads into the ordinary, senseless market economy of book production and distribution; if you found an ordinary publishing house, it cannot be any different. Because the point is that things must first be done differently, what is reasonably pursued cannot be incorporated into today's ordinary economic practice.

What does all this teach us? That it is necessary, above all, to form associations in such a way that they aim to make the world as aware as possible of the need to combat unnecessary work and to establish a rational relationship between consumers and producers. At the moment when it is necessary to step out of a closed circle into the public sphere, that is when the great difficulty arises. For example: it was a matter of course that we had to found our newspaper “Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” (Threefold Order of the Social Organism). Yes, but what could this newspaper be if it could stand on the ground that it works economically and is distributed in the same way as the books of the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, that is, that nothing unnecessary would have to be produced! Of course, the corresponding number of subscribers is needed, just the small matter of the corresponding number of subscribers. But as things stand now, all of us who work for the threefold social order newspaper have done unnecessary work, for example in our spiritual production. The distribution of the newspaper today is not enough to prevent this work from being considered wasted in some way. And so I could present it to you in the most diverse fields.

What, then, do we need first of all? And here I come to another class of questions, which also keep coming up: What, then, do we need first of all? Above all, we need the movement for the threefold social order to become strong and effective itself and, above all, to be understood. You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed due to the circumstances of the time and the inner essence of the matter, and it is not a coincidence, not some quirk of mine or a few others, that this threefolding movement has grown out of the Anthroposophical Society. If it had grown out of it in the right way, if I could say that the Anthroposophical Society was the right one out of which the threefold social order movement grew, then it would already have developed into something different today. Well, what did not happen can be made up for later. But it must be emphasized that one must first recognize that it would have been possible to work in the right way on the basis of anthroposophy in the field of threefolding. Above all, it would have been necessary to realize how necessary human commitment is for such far-reaching principles - which are practical in the most eminent sense, as described in my “Key Points” - and how human commitment is necessary, a right human commitment. Something like this could have been learned on the soil of the anthroposophical movement. Of course, people resented it when, for example, certain cycles were given only to a prepared number of people, but there were good reasons for this. And if people did not constantly say out of silly vanity that this person may receive a cycle and that person may not, and so on, if all these things were not confused in silly vanity but were understood inwardly, then one would arrive at the right thing. But then one would also have seen at the right time, where it is necessary, how much and how little printing ink can do. It would be good if the threefolding newspaper had 40,000 subscribers today for my sake. But how could it get them? It could only get them if it were helped not by what is the printing ink, but if it were helped by personal intervention, by real personal intervention in the matter, according to the demands of the situation. But that is what has been understood least of all.

You see, I have to touch on this point, but today these points have to be touched on because they are vital questions of threefolding; for example, I gave the lecture to the workers of the Daimler-Werke in Stuttgart. Now, my dear audience, the point was to speak to a very specific group of people who, in their thinking about social conditions, had very specific thoughts and spoke in a very specific language. This lecture was given to these workers and similar workers. It would have been necessary to see this, to understand it and to do it in such a way that one would have spoken to the people from their circumstances. Instead, people today strive to have something that only needs to be said in a certain way to certain people - not, of course, to say one thing to one person and another to another, but to be understood by people - printed as quickly as possible, entrusted to the printing press. And then this printed matter is handed over to quite different people, who now become angry because they do not understand it. This is something that could not be learned from the anthroposophical movement; instead, the opposite was done. One should have learned to recognize the situation and to work from a human point of view. Therefore, it would have been important - and it will continue to be important if things are to move forward and not backward - that as many people as possible would have realized that the time is past when one generally expresses one's opinion as one according to one's own class, social, university-teacher or high-school teacher consciousness, or whatever, that one holds this view, regardless of the audience one speaks to. No, one holds this view regardless of whether one is invited to address an assembly of proletarians and one's lecture, prepared page by page, is placed on the highest possible lectern and one reads or recites it page by page, depending on whether one has memorized it or whether one is invited to address a meeting of Protestant pastors and one speaks the same lecture. This is how we destroy our social life. This is not how we move forward. We do not want to learn the language of the people we are speaking to. But it is precisely important that we learn the language of the people we are speaking to. And that could have been learned in the Anthroposophical Society, where it has always been cultivated, where it was really about achieving just what could be achieved at that moment.

Sometimes it was so grotesque that one could not go further in what had been achieved. For example, let me give you an illustration of what I mean. I was once invited to give an anthroposophical lecture at a spiritualist society in Berlin. Well, of course I did not talk to the people about spiritualism, but about anthroposophy. They listened to it. They listened to it in their own way, of course. I did not speak to the people as I would have spoken to natural scientists, because they would have understood little of me, the spiritists, who had large beer glasses in front of us. What happened then? The audience liked the lecture so much – I am telling you a fact – that they elected me president afterwards. Some Theosophists went with me at the time, they were there and they were terribly afraid, because I could not become president of the Spiritualists' Association. What should happen now? they asked me. I will not go there anymore, I replied. That way the presidency was automatically annulled. But you could talk to these people and they did get something out of it, even if it was only a little at first.

So it is a matter of bringing the real out of the situations if we want to win people over to economic things, economic cooperation today. And we will not get anywhere if such things cannot be realized. We must look at such questions as were raised in a smaller meeting yesterday, where a gentleman who is very much involved in economic life said: Yes, threefolding really is the only way out of the calamities, but it must be understood. Above all, we need the technique of personal agitation to make it understood. We can and must, of course, also have newspapers such as the “Threefolding of the Social Organism”, which must be transformed into a daily newspaper as soon as possible. We must have it, but it means nothing more than yet another amount of wasted labor, if it is not backed by energetic personal action. Such conscious personal action, however, really dares to say that in the future people want something other than police officers and state-stamped doctors, so that they are neither robbed nor sick. There are other ways to ensure that you are neither robbed nor sick than this. So it is mainly a matter of bringing together the leaders of companies and the manual workers, especially in the event of a dissolution of the trade unions, because, after all, the manual workers are in their trade unions on the one hand and the managers are in their associations on the other, and they speak different languages and do not understand each other. You wouldn't believe how different the language is. I can assure you that anyone who does not study the language of the proletarian with an honest intention will only create prejudices against himself if he speaks as a bourgeois to proletarians today, no matter how radical his language may be. On the contrary, he makes things worse if he has no honest desire to really go into the state of mind, into what is in the soul of today's proletarian population. It is not the radical phrases that make the difference, but being inside the matter.

And that brings me to another type of question. For example, I am asked:

Who should be considered when the threefold social order is to be propagated? The wealthy cannot be considered because they have no other aspirations than to preserve their wealth undisturbed.

They do not think of adopting different ideas from those by which they have gained their wealth. Furthermore, they all sleep through the important events of the present; they know nothing about them. At most, they know that the Poles have the upper hand again; they made their plans earlier when the Russians had the upper hand and so on. The fact that what is emerging in the East is not defeated with some Polish victory, the dear bourgeois of Western and Central Europe do not notice that either. And if that which lives in the East cannot be fought from those impulses that lie in the direction of threefolding, it goes into another head; if it is defeated and killed in one form, it will arise again in a different, new form. So the question is, in a sense, rightly posed; it is true that the propertied classes are hardly being considered, and the proletariat, the proletarians, as it has been shown, do not want to know anything about it at first. But, ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to raise this question at all; instead, we need only try to do the right thing in the direction I have just indicated and really get to know what is there, not sleepwalk past the present. What do the bourgeois as a rule know about what goes on in the trade unions? They know nothing about it. Yes, the most ordinary phenomenon of today is this: as a bourgeois you pass a worker on the street, and actually you pass him in such a way that you have no idea of the context in which you stand with him. The point is that we have done our duty in the direction of progress, as I have now indicated, then the essentials will be found. And the point is, of course, that today, when we are already able to develop concrete efforts, we call the associative principle into life wherever we can, and that we do everything we can to dissolve trade union life and create associative federations between company managers and workers, the employees. If we can work towards the dissolution of trade union life, we can do many other things. Above all, we can strengthen the Federation for the Tripartite Order of the Social Organism on our own initiative. Of course, by “us” I mean all those sitting here, not just the members of the Anthroposophical Society — among whom there are those who still say today: “The real anthroposophist must be aloof from political life; he can only deal with political life if his profession makes it necessary. This does happen, there are such egotists, and they still call themselves Anthroposophists, believing that they are developing an especially esoteric life by meeting with a small number of people in a sect-like manner and satisfying their soul lust by indulging in all kinds of mysticism.

(Applause)

Dear attendees, this is nothing more than unkindness organized in a sect-like way; it is merely talk of human love, while the former has emerged precisely from human love, that is, from the innermost principle of anthroposophical work. What is to be expressed in the threefold social order is what matters, and to understand these things today is infinitely more important than poring over every detail. Because, my dear attendees, these questions, which will be very specific questions, will arise the day after tomorrow in a completely different way than we could ever have imagined, once we have helped some institution or other to get off the ground that really contributes something real to the emancipation of economic life from state life. Only then will the tasks arise.

We do not need to ask questions based on today's views, for example, how the people from the spiritual organization will arrange the transfer of capital. Just let something happen to bring about the threefold order, just let something energetic come into being, then you will see what significance something like this will have, as compared to what can be asked as a question today. Today, of course, when you look at the spiritual organism, that is, the sum of the lower and higher schools, and ask questions about individual issues, you are asking the questions in relation to a state-corrupted institution. You must first wait to see what questions can be asked when the emancipation of spiritual life has taken place. Then things will turn out quite differently than they do today. And so it is also in economic life. The questions that need to be asked are only just emerging. Therefore, it is not very fruitful to talk in general terms about associations and so on today, and it does not lead to much if you want to get an idea of how one association should really be linked to another. Just let those economic associations arise within which one must then work without state aid, I also mean in the spiritual without state aid, because then the right questions will arise, because then one must work on one's own, then one must think economically so that things can work at all. And that will be of the utmost importance for economic progress.

Just think what would have happened if these things had been understood at an important moment in modern economic life; at the point where transport grew as a result of the railways growing more and more, modern people declared themselves economically impotent and handed over the railways to the state. If the railways had been administered by the economic body, something different would have come of it than what has come of it under the interests of the state, with the greater part of it coming under its fiscal interests. The most important things for economic life have been neglected; they must not be neglected any longer; the concrete questions will arise by themselves. People have forgotten how to think economically because they believed that if something is missing in economic life, then they should elect the appropriate representatives, who will then bring it up in parliament and the ministers will make a law. But people are involved. They will complain, however, if the state does not take care of it – apparently, of course, only then.

From such backward-looking views of progress, I would say, everything that lives in the following question also emerges:

If intellectual life becomes free, will not the Catholic Church occupy a particularly favorable position? Is it not better to tame it with the state?

So far, the greatest damage has been done from the other side, from the favoring of the Catholic Church by the state. In short, these things look quite different when one is really inside what is being brought about by the three-part social organism, which we must first work towards, so that we do not take the third step before the first.

Now, questions arise that are very interesting, of course, because they are obvious, but, my dear attendees, they take on a different aspect than one might think when faced with the impulse of threefolding. For example, someone asked how, in the threefolded social organism, anthroposophy would acquire the money for the Goetheanum, because they believe that capital would not be available. Well, my dear audience, I am quite reassured about this, because the moment we have a free spiritual life, the situation with Anthroposophy will be quite different altogether, simply because of the nature of this free spiritual life, and we can do without the beggar principle on which we unfortunately depend today and to which we have to appeal in the strongest terms. But within a truly free, that is, healthy spiritual life, I would not be at all worried about building a Goetheanum.

Nor has it ever caused me any headaches when the question arises again and again, and that is this:

If the threefold social organism were already in existence, there would also be people in the spiritual organization who would decide in the right way: is this a brilliant artist, whose pictures must be distributed and sold?

If the threefold social organism were already in existence, I can only say that something would have to be created first to get it off the ground. But people think: if it were only there – there are so many artists who, in their opinion, are so terribly talented, so terribly gifted, so terribly ingenious – will there not be a great danger that the number of unrecognized geniuses will increase more and more? As I said, this matter has never really troubled me, because a free spiritual life will be the very best basis for bringing these talents to bear. And above all, you only have to bear in mind that no unnecessary work is done in the threefold social organism. You see, people do not even consider what we will gain in free time when unnecessary work is no longer done; in comparison, the ample unoccupied time of our rentiers and our idlers is a trifle; only with them it extends to the whole of life. But for that which basically cannot flourish if it is paid for, there would be plenty of time in the tripartite social organism to develop it. You can take what I am about to say as an abstraction, but I can only say that you should first try to help the tripartite social organism to get on its feet and you will then see that art will also be able to develop within it in a way that is entirely appropriate to people's abilities.

Dear attendees, I had to divide the questions more by category, because after all, it is not possible to answer all 39 questions in detail. Some questions are only of interest to people because they basically cannot imagine that certain things look quite different, for example, in a free spiritual life. So the question is raised whether the immoral outbursts of the cinema should be allowed to flourish in the threefold social organism, or whether the State should not intervene to prevent people from seeing such immoral films. Those who ask such questions do not know a certain deeply social law. Every time you believe that you can fight something, let's say the immorality of the movies, through state power, you fail to take into account that by such an abolition of immoral cinema plays – if people's instincts to watch such plays exist at all – you divert these instincts to another area, perhaps a more harmful one. And the call for legislation against immoral art – even if it is only in the cinema – expresses nothing other than the powerlessness of the intellectual life to take control of these things. In a free intellectual life, the intellectual life will have such power that people will not go to the cinema out of conviction. Then it will also be unnecessary to prohibit immoral films by the state, because they will be too stupid for people. But with what we bring into the world today as science, we naturally do not cultivate those instincts that flee from immoral films.

You would find many questions answered if you were to look more closely at the literature on the threefold social order. I have tried to pick out at least the most important questions. I will mention just one more, the twenty-eighth:

Would it not be possible to contribute to the popularization of both anthroposophy and the threefold social order by not using terms that are not understood by the broadest sections of society.

I can only say: do it as much as you can, and you will see that you can do it to a high degree. But I think you have to take more what the whole tendency of such a discussion is today, rather than the details; and this tendency is to point out that this impulse for threefolding is a thoroughly practical one. And so we should not just chat and discuss what the details will look like in this or that aspect of the threefolded social organism, but above all we should understand this threefold social organism and really spread this understanding, carry it into everything, because we need people who have an understanding for it. And then, when we have these people, we only need to call on them for the details. But we must have them first. We must first gain a healthy following – but as quickly as possible, otherwise it will be too late.

Well, this is what I have wanted to say for a long time, because more than a year ago I tried to write an appeal “To the German People and to the Cultural World”. It was certainly understood, as shown by the large number of signatures. But those who work for its realization remain a small number. The Appeal should have become better known, and the core points should have become known quite differently, namely through the work of individuals. You don't make a movement, as we would need to today, by just sending out writings, by just sending out brochures, by just sending out principles; you make it in a completely different way. The Federation for the Threefold Order of the Social Organism must have life in it; above all, it must be a union of people. It does not matter whether we send this or that, if it is just sending. Above all, care must be taken to ensure that within the Federation for the Threefold Order, no bureaucratic principle or the like is allowed to arise. It is necessary to distribute our literature and our newspapers, but at the same time, work must be done humanely. It must be understood that we are working towards transforming the newspaper “Threefolding of the Social Organism” into a daily newspaper as soon as possible. But above all, it is necessary to realize that our institutions must flourish.

Dear attendees, if things continue as they are, with us constantly stuck in the difficulties we are in today, where we don't really know how to continue the Waldorf school, how we should found more schools like this and how we should actually complete this Goetheanum, if we do not take hold of what people can really muster in terms of understanding for such things on all sides — then of course it will not continue. We need understanding, but not an understanding that only sees idealism, that only admires the ideas and puts its hands firmly on its pockets because the ideas are too great, too spiritual, for it to want to let dirty money near them. Money is kept in one's pocket and ideas are admired, but ideas are too pure to be defiled by spending dirty money on them. I meant what I said figuratively, but here it is a matter of learning to think practically and then also to bring it to practical deeds.

I said when the Waldorf School was founded: It's nice, the Waldorf School is nice; but just because we founded the Waldorf School, we have not done enough in this area. At most, we have made a very first start, just the beginning of a beginning. We have only really founded the Waldorf School when we have laid the foundations for ten new such Waldorf Schools in the next quarter. Only then does the Waldorf School make sense. — In the face of the current social situation in Europe, it simply makes no sense to found a single Waldorf School with four or five hundred or, for that matter, a thousand children. Only if the founding of Waldorf Schools is followed by more, if it is followed everywhere, does it make sense – only what arises out of the right practical attitude makes sense. If those who are enthusiastic about the ideas of Waldorf education cannot even develop enough understanding to realize that it is necessary to fight for independence from the state, to do everything in their power to ensure that the state releases the school, you do not also have the courage to strive for the school's independence from the state, then the whole Waldorf school movement is a waste of time, because it only makes sense if it grows into a free spiritual life.

In addition to this, we need what I would call an international effort for all school systems, but an international effort that does not just go around the world spreading principles about how schools should be run – that is already happening as funding is being provided for such schools. What we need is a world school association in all civilized countries, so that the largest possible sum of funds can be raised as quickly as possible. Then it will be possible to create, on the basis of these funds, the beginnings of a free spiritual life. Therefore, wherever you go in the world, try to work to ensure that the work is not done merely through all kinds of idealistic efforts, but that it is done through such an understanding of the freedom of the spiritual life that money is really raised on the broadest scale for the establishment of free schools and colleges in the world. What will be the flowering of the spirit in the future must grow out of the fertilizer of the old culture. Just as the fields yield the food that men must consume, so must that which is ripe for transformation into fertilizer be gathered from the old culture, so that one day the fruits of the future's spiritual, political and economic life may flourish from this fertilizer.

I have always had respect for the historically given. In it lives the spirit that develops in the becoming of humanity. And so I was in favor of, if at all possible, the new arising being linked to the historically existing. («My Life's Journey,» Chapter 36)

Those who, like me, go their own way, must endure many a misunderstanding.

(Preface to the first edition of 1901 of the writing “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life and its Relationship to the Modern Worldview”, CW 7.

On the History of the Esoteric Section

Just as the volume “On the History and Content of the First Section of the Esoteric School 1904 to 1914” documents that and why Rudolf Steiner initially connected the first section of his Esoteric School to the existing School of the Theosophical Society for reasons of historical continuity, the present volume also documents why and in what way historical continuity with an already existing context working with cult symbolism was also maintained for the second and third sections of the School – the working group cultic of knowledge.

After it became known that this was the so-called Egyptian Freemasonry ^1a he was branded as a “Freemason” by certain quarters in a derogatory sense. He himself commented on this accusation twice. Once in a letter written shortly after the formal affiliation to the theosophist and freemason A.W. Sellin ^1b dated 15 August 1906 and then the section of his autobiography 'Mein Lebensgang' (My Life) (chapter 36) written a week before his death. Marie Steiner-von Sivers, co-founder and co-leader of the working group, responded to the attacks by National Socialist publicists that took place after his death with an essay entitled “Was Rudolf Steiner a Freemason?” All these and other documents are summarized in the first part of the present volume and in chronological order, except for the letter to Sellin, which was placed at the beginning because of its fundamentally enlightening content.

The question form that Marie Steiner-von Sivers chose for the title of her essay already indicates that there is indeed a problem here. This question can be answered both in the affirmative and in the negative. It can be answered affirmatively if one looks only at the external fact of the affiliation and not also at the reasons that led Rudolf Steiner to do so. The answer is negative because, despite the formal affiliation, he never saw himself as a “Freemason” in the usual sense, had no connections whatsoever with regular Freemasonry and was never regarded by the latter as belonging to it, since Egyptian Masonry is considered irregular.

To clarify this apparent contradiction and to make the fact of the connection understandable, the question of why Egyptian Freemasonry was chosen should be addressed first.

Why Egyptian Freemasonry was Chosen

We can take the whole of modern culture: it appears to us as a memory of ancient Egypt. ... We see this even in the initiation principle.²

According to its origin legend, Egyptian masonry traces its roots to the legendary first Egyptian king Menes – Misraim in Hebrew – who is said to have been a son of the biblical Noah, son of Ham. He is said to have taken possession of the country, given it his name (Misraim = ancient name of Egypt) and established the Isis-Osiris mysteries. At the beginning of the Christian era, Ormus, an Egyptian priest-sage who had been converted to Christianity by St. Mark, is said to have combined the Egyptian mysteries with those of the new law. Since then, they have been preserved as ancient Egyptian Masonic wisdom. In this sense, it was declared by those who brought the Misraim rite from Italy to France at the beginning of the 19th century to be the “root and origin of all Masonic rites”. ³ According to Rudolf Steiner, King Misraim, after conquering Egypt, was initiated into the Egyptian mysteries of that time, the secrets of which originated in ancient Atlantis. From that time on, there has been an unbroken tradition. The new Freemasonry is only a continuation of what was founded in Egypt at that time (Berlin, December 16, 1904).

The secrets of the ancient mysteries include the experience of the immortality of the human spirit. ⁴ And occult Freemasonry also wanted to convey this experience. The deeper reason for Rudolf Steiner's words (p. 67) may well lie in this direction, according to which he linked to the Memphis-Misraim order because it “pretended” to move in the direction of occult Freemasonry. In its “manifesto” of 1904, it was stated that he was in possession of practical means handed down from ancient mysteries, by which one would be able, already in this earthly life, to procure “proofs of pure immortality”. ⁵

When Rudolf Steiner, in keeping with the esoteric obligation of continuity, took up this tradition, he did not for a moment think that he was working in its spirit. From the very beginning, he insisted that modern times must seek a new wisdom that is appropriate for them, one that flows from the realization of the significance of the Mystery of Golgotha, and that real knowledge of immortality today can only be acquired through a deeper understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha (Berlin, May 6, 1909).

He once characterized the necessity of a new wisdom in one of his presentations of ancient Egyptian wisdom as follows:

”...Our time must give birth not to an ancient wisdom, but to a new wisdom that can not only point to the past, but must work prophetically, apocalyptically, into the future. We see an ancient wisdom preserved in the mysteries of past cultural epochs; an apocalyptic wisdom, for which we must lay the seed, must be our wisdom. We need a principle of initiation again, so that the original connection with the spiritual world can be restored. That is the task of the anthroposophical world movement.

Another revealing spiritual-scientific research result is that from the third post-Atlantean cultural epoch, the Egyptian-Chaldean, mysterious channels lead to the fifth, the present post-Atlantean cultural period.

"We can take the whole of modern culture: it appears to us as a memory of ancient Egypt.... We see this even in the initiation principle. For when modern life was to receive an initiation principle in Rosicrucianism, what was it?.... That harmonious concord of Egyptian memory in wisdom with the Christian impulse of power.” (Stuttgart, August 16, 1908)

Elsewhere, Anthroposophy is spoken of directly as the new Isis wisdom of the new age. A new Isis legend is even developed and hinted at in connection with the wooden sculpture “The Representative of Humanity between Lucifer and Ahriman”, which was placed in a central position in the first Goetheanum building and was intended to make the basic impulse of anthroposophy visible to visitors in an artistic form. Another, “invisible” statue: the new Isis, the Isis of a new age (Dornach, January 6, 1918). Reference is also made to a deep relationship between the Isis mystery and the Grail mystery, which includes the Christianized re-emergence of the Egyptian mystery being, as well as to the figure of Parzival as a “model for our spiritual movement” (Dornach, January 6, 1918; Berlin, February 6, 1913; Berlin, January 6, 1914).

A further reason for linking to Egyptian masonry in particular is illuminated by the research result that today's humanity is in the opposite situation to that of ancient Egypt. Just as the spiritually oriented ancient Egyptians, by mummifying the human form, prepared world history for intellectuality, for thinking bound to the physical brain, so today's humanity must again acquire spirituality for intellectuality, and this must be done by way of an analogous phenomenon to the Egyptian mummy, namely the old cult forms. These are therefore analogous to the Egyptian mummies because, in contrast to ancient times, when it was possible to perceive how spiritual entities were attracted through ritual acts, this is no longer the case today, neither in lodges nor in churches. There is just as little spiritual life in their actions today as there was life in the Egyptian mummy of the person who had been mummified. Nevertheless, something is preserved in these mummified rites that can and will be resurrected once we have found a way to bring the power of the mystery of Golgotha into all human activity (Dornach, September 29, 1922).

These few examples of spiritual scientific research results should make it sufficiently clear why Rudolf Steiner linked his work to Egyptian Freemasonry.

Regarding the External Prehistory

I merely want my step to be viewed from the standpoint of occult loyalty.⁶

For the Theosophical context, the year 1902 was marked by three events. Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers took over the leadership of the German section of the Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875 by H.P.Blavatsky and others. Annie Besant, Blavatsky's successor in the leadership of the Esoteric School of Theosophy - but not yet president of the Theosophical Society - was admitted to the so-called mixed Freemasonry. ⁷ John Yarker, honorary member of the Theosophical Society and Grand Commander of Egyptian Freemasonry, of the Order of the Ancient Freemasons of the Memphis and Misraim Rite for Great Britain and Ireland, granted Theodor Reuß, Heinrich Klein and Franz Hartmann, who belonged to both Freemasonry and the Theosophical Society in England, a foundation charter for this school of thought in Germany. ⁸

When Rudolf Steiner's autobiography states that some time after the founding of the German Section in 1902, he and Marie von Sivers were offered the leadership of a society working with the cultic symbolism of the ancient wisdom, this suggestion did not come, as might be assumed, from the main representative of the German MemphisMisraim Society, Theodor Reuss, but, as Marie Steiner reports in her essay “Was Rudolf Steiner a Freemason?” , from a person who had gained the impression that Rudolf Steiner understood spiritual matters better than any mason. In private, she added that it was a Czech. That this person must have been connected with the Memphis-Misraim Freemasonry is clear from the remark in the “Life Course”: “If the offer had not been made on the part of the indicated society, I would have established a symbolic-cultic activity without historical connection.”

The offer must have been made around 1903/04. For since May 1904 a series of lectures had been preparing the way for a symbolic-cultic approach. On September 15, 1904, Rudolf Steiner met the freemason A. W. Sellin in Hamburg, where he was to give a lecture. He must have asked him about the German Memphis-Misraim Order, as can be seen from his report of December 12, 1904. But even before this first report from Sellin arrived, Rudolf Steiner had sought out Reuß on his own initiative. In his lecture in Berlin on December 9, 1904, in which he spoke about high-degree Freemasonry and the Memphis-Misraim Order, he had already quoted from the latter's organ Oriflamme, while Sellin was still trying to get it. Rudolf Steiner's first conversation with Reuß must therefore have taken place between September 15 and December 9, 1904. The further conversations cannot be dated. On November 24, 1905, Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers joined the Memphis-Misraim Order. However, the negotiations regarding the modalities for the charter to independently lead a working group dragged on until the beginning of 1906. The contract was concluded on January 3, 1906.

The fact that Rudolf Steiner did not mention the name Reuß in his autobiography, only Yarker, is often interpreted by opponents as if he wanted to conceal his relationship with Reuß, because Reuß had soon fallen into disrepute in Masonic circles as an occultist. This cannot have been the real reason, however, because by the time the autobiography was written, it had long been public knowledge that the document had been issued by Reuss. Rather, the motive of historical continuity may have been decisive here as well. For Yarker, already referred to in the lecture of December 16, 1904, as a “significant character” and “distinguished mason” - was at that time the representative of Egyptian masonry who was decisive for Europe and also a central figure in relation to the Theosophical Society. He was an honorary member of the Society, apparently because he had played a decisive role in its founding in 1875, as stated in the work by the Italian Vincenzo Soro, “La Chiesa del Paracleto” (Todi 1922, p. 334), which is in Rudolf Steiner's library: “The most select heads of international Freemasonry had cooperated in the founding of the Theosophical Society, among them John [H.] Reussner, a member of the high degrees of the Freemasons of the Orient, who had been initiated by the Great Orient [the French Grand Orient] in 1858.” (Todi 1922, p. 334): “The most exquisite heads of international freemasonry had cooperated in the founding of the Theosophical Society, among them John Yarker, the closest friend of Garibaldi and Mazzini.” ⁹

The Theosophical Society, originally with a distinctly Western character, was to become the pioneer for the popularization of supersensible truths necessary in modern times. Through the first great work of its founder, H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” (1877), a wealth of knowledge of ancient Western occultism had become public. For this, she received the highest degree of adoption of Egyptian Freemasonry from Yarker.¹⁰ They also discussed setting up a ritual for the Theosophical Society.¹¹ However, this plan was not realized at the time. When Blavatsky's successor, Annie Besant, later became active in the area of symbolic cults, she did so within a different masonic current.¹²

Rudolf Steiner therefore had good reason to mention only Yarker's name in his autobiography, because only he – not Reuß, who merely represented the order in Germany in a position that could not be avoided given Rudolf Steiner's intentions – represented everything that was crucial in terms of the necessary historical continuity.

Regarding the inner prehistory

One does not receive a reward, but a difficult task.¹³

A particularly telling testimony to this, and to how crucial Rudolf Steiner's own inner situation was for him, is the letter of November 30, 1905, addressed to Marie von Sivers a few days after entering the Memphis-Misraim Freemasonry. It shows that he did not

on his own personal initiative, but in agreement with the “occult powers,” that is, with the spiritual world, and that since “for the time being it seems worthless to all occult powers,” he cannot yet say whether the matter can be done at all for his planned working group to be linked to this order. This question seems to have been resolved only in the last few weeks of the year. On January 2, 1906, the first lecture on the royal art held jointly for men and women in a new form rounded off the inner constitution of the circle. If it says in this lecture: “[...] and even today, Freemasonry can only be described as a caricature of the great royal art, we must not despair in our efforts to awaken the forces slumbering in it; a work that falls to us in a field that runs parallel to the theosophical work,” This statement is further substantiated by a word from a lecture on Freemasonry given shortly afterwards in Bremen on April 9, 1906. According to this, there is an inner relationship between Theosophy and Freemasonry in that Theosophy represents more the ideational, the studying, and the Masonic cult more the practical side of esoteric work. But while the Masonic world no longer understands the ceremonies and the effectiveness of the ritual forms, Theosophy can speak again of the inner truth of these ceremonies, of the spirit that underlies the ceremonies and symbols.¹⁴

A further testimony to the fact that he did not act arbitrarily is his oral statement that the task of saving the Misraim Service for the future had come to him as a result of his occult research at the time on the rainbow; one does not receive a reward, but a difficult task.

What the difficulty of this task might have been, he apparently did not explain directly. However, it may well be seen in connection with that weighty statement in the preparatory lectures: “I have reserved for myself the task of achieving an agreement between those from Abel's and those from Cain's family.” (Berlin, October 23, 1905, lecture for men). This intention - to overcome the polarization that occurred at the origin of humanity into two opposing main currents through the Christ impulse - was not only the basis of the Erkenntniskultic work, but of his entire work.

The statement that the task had come to him as a result of his rainbow research is in some ways justified by the fact that it was mentioned in lectures given during the period in which the Erkenntnis cultic working group was being prepared. It says:

"The rainbow has a special significance in occult wisdom. You know the rainbow that appears after the flood. Now we find this symbol repeated in Norse myths.” (A rainbow leads from Valhalla to Earth.)

It signifies the transition from the Atlantean to the post-Atlantean era. In the Atlantean era, the air was much denser and the water much thinner than it is today; a rainbow was not possible in those times. It was in truth a realm of mist, a Niflheim. In the north, the human race emerges from masses of mist. The water masses that flooded the continent of Atlantis were to form from this realm of mist. So there was no rainbow in the Atlantean age. Occult research has explored what this explanation means.” (Berlin, May 5, 1905)

And in an answer to a question given in a lecture half a year later, the question as to whether anything more could be said about Noah and the Flood is answered as follows:

"The question regarding Noah is connected with my very latest occult research. No one will find anything in Lucifer ¹⁵ find something that I did not know at the time I wrote the articles. But now I know a little more. Now the climatic conditions have become clear and vivid to me. I have learned to understand something that I would have mentioned at the time if I had understood it at the time. At the time, I took the part of Noah allegorically. It was a picture for the deep spiritual meaning. But now I know that this rainbow in the Bible corresponds to a real fact.

On the old Atlantis, the climatic conditions were different. The distribution of air and water was different ..., so that one finds that on the old Atlantis the formation of a rainbow was not yet possible. Such conditions only became possible when Atlantis was flooded and the new continents rose. Now it is hinted [in the Bible] how the rainbow emerges from the flood.” (Berlin, October 22, 1905, question and answer session)

If you ask yourself what the task of saving the Misraim service has to do with rainbow research, the answer becomes clear when the characterization of the Misraim service as “effecting the union of the earthly with the heavenly, the visible with the invisible” (Berlin, December 16, 1911) ¹⁶ is translated into the image of a bridge. Then the connection between rainbow research and the Misraim service becomes immediately apparent. On the one hand, the rainbow has always been a symbol of this bridge from the invisible to the visible, and on the other hand, from the very beginning, Rudolf Steiner's basic intention was to build such bridges for all fields.

How the building of bridges in the field of art was to be tackled in connection with the new Misraim service can be seen from the letter to Marie von Sivers of November 25, 1905, in which it says about the day before the connection to the old Misraim current was completed: “It would now be the task to catch the masonic life from the externalized forms and give it birth again (...), to shape religious spirit in a sensually beautiful form.“ ¹⁷

The first opportunity for this arose soon after, when the German Section was responsible for organizing the annual congress of the Federation of European Sections of the Theosophical Society at Whitsun 1907. The Section shaped the congress according to Rudolf Steiner's models, sketches and indications in such a way that a harmonious scientific-artistic-religious experience could be conveyed. The rainbow also appeared in the seal pictures of the Apocalypse of John, painted according to Rudolf Steiner's sketches, as a new element in contrast to their traditional depictions. And with the performance of the “Sacred Drama of Eleusis”, which, in terms of cultural history, signifies the birth of the dramatic arts in Europe, there should be, even if only in the weakest form, a “link to the ancient mystery tradition”.¹⁸

This latter reference is given a special nuance by the tradition that the Eleusinian mysteries were to be renewed through the Misraim rite.¹⁹ The founder of these most famous mysteries of antiquity, the goddess Demeter, personified for the Greeks the same as Isis for the Egyptians.

A few years after the Munich Whitsun Congress of 1907, Rudolf Steiner's first mystery drama was created and work began on building a structure for it. After a wealth of new art forms had been created for it in a short time, these too, like the spiritual science itself, were characterized as a “synthesis between the understanding of heaven and earth”.²⁰ So again - figuratively speaking as a bridge. Later, he himself would use the word 'bridge-building'. In describing how art is an outstanding representative of the bridging between the invisible and the visible because it makes visible and outwardly embodies that which otherwise remains inwardly in the soul, he said, looking back on his twenty-year effort, together with Marie Steiner-von Sivers, “to let the occult current flow into art,” literally: “Everything that has emerged in the anthroposophical movement has arisen from the impulse to build a bridge between the spiritual and the physical.” ²¹

If the intention to build a bridge from the invisible to the visible was behind both anthroposophy as a science of the spirit and the artistic language of forms developed from it, then it was also behind the efforts to build social life on new insights. This can be seen precisely from the facts about the establishment of the new Misraim service.

Regarding the establishment of the new Misraim service

So what I have established has nothing to do with what used to be called the “Memphis-Misraim Grade” in Germany.²²

The constitution took place completely independently of the negotiations with Reuss about the legal authorization to lead an independent and completely independent working group. If the negotiations had not led to a result, Rudolf Steiner would have set up his working group regardless of historical continuity. He had already begun the preparations some time before the negotiations began, namely immediately after he had settled the external matters regarding the first section of his Esoteric School with Annie Besant in London in mid-May 1904: through a series of lectures that extended from May 23, 1904 to January 2, 1906 (“The Legend of the Temple and the Golden Legend,” CW 93), and an esoteric course of 31 lectures (“Fundamentals of Esotericism,” CW 93a) held from September to November 1905.

There are no records of when and how Rudolf Steiner informed the members of the German Section of his intention to establish a knowledge-cultic approach. Only from the letter of a Leipzig member ²³ dated February 17, 1905, that he had told him that he would soon try to introduce the occult teachings of Theosophy into Freemasonry, by which, of course, he meant Freemasonry as an entity and not as an organization. In his Berlin lecture of December 16, 1904, he had already said: “If you hear something about the German Memphis-Misraim direction, you must not believe that this already has a significance for the future today. It is only the frame into which a good picture can be placed one day.” It is also recorded that at the end of his Berlin branch lecture on October 16, 1905, he announced that he wanted to speak at the general assembly of the German section on October 22 about issues related to Freemasonry and that, therefore, as many external members as possible should be invited. At the General Assembly, he then announced that the next day, “according to ancient custom”, which was only overcome in the theosophical world view, he would speak separately for men and women about occult questions in connection with Freemasonry. Thereupon he spoke, in preparation for the next day's topic, about the fundamental relationship of the Theosophical Society to occultism. The next morning (October 23rd) there followed a lecture, first for men and then for women, on Freemasonry and human development.

Two days later, on October 26, 1905, the main social law of the future was developed for the first time in a public lecture, not in an external but all the more in an internal connection with the intentions of the work of the School of Knowledge: that work must, on the one hand, be freed from its character as a commodity by being separated from its remuneration, and, on the other hand, can be sanctified as a sacrifice of the individual to the community. In the future, we will work for the sake of our fellow human beings because they need the product of our labor.²⁴

The connection between the public presentation of this social main law of the future and the beginning of the knowledge-cultic work arises, on the one hand, from the importance of pictorial thinking for social life and, on the other hand, from the underlying motif of the knowledge-cultic work, to impulsing to selfless social action from moral self-responsibility, just as the instructions for moral life were once given from the mysteries. Thus, in the sense of Goethe's saying “Nothing is inside, nothing is outside, because what is inside is outside”, the constitution of the new Misraim service and the simultaneous publication of the social main law of the future can be seen as two poles of one and the same impulse. The intention to build a bridge can be clearly perceived here.

The inner constitution was rounded off with the lecture on the royal art in a new form, held jointly for men and women on 2 January 1906. The following day, the written agreement with Reuß was concluded, according to which Rudolf Steiner was entitled to set up an independent symbolic-cultic working group. Marie von Sivers was authorized to admit women, but from the very beginning, women and men had always had equal rights in Rudolf Steiner's working group. The following revealing note can be found in Marie von Sivers's notes from the lecture on Freemasonry in Bremen on April 9, 1906: “Because the Freemason wanted to keep the woman in the family, he excluded her from the lodge. On higher planes, something happened that makes it a necessity for women to be drawn into all cultural work. The occult cooperation of man and woman is the future significance of Freemasonry. The excesses of male culture must be held back by the occult powers of woman.“ ²⁵

From the beginning of 1906, wherever there were esoteric students of Rudolf Steiner, work was also being done on the Knowledge cult. The first lodges to be set up were in Berlin, Cologne, Leipzig, Munich and Stuttgart. After the hundredth member was admitted at the end of May 1907, the leadership of the Misraim Rite in Germany passed to Rudolf Steiner, as agreed. From that point on, he was the sole spiritual and historical legal representative of the Misraim service until he declared it dissolved after the outbreak of the First World War in the summer of 1914. By then, around 600 members had been admitted.

“Falling asleep” of the working group due to the outbreak of the First World War and the war-related statement against Freemasonry

A cause that should serve all of humanity without distinction of race or interest turns from a good one into a bad one when it becomes the basis of power for individual groups of people. ²⁶

In his autobiography, My Life, Rudolf Steiner describes how the Erkenniskult organization fell asleep with the outbreak of war in the summer of 1914 because, although there was nothing of a secret society, it would have been taken for one. Marie Steiner reports in her essay 'Was Rudolf Steiner a Freemason?' that he declared the institution to be dissolved at that time and, as a sign of this, tore up the document referring to it.²⁷ The latter obviously because it had become clear to him through the outbreak of war that through certain Western secret societies, Freemasonry, as an “originally good and necessary thing” that should serve all of humanity without distinction, had been placed in the service of “national egoism and the selfish interests of individual groups of people”.

It was this abuse for particular political ends that he held responsible for the disastrous developments that were ushered in by the 1914 World War, and he condemned it in the strongest terms. This is explained in detail in lectures from the war years 1914 to 1918.²⁸ At that time it was extremely important to him to contribute as much as possible to forming a judgment about the occult background that led to the outbreak of the war and, above all, to openly clarifying the question of war guilt. That is why he also wrote a foreword to the essay “Entente Freemasonry and the World War” by Karl Heise when he was asked to do so by the latter. However good or bad this essay may be, it was in any case the first attempt to substantiate the tendencies pointed out by Rudolf Steiner with external documents.

The harsh condemnation at the time of the special political tendencies of certain Western secret societies did not, of course, apply to Freemasonry as such. This is confirmed, for example, by the fact that shortly after the end of the war, he advised a member of his “dormant” symbolic-cultic institution to seek admission to Freemasonry. This is clear from his letter to Rudolf Steiner dated February 25, 1919, which states, among other things: “On February 13, I now, also following your advice, let myself be admitted to the Freemasons. And in fact I joined the association of the Great National Mother Lodge in the Prussian States, called “To the Three Globes” St. John's Lodge ‘From Rock to Sea,’ the same lodge to which our friends A. W. Sellin and Kurt Walther, as well as Hackländer in Wandsbeck, belong. I hope that in the course of time I will be able to awaken and maintain an interest in anthroposophically oriented occultism in this circle. It is with this in mind that I have taken this step. I hope that it will soon be possible to resume our occult community meetings too!“ ²⁹

Tolerance towards the masonic cause was expressed again a few years later, when in 1923, when the English national society was being formed, the question arose as to whether the man designated as Secretary General could really be considered for the post because he was a mason. Rudolf Steiner replied as follows:

"[...] I have always said, when the question has arisen as to whether someone should enter the anthroposophical movement from some other movement (in this case, freemasonry was meant): It is really not a matter of what someone is in another movement, but rather that when he enters this anthroposophical movement, he is a good anthroposophist. So it is really not a matter of whether someone also belongs, say, to a shoemakers' guild or a locksmiths' guild. I am not making any comparisons, I am just stating the principle: the fact that someone belongs to a shoemakers' or locksmiths' guild, etc., does not in any way affect what is anthroposophical in them. If he is a good anthroposophist, that is what matters for the anthroposophical movement. Whether he is a good, bad or mediocre freemason is none of the Anthroposophical Society's business. (...) It would be an unwise judgment to make the value of a member as an anthroposophist dependent on whether he is a freemason or not.

I have said [before] that a number of the oldest and most valuable members are Freemasons. I cannot imagine how an obstacle could arise from some form of Freemasonry for belonging to the Anthroposophical Society. I cannot imagine it. I think the Anthroposophical movement wants to be something in itself. It would not be able to bear fruit in the world if it did not let out of itself — let me use the expression — out of its own seed in a positive way. What matters is what it has a positive effect on. How it turns out when compared to one thing or another is not what matters. When I buy a suit, it is important that it suits my taste and arises out of my intentions. What does that have to do with someone coming along and saying: That suit doesn't look like the one the other person is wearing. It is really not at all about putting on the other person's suit, but one's own. You don't put on freemasonry when you become an anthroposophist. So it is actually quite impossible to make this judgment.

But of course there is something else behind such a thing. You will forgive me for saying so, but in my opinion anthroposophy is not always appreciated highly enough by its members. There is a tendency in present-day humanity to always value more highly that which is older, which has more fuss about it, which acts more mysteriously, and so on, and to disparage that which appears openly and honestly simple, judging it by the standard of the fuss and the like, which presents itself in an indefinite way. It is a kind of disparagement of the anthroposophical movement when it is judged in such a way that one says it can be harmed by the fact that this or that member comes from this or that other movement. It would have to be terribly weak if it could be harmed by such things!“ ³⁰

Why Rudolf Steiner did not want his circle to be understood as a ‘secret society’

“A secret society was not created by this.” ³¹

For Steiner, it was not primarily a matter of the principle of secrecy, but rather of the fundamental difference between his kind of symbolic-cultic work and that of the so-called “secret societies”. He saw it as a primary requirement that what is expressed by symbols, signs, gestures and words, etc., can also be understood through corresponding explanations derived from a real spiritual view. However, “explaining” should not be understood to mean that one says this symbol means this and that symbol means that, “because then you can tell anyone anything”, but rather that the teaching must be designed in such a way “first reveal the secrets of the course of evolution of the earth and of humanity and then allow the symbolism to arise from them”. This means that one must first have grasped what can be grasped by the intellect: the content of spiritual science.

In contrast to this, working with mere contemplation of symbolism, as is usually the case in occult societies today, is no longer a legitimate continuation of what was legitimate in earlier times. This is because in those times, people had a stronger sensitivity of their etheric body, which enabled them to have a corresponding inner experience. For the person of the modern age of consciousness, for whom the mind, bound to the physical brain, has become decisive instead of the sensitive etheric body, symbols, signs, gestures and words must remain something external; he cannot connect them with his consciousness soul. Nevertheless, they had an effect on the etheric body, i.e., on the unconscious. But in our time it is not allowed to act on the unconscious without first going through the conscious. For the consequence of this is that one

"if you want, you can make people docile tools for all kinds of plans, quite naturally. Because if you work on the etheric body without the person knowing it, you switch off the same powers that he would otherwise have in his mind if you do not then give the mind something that must be spiritual science today. You switch them off, and then you turn such brotherhoods into a tool for those who want to pursue their plans, their goals. You can then somehow use such brotherhoods to pursue any political goals, or you can establish the dogma that 'Alcyone is the external physical carrier of Christ Jesus'. ³² And so those who are prepared will make themselves instruments to carry this out into the world. Then one need only be dishonest and unrighteous in the appropriate way, and one can achieve anything in this way by first creating instruments.

And now – isn't it true that all things follow from real knowledge? – anyone who knows how the fifth post-Atlantic period differs from the fourth post-Atlantic period – and this is said again and again in our group – knows why it has to be so: first there must be an acquaintance with spiritual science and only then can an introduction to symbolism be given. Wherever the intention is truly to establish a spiritual movement, this process is naturally adhered to. For anyone who has only become acquainted with what is contained, for example, in my Theosophy or in the Secret Science and has tried to understand it, will never be harmed by any transmission of symbols.

Behind the modern-day aversion to so-called “secret societies” there may thus instinctively lie the justified feeling that it is not right to exploit ceremonial effects for special purposes. Rudolf Steiner always condemned this in the strongest terms, but he always emphasized that this by no means applied to all, but only to certain occult associations.

On the basis of the above and the fact that in his symbolic-cultic activity everything was geared to the general human and the fully conscious penetration of cult symbolism - hence the term “cult of knowledge” - it can be understood why he did not want his circle to be understood as a “secret society”, despite the obligation of secrecy.

• 1a. A documented history of this direction, which is not recognized by regular Freemasonry, does not exist. Based on various literary traditions, the following picture emerges.
  Egyptian Freemasonry is primarily understood to mean the Misraim Rite, while the Memphis Rite is considered to be its imitation, created in the 19th century. Both rites were combined, but are said to have always been practiced separately, so that the term “Memphis-Misraim” refers not to one rite but to two different rites.
  The Misraim Rite became widespread in France in the first half of the 19th century, was banned on various occasions, and then more or less disappeared in the second half of the century. It had somehow found its way to America, and it was from there that Yarker got his charter for these two rites for Great Britain and Ireland. He combined the Memphis and Misraim Rites and the Scottish 33° Cerneau Rite in a single organization. In 1902, Yarker gave Reuß, Hartmann and Klein a charter to introduce this “United Scottish, Memphis and Misraim Masonry” in Germany. The man who had suggested and arranged this was the Austrian industrial magnate and inventor Carl Kellner (1850-1905), according to Möller/Howe (op. cit. $84 in the note about Reuß) one of “the most remarkable occultists of that time in the German-speaking area”. He had the idea of a Masonic academy and believed that he could best realize it through the system of Egyptian Freemasonry. The name “Oriental Templar Order” (O.T.O.) is attributed to him. However, these designations actually mean nothing. They were constantly being changed. Compare how differently they appear even on Reuss's documents. For Rudolf Steiner, all this was of no importance. He merely allowed himself to be nominally authorized by this current, out of an occult obligation to maintain historical continuity, in order to establish and lead his own symbolic-cultic work independently. It is clear to any expert that the ritual texts he used are his original creations. Anyone who wants documentary proof of this is referred to the published German translation of the “Rituals of the Misraim Rite (Rite Egyptien dit de Misraim)” by Bernh. Beyer, printed in “Das Freimaurer-Museum. Archive for Masonic Rituals and Historical Research. In zwangloser Folge herausgegeben vom Geschichtlichen Engbund des Bayreuther Freimaurer-Museums». Schriftleiter: Dr. Bernh. Beyer. Band 7, Bernhard Sporn Verlag, Zeulenroda/Leipzig 1932.
• 1b. Sellin, Albrecht Wilhelm (Berlin-Ludwigslust 1841-1933 Munich)
  Colonizer in Brazil, later a merchant in Hamburg. Played a role as a co-founder and pioneer of the Berlin Society for Experimental Psychology. In this context, he experimented with Max Dessoir, Albert Moll and others in 1888-92 to answer the question of the difference between animal magnetism and hypnotism. At that time, he also became acquainted with Blavatsky's Theosophy, which, however, did not satisfy him. From 1902, editor of the Masonic journal Bundesblatt, the organ of the Grand National Mother Lodge of the Three Globes, and later Grand Archivist of this grand lodge. When he heard Rudolf Steiner lecture in Hamburg in 1904, he immediately became a member of the German Section and an esoteric disciple of Rudolf Steiner. Since he was retired soon after, he devoted himself entirely to the study of anthroposophical spiritual science and worked as already 70-year-old still in the performances of mystery plays by Rudolf Steiner in Munich in the years 1910-1913 in supporting roles. W. Sellin, 'Erinnerungen aus dem Berufs- und Seelenleben eines alten Mannes', Konstanz 1920. See page 45ff.
• 2. Stuttgart, August 16, 1908. In this sense, Rudolf Steiner's four mystery dramas, in the two scenes of initiation in an Egyptian temple (the seventh and eighth scenes of “The Awakening of the Soul”), the initial motifs for the destiny-linked bond between the personalities who are portrayed as modern spiritual seekers in the mystery dramas are to be found in the Egyptian period. See also lecture Dornach, December 27, 1918.
• 3. Lennhoff/Posner, Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon, article “Misraim-Rituss”; cf. also Rudolf Steiner's remarks Berlin, December 16, 1911 on page 94 of this volume. In his major work “Comparative Handbook of the Symbolism of Freemasonry with Special Consideration of the Mythologies and Mysteries of Antiquity”, Schaffhausen 1861, the Freemason Joseph Schauberg also proves the cultural-historical accuracy of the Egyptian origin of Masonic symbolism in volume II.
• 4. In this context, it is interesting that according to Rudolf Steiner, the “Egyptian Book of the Dead” is the only document of the ancient mystery wisdom that has been almost completely preserved. This is how it was handed down orally by the Egyptologist Gregoire Kolpaktchy, who translated the Egyptian Book of the Dead at the suggestion of Rudolf Steiner, because, as Steiner said, this could only be done by someone who had not only the hieroglyphic but also the occult key. See “The Egyptian Book of the Dead”, translated and commented on by Kolpaktchy, Otto Wilhelm Barth Verlag, 1970.
• 5. See the lecture in Berlin on December 9, 1904, in which the manifesto of the Grand Orient of the “United Scottish, Memphis-Misraim Freemasonry” was discussed in connection with the question of immortality.
• 6. )

• 7. Yarker, John (1833-1913)
  Originally high-ranking within regular Freemasonry. Due to his experience that, because of the way Freemasonry was governed, it had become “the workshop, almost the paradise of the bon vivants, the amiable hypocrites”, the “paradise of the sellers of useless masonic baubles... the paradise of the masonic “emperors” or charlatans who beat power and money out of the aristocratic pretensions,” he left regular Freemasonry and founded various high-grade systems on a mystical basis. Since 1872 he had been the representative of the Egyptian rites for Great Britain and Ireland. According to H.P. Blavatsky (H.P.Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled”, 2nd volume, 8th chapter), he was one of the highest masonic authorities of his time, of great erudition and genuine knowledge. He played a decisive role in the founding of the Theosophical Society (see page 51 of this volume) and was an honorary member. After the publication of H.P. Blavatsky's first major work “Isis Unveiled” (1877), he conferred on her the highest degree of adoption of Egyptian Freemasonry on November 24, 1877. In 1902, he issued a charter for the introduction of the same in Germany (see the note “Egyptian Freemasonry”).
• 8. Reuß, Theodor (Augsburg 1855-1923 Munich)
  It is almost impossible to get a clear picture of this enigmatic personality, although a biography has recently been published in which a great deal of material has been compiled. See Helmut Möller/Ellic Howe, Merlin Peregrinus: From the Occult Underground of the West (Würzburg, 1986). Reuss's life was essentially shaped by politics, writing and freemasonry. Occasional writings of a political and Masonic nature are insignificant, the testimonies about him are contradictory and uncertain. What is certain, however, is that he was always short of money and that his Masonic activities also served as a means of making a living. In his later years, Masonic interests took precedence over everything else. He was involved in numerous groups, some of which, however, existed only on paper. In 1902, Yarker, together with Franz Hartmann and Heinrich Klein, received a charter to introduce the “United Scottish, Memphis and Misraim Freemasonry” in Germany (see the reference to “Egyptian Freemasonry”). Rudolf Steiner, who for reasons of historical continuity wanted to link his own working group on symbolism and cults to the ancient Egyptian mystery tradition, negotiated with Reuss from the end of 1904 until the turn of the year 1905/06 regarding the conditions under which to be able to establish his circle nominally independently and secured in the process by contract (see document on page 82f.) that the leadership of the Misraim Rite, as soon as he has admitted the 100th member to his circle, will pass over to him alone. This was the main reason why he had entered into contact with the German representative office of the Egyptian Freemasonry. In his 'Autobiography', Rudolf Steiner responded as follows to the accusation of having associated with a man like Reuss:
  It is of course easy in retrospect to consider how much 'wiser' it would have been not to tie in with institutions that could later be used by detractors. But I would like to remark, in all modesty, that at the age in question here, I was still one of those people who assumed that others with whom they had dealings would be straightforward in their ways and not devious. This belief in human nature was not altered by spiritual vision. The latter should not be misused to probe the inner intentions of fellow human beings if this research is not desired by the people concerned. In other cases, the investigation of the inner soul of another remains something forbidden to the spiritual seer, just as the unauthorized opening of a letter remains something forbidden. And so one stands vis-a-vis people with whom one has to do, as does anyone else who has no spiritual insight. But there is the difference between taking the other person at face value until you have experienced the opposite, or having a hostile attitude towards the whole world. Social interaction between people is impossible in the latter case, because it can only be built on trust, not on mistrust.
• 9. According to Robert Ambeain, “Cérémonies et rituels de la maçonnerie symbolique”, Paris 1978, the Italian freedom fighter Giuseppe Garibaldi (1802-1882) is said to have become Grand Master of Memphis-Misraim Freemasonry in Italy in 1881. Giuseppe Mazzini (1805–1872). For more on both of them, see Rudolf Steiner's lecture Stuttgart, 9 April 1924.
• 10. On November 24, 1877. Perhaps it was a mere coincidence, but Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers actually made their personal connection to the Misraim current on November 24 as well (1905).
• 11. Josephine Ransom, A short History of the Theosophical Society, Adyar 1938, pp. 99f.
• 12. Cf. on this under “Individual References”.
• 13. Personal statement by Rudolf Steiner, as reported by Marie Steiner-von Sivers and Klara Walther.
• 14. According to notes by Marie Steiner-von Sivers, cf. p. 137.
• 15. The magazine “Luzifer”, later “Lucifer-Gnosis” and the essays “From the Akasha Chronicle” (GA no. 11), see the article “Our Atlantean Ancestors”, is meant.
• 16. Cf. on page 94.
• 17. See the letter on page 80.
• 18. See “Bilder okkulter Siegel und Säulen. The Munich Congress at Whitsun 1907 and its Effects», GA 284.
• 19. Cf. Karl Heise in “Entente-Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg”, Basel 1919, p. 115.
• 20. Lecture Dornach, September 20, 1916.
• 21. Lecture Torquay, August 20, 1924.
• 22. Letter to Sellin.
• 23. Rudolf Jahn, from 1905 to 1908 chairman of the Leipzig branch.
• 24. Lecture in Berlin, October 26, 1905 on “The Social Question and Theosophy,” reprinted in “Contributions to the Rudolf Steiner Complete Works” No. 88. In the essay “Theosophy and the Social Question” (today “Spiritual Science and the Social Question”), which began in the October 1905 issue of the journal “Lucifer-Gnosis”, the main social law is not discussed until the third part, which was not published until a year later, in September 1906.
• 25. In an undated letter from Paula Moudrä, a writer from Bohemia who had spoken to Rudolf Steiner in Prague in November 1907 about her admission and had been asked by him to send him a written request, it says: “You pointed to an important event in the astral world in November 1879, after which the woman is now admitted to the initiation. I think it is most important that my approach to you and my request for acceptance happened in November 1907."
• 26. From Rudolf Steiner's preface to Karl Heise's “Entente Freemasonry and the World War,” Basel 1919, reprinted in “Contributions to the Rudolf Steiner Complete Edition” No. 24/25 Easter 1969.
• 27. Not to be confused with the 'Treaty and Brotherly Agreement' on $. 82 in the present volume.
• 28. See the seven-volume series “Cosmic and Human History”, in particular “Contemporary Historical Reflections. The Karma of Untruthfulness”. Part One and Two, 'Central Europe between East and West' and 'The Spiritual Background to the First World War', CW 170ff.
• 29. Johannes Geyer, at that time pastor in Hamburg, from the autumn of 1919 teacher at the Free Waldorf School in Stuttgart. From 1912 a member of Rudolf Steiner's Esoteric School. According to the biography in “Der Lehrerkreis um Rudolf Steiner in der ersten Waldorfschule”, Stuttgart 1977, he is said to have given numerous lectures in a Masonic context on the spiritual origins of Masonic symbolism from the point of view of Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy, and thereby gained high recognition.
• 30. London, September 2, 1923.
• 31. “My Life”, see page 95 of this volume.
• 32. Alcyone = name of the order for Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), for whom the order “Star of the East” was founded by Annie Besant and C.W.Leadbeater in 1911. The then very young Krishnamurti was proclaimed as the bearer of the expected rebirth of Christ as the coming World Teacher. The order quickly spread throughout the entire Theosophical world. Only Rudolf Steiner vigorously rejected this as occult nonsense. That is why the German section led by him was officially excluded from the Theosophical Society in 1913. Krishnamurti then dissolved the order himself in 1929 and publicly distanced himself from the role intended for him. He also severed his connection with the Theosophical Society, since in his opinion any organization can only hinder spiritual development. 32