The Rudolf Steiner Archive

In including some contemporary historical observations in the present discussions, it is really not my intention to criticize or to find fault with this or that. Rather, what it is about is to tie in with external phenomena of the physical plane in such a way that one can see how certain great aspects, which we do indeed consider from a spiritual-scientific point of view, are shown to be true in this or that individual phenomenon. For it is my concern that, precisely in these reflections, we gain an understanding of the essential in the transition from the fourth to the fifth post-Atlantic period, how the forces that have been at work in the last few centuries are flowing into our present and how they can and must be observed by those who really want to understand how spiritual science has a specific task for each individual in our present. I shall only include such episodes to illustrate the larger points of view when I insert such contemporary historical observations.

I would also like to point out that those of our contemporaries or their immediate predecessors who, after all, must be presented in a certain way in their powerlessness in the face of real spiritual impulses, that these, which must apparently be criticized, are not intended to be criticized in order to somehow personally offend them, but to show how such people are captured, as it were, by the offshoots of the materialistic world view and world shaping. For it is indeed not easy for the modern human being to find the path to real spiritual-scientific insight. The way the spiritual culture of our time has developed makes it difficult for many people to find a connection, as it were, to what spiritual science has to give to our present and immediate future. From a certain point of view, it is easy to see how people who are now completely absorbed in contemporary thinking cannot find any connection between their thinking and that which must after all underlie our movement, must underlie it as a real engagement with the spiritual worlds. One can see that even people who are well-disposed towards our movement often say: Well, what these people want to achieve by elevating idealism and ethical human culture is all very well, but in doing so, these anthroposophists — as even well-disposed people say — go so far as to come up with all kinds of fantastic theories about the spiritual worlds. Even well-meaning people do not realize that this engagement with the spiritual worlds must really be the foundation on which work must be done today, and they cannot see it if they cannot free themselves from certain prejudices of our time.

It is extremely difficult for someone who is so completely immersed in the intellectual life of the present day to imagine that the human being itself is a kind of switch for impulses that flow down from spiritual beings into the world of physical life and have an influence on this physical life. And we can particularly well imagine this if we point out the difficulties that stand in the way of understanding the spiritual world for people who, with great dedication and also with certain insights taken from contemporary culture, devote themselves to reform ideas or similar endeavors with regard to contemporary life. It is true that today, and for a long time, there have been many people who know that social conditions in the world have become such that the rest of life has also become the same, and that many things need to be tackled in order to give life, especially the social structure, a new shape. We, who recognize the nerve of spiritual science, must be clear about the fact that the most incisive questions of the present can only be grasped by our soul in the right sense if they are based on the foundation of spiritual-scientific insight. But many people who are working energetically in the present cannot come to this insight, to this knowledge. And so they are left without a foundation on the one hand, and on the other hand they are left in such a way that they cannot be given an answer to the most important questions. Let us also present an example in this regard.

There was a man who, more than any other, was sincere about the great social problems of the present day: Jaurès, who met a mysterious death on the eve of that ill-fated war, a death that may never be fully explained by external investigation. Jaurès, the socialist, who was certainly one of the most honest of the ambitious personalities of the present, was intensively concerned with all the fundamental questions of social life in the present. And it can be said that he gathered together for his understanding everything that a person today can gather from knowledge of nature, from history, from social observation, in order to arrive at views on what needs to be done to solve the issues facing people today in a practical way. Jaurès was not one of those superficial people who develop a social system out of a few subjective ideas they happen to like, a system they then want to impose on the world. He was not someone who just wanted to get to know contemporary human life in order to gain social insight; rather, J Jaurès was one of those people who also look at history, at how various social and other problems in the lives of different peoples have developed and led to crises and change, so that we can see what becomes of certain conditions when they are shaped in this way. Jaurès carefully studied these things.

Now, for a person who is considering such things, the most important thing is to understand what has happened in the course of human life in the last three to four centuries. For if, on the one hand, a transformation of all human striving in the field of knowledge has taken place in these three to four centuries and the two one-sided impulses, as I have presented them to you in these reflections, have gradually emerged for knowledge, it is equally true, on the other hand, that a similar development has taken place for social currents and social longings. Anyone who wants to understand the situation in which humanity finds itself today, one can already say the whole earth, must understand how the impulses that now dominate people's minds have gradually crept into the human soul since the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantic period, largely unconsciously, they know nothing about it. But when people like Jaurès, who could not but build his honest endeavors on the materialistic outlook of the present, look at this period in particular, questions arise for him everywhere, which he does not really know how to deal with. Thus, I would say, in the case of such an honest endeavor as Jaurès', we can discover two remarkable dark spots – among others that we cannot list here – that should be considered from a spiritual-scientific point of view.

Before Jaurès' soul, as he surveys the life of the past five post-Atlantic periods, stands as a question: What has actually led the people of the present time to the members of a certain caste, class, having this or that feeling, and another class or caste having different feelings? Such a person looks at what preceded the fifth post-Atlantean period, looks at life, which was confined within narrow limits in those days. One need only recall how much has changed in the world of human life since the 14th or 15th century; how much impact was made by the discovery of America, by more recent scientific discoveries and institutions, by the art of printing, and so on. What has come upon humanity! Think back to the times when there was no printing, when people could not read the Bible, but only gathered in their own church and heard what had been personally communicated to them by those who wanted to convey something to them personally in a very specific direction. Far too little attention is paid to this very different way of life before the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantic period. And what lives in the souls today, what forms the principles of governments today, what forms the principles of those who lead the commercial, industrial and other enterprises, what forms the principles of those who in turn educate people for these enterprises, but what also forms the principles for those who, as the working population, are involved in these undertakings, what principles are for those who own the land and so on, all this, as it lives in the soul today, has only emerged over the course of the last few centuries. The radical difference between the present thinking and feeling of even the simplest peasant and what it was in the past is far too little considered. But of course, people who face the great, burning social questions realize this.

And so we see that Jaurès is faced with the following question: What has actually caused this peculiar thinking of civilized humanity today? What has happened since the relatively small circle of people who used to have direct access to the spiritual life and who led the others now only guides the others with regard to the external material life, but in a certain way no longer guides them with regard to feelings and emotions? There is a great difference, an enormous difference, when we think of earlier conditions, where the person who provided people with work also provided them with a chaplain who said what needed to be said, what they needed to be told according to his meaning, compared to later times, when certain things became accessible to everyone. The question arose in Jaurès' soul: How has the thinking and feeling of modern humanity actually changed in this regard? — Admittedly, this question arose in his soul first in a form that is completely colored by the color nuance that modern socialist thinking has; but we can detach it from that. Jaurès first asks himself: why should we accuse the people in the small circle who give work to the others, so that we might say: well, they have made the means of education available to the people who are supposed to work for them, in schools and through reading and so on, precisely in order to get more profit out of them. – Certain socialists have always repeated that it was actually a ruse of the employing population to make the means of education accessible to the workers, because educated workers work more and work more rationally than the other way around. But Jaurès does not agree with the thoughts of some socialists. Therefore, in a certain way, what he has to think becomes an unsolvable problem for him. And it is very interesting to see how Jaurès comes to terms with the question of how to deal with the impulses of feeling, thought and soul that have emerged in recent centuries.

In one of Jaurès' most interesting political writings, we find the following passage. He says:

"That the bourgeoisie in these times of their development believed they were being fair to the workers is proven by the fact that they gave them schooling from the very beginning: that is, they wanted to give them as much education as possible. The Reformation, of which the bourgeoisie was a powerful agent, was enthusiastic about popular education. If the bourgeoisie had had secret pangs of conscience, it might have doubted the judgment that the workers, whom it rigorously educated through the power of its example as well as the compulsion of laws, would pass on it and its work: it would have kept them in ignorance as much as possible. At the risk of obtaining less useful labor from an untrained mass, she would not have exposed herself to the terrible judgment of the proletariat she exploited. She would not have opened up for her work of injustice all those thousands of eyes that were accustomed to long darkness."

So Jaurès says to himself: No, the bourgeoisie cannot be accused of wanting to dupe the workers in order to make useful tools out of them; on the contrary, it wanted everyone to be able to read. And now comes the significant part, the part that, so to speak, opens the eyes of a modern, educated person, who is fully immersed in knowledge, and immediately closes them again because he has not come to spiritual science. He says:

"But on the contrary, it wanted everyone to be able to read. And what book! The same one from which it also drew life. From the reading of the Bible, which was translated everywhere into the vernacular, the nations should learn to think: From that Bible full of struggle and harshness, full of grumbling, of the cry and rebellion of an unlearned people, whose pride, even when it chastises and breaks it, seems to love God; from that Bible, in which even the chosen leaders are continually haranguing the people and in which they must win the right to command by their service; in that strangely revolutionary book in which the dialogue between Job and God is such that God appears as the defendant, who can only defend himself against the righteous man's outcry with the crude noise of his thunder; from that Bible in which the prophets have left their appeal to the future and their curses against the unjust rich, their Messianic dream of universal brotherhood, all the heat of their anger and hope, the fire of all the glowing coals that burned on their lips. This terrible book has put the industrial bourgeoisie into the hands of the people, into the hands of poor workers in the cities and villages - the same ones who were or were to become their laborers - and told them: See for yourselves, hear for yourselves! Do not rely on intermediaries; the connection between God and you must be direct. Your eyes must see his light, your ears must hear his word! I repeat: how could a class that doubted itself, the word and the justification of its work, have freed the conscience of the people it was preparing to guide for their own good from all sense of authority? If it had a 'guilty conscience', if it had come into the world like a thief, it would have come by night, fur in nocte. But her first concern was, on the contrary, to increase the light. She was obviously convinced that the order of work, activity and strict moral discipline, which she brought to a world full of laziness, superstition, disorder and infertility, was useful precisely for those who occupy the lowest rank in this order."

Then we see the question raised by a reformist thinker of our own time, who asks: How did all the ideas that dominate the masses today come into the world? — They came about, we can now discard political nuances, because people got their hands on the Bible, the most revolutionary book the world has ever known; it is so revolutionary because it is so effective. Jaurès finds in the minds of men the consequence of reading the Bible, which only came about because Bibles were printed; for in earlier centuries the people did not have the Bible, and the church even carefully guarded that the people did not get their hands on the Bible. It is far too little considered that all newer questions are connected with the fact that only since the times of the fifth post-Atlantean period have the people known the Bible, known it in such a way that the Bible impulses have now become impulses in the souls of people. Christianity was handed down to the people in a completely different way in the past than through the Bible. So a thinker who is completely immersed in the present looks at the development of the fifth post-Atlantic age and asks: Yes, what actually happened? What is the connection between the fact that the Bible has been made accessible to people and the other facts that we now see around us? He finds no real connection. Incidentally, he expresses this very precisely. He says:

He does not ascribe this to himself. So you even see, admittedly, the powerlessness of one of the most honest seekers to solve the question: What have souls become in the present day?

The other point we must consider is that, of course, a person striving in this way cannot have the intuitive and divinatory gift that would be necessary for this problem because he is quite distant from the basic problem of spiritual science. To understand how the spiritual flows down from the spiritual worlds, as it were through the switch, through the human soul, and flows into the physical world, this real flowing down of spiritual impulses from the forces and labors of the beings of the higher hierarchies, is indeed quite far removed from such a mind. Therefore, such a spirit sees that and that has been going on since the beginning of modern times, since the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantic period. But he does not see what lives and weaves in it; nor does he see, in a concrete case, the conscious penetration of spiritual impulses, as it were, from the undertakings of the beings of the higher hierarchies. This can only be traced with spiritual science. But everything is preparing itself. The world was never without spirit, even if this spirit has worked unconsciously in one way or another. I have often drawn your attention to the fact that everything that has flooded over a certain area of modern Europe has been deeply influenced by spiritual powers. From external history, too, it can be shown that at a certain time, at the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantic period, something truly wonderful actually happened, something that the materialistically thinking person must regard as a fantasy if the matter is taken seriously. But again, if he does not take it seriously, he cannot explain the whole course of modern history.

This event, to which I have often referred, is the appearance of the simple country girl with a great historical task, Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans. The map of Europe today would be quite different – the historian knows this very well – if Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans, had not appeared. Why are people today amazed — one need only think of Anatole France — by an impulse, or even a system of impulses, sent from the spiritual worlds through a kind of half-tavistock, half-visionary clairvoyance at a time when this could not yet consciously happen? But they cannot do anything with it! A man like Anatole France, of course, comes to terms with it by saying, “Well, it does happen that people do all sorts of things under the influence of suggestion, of fantastic powers that come from people like the Virgin of Orleans.” Such a point of view recalls that of modern theologians, who curiously resign themselves to the emergence of Christianity through Paul's vision before Damascus, who declare this Pauline suggestion before Damascus as a proven fact and should ultimately be able to trace all of Christianity back to it, but they are careful not to do so, because otherwise they would have to admit that Christianity stems from a suggestive experience of Paul's. And they would be careful to avoid saying that. This half-heartedness is extremely detrimental to the entire intellectual life; this half-heartedness is an expression of the fact that one is powerless in the face of such questions. It is good to look around for an answer on this point from someone as honest as Jaurès.

He is trying to understand the significance of the impulses that emanated from the landowners in the fifth post-Atlantic period, and those that emanated from the urban population. We do not need to touch on this socialist nuance again; I just want to point out that Jaurès believes that during this period it matters less whether the social question is considered by the landowning class or by the industrial class: this is not the issue here. Peasant uprisings were the movements dependent on land ownership; these are not the most important thing to him. And that is precisely what he wants to see in Joan of Arc, that although she is a peasant girl, she does not work for the landowning population, that is, the peasant population, but for the larger group of the urban population. Jaurès says:

"Joan of Arc fulfills her mission and sacrifices herself for the salvation of the fatherland in a France where land is no longer the only source of vitality; the municipalities already play an important role, Louis IX had sanctioned and solemnly proclaimed the letters of craftsmanship and the guild law, the Parisian Revolution under the governments of Charles V and Charles VI, had seen the mercantile bourgeoisie and the artisanry emerge as new powers on the scene. The most far-sighted among those who wanted to reform the kingdom dreamed of an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry against lawlessness and arbitrariness. In this modern France, which was soon to be ruled by the “citizen king” – the son of the ruler whom Jeanne d'Arc was about to save - was about to reign, in this diverse, sophisticated and refined country, touched by the delicate, literary pains of Charles d'Orleans, whose captivity touched the heart of the good Lorraine, in this society, which was rural rather than anything else, Joan of Arc appeared.

So she appeared, in a sense, to Jaurès, not for the peasant population, not for the population that was connected to land ownership, but precisely for that which was connected to modern life, to urban life. Jaurès says:

"She was a simple country girl who had seen the pains and hardships of the peasants around her, but to whom all these afflictions were only an example of the greater and more sublime suffering that the plundered kingdom and the invaded nation were enduring. In her soul and in her thoughts, no place, no piece of land plays a role; she looks beyond the Lorraine fields. Her peasant heart is greater than all peasantry. It beats for the distant, good cities that the stranger surrounds. To live in the fields does not necessarily mean to be absorbed in the questions of the soil. In the noise and bustle of the cities, Jeanne's dream would certainly have been less free, less bold and less comprehensive. Solitude protected the boldness of her thinking, and she experienced the great patriotic community much more intensely because her imagination could fill the silent horizon with a pain and a hope that went beyond, without confusion. She was not inspired by the spirit of peasant revolt; she wanted to liberate the whole of France in order to consecrate it to the service of God, Christianity and justice. Her goal seems so lofty and pleasing to God that in order to achieve it she later finds the courage to oppose even the church and to invoke a revelation that she claims is superior to all others.

Thus the other, I would say, is immediately evident to Jaur&s. He lets his gaze wander over what has happened and finds that what has happened there happened under the influence of a spiritual impulse, so to speak, was switched through the soul of Joan of Arc and penetrated into the physical world. But it is self-evident that a person who thinks in this way cannot fully recognize that spiritual impulses and spiritual forces are the most important things. So he again does not know what to do with what is even vividly shown to him. You see, the failure to recognize what is actually there, even by the best minds of the present day, the failure to recognize the spiritual impulses that they grasp with their hands, that is, the failure to recognize what can be grasped historically with hands, lies at the root of the great life-lie of modern times, which has infected even the best striving people. They want to grasp what is there; but they cannot grasp it because they cannot see the spirit at work in it. Those who think like Jaurès cannot do that. But neither could the others, even in the time of Joan of Arc, who, based on traditional wisdom, stood before the direct appearance of a spiritual fact in the Maid of Orleans, because, as paradoxical as it sounds, the fact that someone is a theologian does not make him a spiritualist, and the fact that someone defends theological dogmas does not make him a recognizer of the spiritual world.

The theologian, of whom I gave you some examples yesterday, is of course not a recognizer of the spiritual world, but is just as much a materialist as Büchner or Moleschott, except that Büchner and Moleschott were truer than such a theologian with his materialism. What you say is not important, but what you absorb in your living experience is important: whether you really recognize the spiritual when it comes to you. But even the theologians could not do that when they were confronted with Joan of Arc, and this fact is something that Jaur&s points out very well when he says:

“Her goal seems so high and pleasing to God that in order to achieve it, she later finds the courage to oppose even the church and to invoke a revelation that stands above all other revelations. To the theologians who urge her to justify her miracles and her mission from the holy books, she replies—”

So the theologians, these exponents of spiritual life, who once had a revelation of spiritual life before them, did not argue about this revelation of spiritual life, but came with the parchment, which is the source from which divine revelation flows, and said: “Prove to us from the Holy Scripture that what you tell us can be true.” Not from the living connection with the spiritual world was the Maid of Orleans to be allowed to prove that she had any mission, but she was to prove it from the old books. And she answers:

"There is more written in the Book of God than in all your books.” Jaurès says: “A wonderful saying, which in a certain respect stands in contrast to the soul of the peasant, whose faith is rooted above all in tradition. How far removed is all this from the dull, narrow-minded, limited patriotism of the landowner! But Jeanne hears the divine voices of her heart by looking up to the radiant and gentle heights of heaven.”

Imagine on the one hand honesty and on the other profound falsehood; for of course, a person of the present day recognizes only as self-suggestion, as fiction, what is in the Virgin of Orleans, and only pictorial, poetic expressions he sees in what he says:

These divine voices of her heart are something quite abstract for such a man. It is not something real that flows down: the powers of life flowing in through a source like the Virgin of Orleans, so that one absorbs it in order to do reformist social science with this spiritual impulse! No, Joan of Arc speaks of it; but if he wants to do anything, he does not look up to what flows in from the radiant heights of heaven, but he sums, divides, potentiates and reasons abstract terms, purely materialistic thoughts. That is the profound untruth that people do not even realize, that does not even occur to the best of them.

Examples such as these make it clear how people who are immersed in the intellectual life of the present cannot possibly arrive at an appreciation of the most important thing: the spiritual facts themselves, which they must consider fantastic in the light of contemporary life. I said: In the 19th century, what has been indicated here, the prevalence of the materialistic attitude, experienced a crisis. It came to a certain climax. And it is good to see how things are looming; for you will have seen from the example of a theologian just yesterday how 'theology is most strongly influenced by what has emerged from the materialistic attitude of natural science. It is most fatally influential because it most strongly leads to insincerity, to unconscious insincerity. That is the important thing to realize. And a theologian like the one who represented the reformed Christianity in Aarau in May of this year, who said that we all want to unlearn thinking and that we all want to become Christs, is just a personality who stands on the ground of the same attitude. For example, his pamphlet contains the view that these people want to explore the mysterious; but that is precisely what we do not want, this man believes from his point of view, the mysterious is valuable precisely because it remains mysterious. We want to leave the mysterious as it is; we do not want to reveal it. For if we are once confronted with the revealed mystery, then it is no longer mysterious and that is irreligious, that is unchristian to reveal the mystery. — The man takes this view.

And yet, in a sense, this man is typical, also for our time, which develops intellectual defects right into the sphere of moral defects; for what he says about our understanding of the Christ-principle and much of what he says otherwise borders not merely on misunderstanding, but on conscious deliberate falsification, since he could know otherwise and does not feel conscientiously enough obliged to look at this other, to get to know it, but instead says what is incorrect: the intellectual misunderstanding begins to become a moral defect, which then draws itself quite fatally into the souls. What he said there is so right a plant of our time, and it is still interesting to realize how it was not always so. If you look at things in detail, you can see that it has not always been so. This brochure reproduces a lecture given in Aarau on 22 May 1916 on the subject of “Modern Mysticism and Free Christianity” at the Swiss Reform Day. So that is the attitude that was incorporated into the aura of Aarau in May 1916.

Now, in such a case, it is good to really study and look in the same aura to see how things have developed: In Aarau, in 1828, with Heinrich Remigius Sauerländer, Dr. Troxier's “Naturlehre des menschlichen Erkennens” (Natural History of Human Cognition) was published! So we see that this 'Natural Science of Human Cognition' found a place within the same aura in those days, in 1828. At least most of you know Troxler from my last book 'The Riddle of Man'. This Troxler was born in Switzerland, was first a professor in Lucerne, then in Basel and in Bern, and died in 1868. He is not yet on the standpoint of present-day spiritual science, that is to say, he lacks the possibility of presenting the worlds that spiritual science can describe to people in concrete terms. But he is, I would say, on the way. And it is interesting to see how the same subject was once spoken of differently. For this, I will just quote a few passages from Troxler that I am bringing before you today so that you can see how differently the same subject was spoken of. I would like to say first that Troxler admittedly does not yet have spiritual science, but that he does put forward concepts that are initially like hypotheses, which may not be accurate, but can essentially be found again when viewed from the standpoint of spiritual science. There we speak of the physical body, of the etheric body, of the astral body and of the I. These four concepts roughly correspond, even if Troxler has no concept, with what he calls the body in man, the body, the soul and the spirit. He divides man into four parts: body, soul, and spirit, and he sharply criticizes the philosophers who have worked before him for not realizing that it is nonsense to say that man consists of spirit and body, but that one only understands man when one regards him as this four-part system: body and soul as the internal, body as the external, lower, spirit as the upper. And as I said, even if Troxler did not advance as far as spiritual science, he still managed to recognize the human being to a high degree through an insight into the mind. And from this point of view, the man says the following, for example. Referring to earlier philosophers who had mixed up everything in man, he says:

"In general, we criticize this philosopher, as well as all the philosophers and theologians mentioned above, for drawing their anthroposophy more from reflection and speculation, or authority and dogmatics, than from their original consciousness, or their own spirit perfected in religion. Only the original and direct knowledge of the divine in its nature leads man to self-knowledge of his essential personality and living spontaneity, for which only individual derived and indirect works and forms of subordinate and one-sided species and degrees of consciousness have been regarded so far."

He continues:

"The theosophists are as little united among themselves as the philosophers. Thus, for example, Daumer opposes Boehme, Schelling and Baader in the following, which seems to me to be a very correct observation that approaches our view. He says on page 39: “It is to be noted that in the case of Böhme, as in that of Schelling, there is a confusion of the God who has been divested (the Ungrund) with the unconditional in God, and the error prevails as if God had found and investigated Himself through the reason.”

So, once again, the confusion of these very things that are at issue here.

“Here it is also worth mentioning how mysticism, while usually losing the human being in God, and philosophy, while losing God in the human being, has transferred this primal relationship of human nature, which the human being should content himself with fathoming anthroposophically, to God himself in theosophical speculations” and so on.

This was the most intense endeavor of this Troxler, especially in the area I have indicated: to work towards an anthroposophy. One might say that Troxler appears as a kind of harbinger in this area in particular. Now just consider how things would be different if Troxler, who worked in Lucerne, Bern and Basel, had been heard at the time when he wanted to introduce anthroposophy, albeit in his own way. If that had gained ground, how different it would be now that anthroposophy, which has progressed to the point of concrete spiritual knowledge, is being presented here with a building. When you consider such things, especially when you study this wonderful case of direct anthroposophy, which was taught in the 1930s by name, wanting to appear again, and as now in the same Aarau, where this book was published, in which the sentences about anthroposophy are found as they could be at that time, a lecture is given on “Recent Mysticism and Free Christianity”, in which it is said: These anthroposophists want to make it their principle to unlearn thinking and become all Christs - if you think about it, you will get an idea of the materialistic crisis that occurred in the course of the 19th century. And it is good to get an idea of such things, to know that today, when one stands on the ground of the outer spiritual life, one has no right to speak otherwise than by being aware that one is expressing a Wagnerian spirit and not a Faustian spirit when one says:

It is a great pleasure
to place oneself in the spirit of the times,
to see how a wise man thought before us,
and how we have then finally come so wonderfully far.

For just imagine, the man who spoke in Aarau, looking at Troxler, who had his book published in Aarau, would now say – he would certainly say it from his point of view – the present-day speaker on newer mysticism and free Christianity:

It is a great delight
to place oneself in the spirit of the times,
to see how a wise man thought before us,
and how we have then finally come so gloriously far!

The Troxler, who has not yet come so far as to realize that these anthroposophists want to unlearn thinking and become all Christs, that they want to reveal the secret and not leave the secret, and thereby rebel against all honest, human endeavor. Troxler would not say: I have finally realized that these anthroposophists are to be condemned because they all want to become Christs, want to give up thinking and feeling and want to reveal the secrets; but man is not there to research anything, but he is there, as the theologian believes, to think, which the anthroposophists want to give up!

As you can see, mutual understanding will not be possible; but it is still an example of whether or not there was a crisis, a materialistic crisis, in the 19th century, and to what extent it is true that we have come “so wonderfully far”! I believe that we have come wonderfully far from Troxler to Joß in the field of the Aarau aura! But not forward, but backward! We will continue this discussion tomorrow.

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.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

If we want to fathom the meaning of the materialistic age we need to research how the combination of important fundamental forces add up to the development of mankind. Next we need consider human evolution from a specific angle today. I will link these to various things I have already mentioned recently and reach a clear outcome.

I have often referred to the importance of the time period in an individual's development which co-insides with the change of teeth around the seventh year of life. The change of teeth indicates that certain forces present and active in the organism up to this time no longer exercise their actions as is the case up to the seventh year. From the moment the stage of dentition begins or is taking place the human being goes into a state of metamorphosis. What appears with the pushing out of the second set of teeth is something which had been working in the human body already. When they appear as if freed out of the body then the appearance is by contrast more like a soul force. We discover by researching this appearance, that up to the seventh year a soul force is active within the human being and to a certain extend finds its conclusive work done with the change of teeth. When we develop the inclination and ability to observe such things we will come to see how the child's entire soul constitution is metamorphosed, how precisely from this moment in life the ability arises to construct defined concepts similar to the way other soul abilities occur. Where had these soul qualities been before the change of teeth? They were in the body and were active there. That which later would become spiritual was working in the body.

Here we arrive at quite a different observation regarding the cooperation between the soul-spiritual and the bodily aspects in contrast to how they are depicted by abstract psychological representations, which refers to a psycho-physical parallelism or to an alternate interaction between soul and body. We arrive at a true observation of what works in an important way during the first seven years of the human organism. We gradually see something which is hidden up to the moment it becomes freed to work as a soul force. We only need to develop an ability to observe such things to become aware how a certain process of power gradually works into the bodily aspect during the first seven years of life and how from this moment onwards reappear as something soul-spiritual. Then we also realise what the actual activity within the human body, at least in part, is during the first seven years of life.

When we find ourselves in the condition in life which takes place between falling asleep and waking, something happens which I have just described, in two conditions following upon one another in a meaningful way. We can also observe that a child sleeps in a certain way which is different to the one he or she will become after the change of teeth. It is as if the difference is not apparent, but it is there. The child up to his seventh year is in a state of sleep—a state in which its soul is intrinsically within the state of falling asleep and waking—unable to transmit the same forces which he later sends as soul forces because these forces are related to the physical, to the corporeal organism. As a result the child doesn't send sharply outlined concepts into his state of sleep. It sends very few sharply defined concepts and even less outlined imaginations but these indistinct representations have the peculiar ability to encompass the soul spiritual reality in a better way than through sharply defined representations.

This is something important, the sharper the outlines of our concepts in daily life, the less these concepts are able to enter our sleep condition, understanding realities from there. As a result of this the child often in fact brings a particular knowledge of spiritual reality out of its sleeping condition. This ceases in the same way as I described in the forces being freed during the change of teeth, sharply outlined concepts now come to the fore and can influence sleep life. These sharply outlined concepts subdue to a certain extent the view on spiritual realities as we live between falling asleep and waking.

What I have just said can be proved through supersensible sight which develops the power I have often described which can be found in my “Occult Science” and in my book “Knowledge of the Higher Worlds.” When clairvoyant sight attains the power of imagination, when each image appears, as we know, as having a spiritual reality as foundation, then we gradually come to behold spiritual realities amidst the condition of sleeping and waking, and then we can evaluate the difference between a child's sleep before his seventh year and its sleep after turning seven. We can see how to some extent insight is eased regarding what in our imagination we have clarified regarding observation of spiritual realities in whose proximity we are between falling asleep and waking up.

When the change of teeth has come about, the development of puberty starts within the soul element, which can be grasped to a certain degree through imagination. Through simply experiencing our imagination we can see what is forming in the soul.

Man acquires simply through the imaginative experience that which is formed in the soul. The experience I have mentioned regarding the conditions between falling asleep and waking is only one of the experiences which can be made through imaginative knowledge. Under these interesting conditions which take place in the child between dentition and puberty, we see how there is actually a strong struggle taking place in the becoming of the human being. The fight to a certain extent in this period of life is between the ether body and the astral body which undergoes a particular transformation towards puberty. When we consider the physical correlation corresponding to this condition of a struggle, then we can say that it's during this period of the child's life when there is a struggle between growing forces and those forces which appear through physical inspiration, through breathing. This is a very important process in inner development, a process which has to be studied time and again. A part of what becomes freed up for the soul during dentition, are growing forces. Of course a considerable part of these growing forces remain in the body and see to growth, while a part of this is freed during dentition and come to the fore as soul forces.

The growing forces working on in the child resists against what appears essentially in the respiratory process. What now appears in the breathing process could not essentially appear before. The respiratory process is certainly present in the child but as long as it has the forces rising from dentition, so long will nothing in the child happen which is actually as striking, as meaningful as what later takes place between breathing and the physical body. The greatest part of our development depends upon the breathing process. As a result Oriental exercises focus particularly on the breathing process while the human beings who live into the breathing exercises actually come into contact with their inner organisation, brings physicality into an inner movement which is related to perception of the spiritual world.

As we said, before the start of dentition, what breathing actually wants to affect in us fails to become active in the body. Now the battle starts between the growing forces retained in the body against the forces penetrating through the breathing processes. The first meaningful process appearing as a result of the physical breathing processes is puberty.

This connection between breathing and puberty is not yet being examined by science. It is, however, definitely present. We actually breathe in what brings on puberty, which also gives us the further opportunity to step into a relationship in the widest sense between the world and loving surroundings. We actually breathe this in. In every process of nature there's also a spiritual process. In the breathing process exists not only the spiritual but also the soul spiritual. This soul spiritual process permeates us through breathing. It can only penetrate when the forces have become ensouled, forces which formerly worked up to the change of teeth and stopped at this point. What wanted to stream in through the breathing process can now take place.

However, again they come into opposition—a war—of what comes out of the growing processes and what is still a growth process, coming from ether forces in other words. This war is evident between the ether forces rising from the ether body and their correlation found in the material, in the metabolism and blood circulation as astral forces. Here the metabolic system plays into the rhythmic system. We can schematically say: we have our metabolic system but this plays into our blood rhythm; the metabolic system I depict here in white (weiß) and the circulation system playing into it: red (rot) in the drawing. This is what streams from the ether body upwards between the ages of seven to fourteen.

The astral body works against it. We have the inward streaming of the rhythmical in the physical correlation which comes from breathing and the war takes place between the blood circulation and the breathing rhythms in blue (blau). This is what is happening in that period of life.

To speak somewhat vividly in perhaps a radical image: between about the ninth and the tenth year in the life of every child, what had been planned before and appeared as skirmishes before the actual main battle, now goes over into the main battle. The astral and ether bodies direct their chief attack during the ninth and tenth year of life.

As a result this period in time is so important for educators to observe. It is simply so, that teachers, educators and instructors need to give their full attention to something—which may appear differently in nearly each person—taking place in this moment in time.

Here something exceptional can be seen in each child. Some temperamental qualities move into an evident metamorphosis. Marked ideas appear. Above all this is the moment in time where one could start—while before it had been good to not let the child distinguish between the Ego (Ich) and the outer world—allowing this distinction between the Ego and the outer world to come to the fore. While it had been preferable before to use fairy tale imagery to the child, how processes of nature were like human processes, by personifying and clarifying, now the child may be educated about nature in a more instructive manner.

Stories of nature, even in their most elementary forms, should actually only from this moment be presented to the child because the child, as it starts with its first period of life, feels its Ego clearly, while it had just sensed its Ego before. This is a clearly outlined concept, a more or less sharply outlined term linked to the Ego which appears at this time. The child first learns at this moment to really distinguish itself from the surroundings. This corresponds to a definite counter streaming of the breathing rhythm with the circulatory rhythm, the astral and the ether bodies.

There are two sides to this within the human being. On the one side it is present in the condition between waking up and falling asleep. For this state I have just made indications. In the condition between falling asleep and waking, something different presents itself. When we have made progress in Imagination and developed Inspiration somewhat, we may evaluate what happens through Inspiration during the breathing process which has its physical correlation, we discover only at this moment in time—for one child it will be a little earlier, for another a bit later but on average between nine and ten—there is a liberation of the I and the astral body from the physical body during sleep. The child namely becomes intimately connected with his physical and etheric bodies even during asleep. From this time the I lights up as an individual being when actually the I and astral body are not participants of the functions of the ether and physical bodies.

If a child dies before this moment when life had led it up to its fifth, sixth and even into its eighth, ninth year, it still has something which hasn't separated much from the soul spiritual world which is experienced between death and a new birth; so that children relatively easily are pulled back into the soul spiritual world and to some extent only attach something to life which they completed with conception or birth, that an actual cutting off from a new life, if we consider this kind of death, is only really there when children die after this point. Their connection to a certain extent to a new life will be less intensive than the life before. Here clearly conditions are experienced as I've described in “Theosophy” where children who have died earlier are thrown back and then piece life together from what they experience to the life they had led up to their conception or up to birth. One should even say: what we have before us in the child up to the time between his ninth and tenth year of life shows there is much less separation between the soul-physical and the soul-spiritual than in the later human being. Later a person is much more of a dualistic being than the child. The child has the soul-spiritual incorporated into his body and this works into the body. As a duality the soul-spiritual appears opposite the bodily soul element only after this illustrated time. One should say: from this moment the soul-spiritual is less concerned by the bodily element than it had been concerned before. The child as a bodily being is far more of a soul being than the older person. The body of the child is even permeated by the soul forces of growth because it still retains soulful forces even when the largest part of dentition has taken place.

Thus we can say that this battle I have depicted calms down gradually from about the twelfth year onwards and with sexual maturity the astral body takes its full entitlement in the human constitution. That which loosens itself from the human being, which to some extent now is less concerned with the physical is that which the human being takes again with him or her through the gate of death on dying. As we've said, the child in its earlier years is more thrown back to its former life; human beings after this period in time are separated from their former life. What is released here holds within it a seed which allows it to pass through the gate of death. One can really penetrate these things with imaginative knowledge and one can discern particularities precisely. One can point out how the forces rising here lead to sharply defined concepts—which however diminish spiritual realities in whose presence we are during sleep—and make the human being into an independent being.

As a result of the human being cutting off, diminishing the spiritual realities, the human being again becomes the spirit amongst spirits who he must be when he goes through the gate of death. The child always slips, I might say, into spiritual realities; the later human being detaches himself from these spiritual realities and becomes consistent in himself. Admittedly, what becomes consistent can only be seen clearly with imaginative and inspired knowledge, but it does exist in people. This process happens anyhow, as I've indicated yesterday. When human beings don't allow spiritual science to work on them, then it is already so: what is released—particularly during this age in which we receive such materialistic concepts and intellectual ideas, where already at school intellectualism and materialism are imported, because our school subjects are presented materialistically—what is released here is organised in an ahrimanic direction. Because we are asleep in our will even during the day, what becomes released here are trapped by our instincts. We educate ourselves in order to master our instinctive lives by absorbing spiritual scientific concepts.

Intellectuals, materialists or sensualist have an opinion about these concepts, they say these spiritual scientific concepts are fantasy, there's nothing real in them compared with reality. What they mean with “reality” is only what can be perceived by the senses. This is not what is meant by these concepts at all. Everything which appears as concepts in my “spiritual science” does not refer to the outer sense world, it wants to describe the supersensible world. Should these concepts be accepted thus, then they are taken up in a supersensible way even though one can't yet see into the supersensible. Concepts are taken up which are suitable for the supersensible world and not applicable to the senses, physical world, and one thus breaks free from the physical sensory world, in other words, instincts.

This education however is necessary in the human race; without it humankind will enter more and more into social chaos. The actual results—it is like I said yesterday—the actual results of intellectualism and materialism in science, the actual outcome of our present day scientific leaning is a social condition which is chaotic and rising in such an alarming manner in Eastern Europe.

As I said, with logic you can't derive Bolshevism from Bergson's philosophy or from Machsher Avenarius's philosophy; but plain logic brings you closer to deriving it. This is something which present day mankind must look at clearly; dualism has developed in the last centuries between nature observation and the moral world of ideas. On the one side we have the observation of nature which only works with the necessity, as I've often pointed out, to being strictly exact and wanting to link everything to definite connections and causalities. This kind of nature observation creates a worldly structure, builds hypotheses about the beginning and the end of the earth.

Here you stand before what the human being experiences in religious and moral ideas. This is completely torn away from what lives in the observation of nature. This is why people strive so hard to justify the moral-religious content through mere faith. The moral-religious content has been elevated to a system whose content must stand for itself which to some extent should not be allowed to be ruined by anything else, like how outer nature is described, what a person may feel, how the one influences the other. Our present day nature observation, as it exists in its newest phase, where optics and electrodynamics merge, draws by necessity the imagination of the death of warmth to itself. Then the earth with all its people and animals will die and then no human soul will develop despite all its moral ideals. This earth's demise is ensured by the Law of Conservation of Matter, of the Conservation of Energy: through this Law of the Conservation Of Energy the result is the death of the earth, the death of all human souls just like materialists consider the death of the soul as connected to the death of the human body. Only when we are absolutely clear in our mind that what lives in us as morality, what permeates us as religious ideas, form a seed within us, a seed containing a reality, just as the seed of a plant unfolds into a plant the following year, only then can we know that the start of this seed is for a future natural existence and that the earth with everything it contains, visible, audible, perceptible to our senses, does not depend on the law of conservation of energy but that it dies, falls away from all human souls who then carry the moral ideals through as new natural events, into the Jupiter-, Venus-, and Vulcan existence; only when we are clear that Heaven and Earth will perish but My word, the Logos, which develops in the human soul, will not perish—when we are clear, literally clear about these words, only then can we speak of moral and religious content of our human souls. Otherwise it is dishonest. Otherwise we put to a certain extent morality in the world and adhere to another certainty than the natural certainty. If we are clear in our minds that the words of Christ are true, that a cosmos originates from morality, wrested free from the death shroud when this cosmos disintegrates, then we have a world view which indicates morality and naturalness in its metamorphosis.

This is essentially what must penetrate present day humanity because with the schooling of natural thinking developed over the last decades, it is impossible to also accomplish the most essential social concepts which we need. Something must live in the social concepts which recognise morality at the same time in its cosmic implications. The human being must once again learn that he or she is a cosmic being. Earlier the social affairs which needed to be organized on the earth round was not understood; before it had been acknowledged that human beings are connected with cosmic intentions, with cosmic entities.

This is what is felt by people in our age who experience the whole tragedy in their souls, who have come from the abyss between the natural scientific notion and the moral view which we have. Probably only a few slightly sense the implications of this abyss, but it must be crossed over—to say this literally: “Heaven and Earth will perish but my Word will not perish.” This means, what sprouts in the human soul will enfold, just as the earth will perish.

One can't be an avid supporter of the Law of Conservation of Energy and believe at the same time that the moral world indicates eternity. Only to the degree with which courage is found to establish and view the world through the view of nature, will a way be found out of this chaos of the present. This way out can only be found when human beings decide, once again, but now fully conscious, to revert back to that wisdom which once was experienced in the old mysteries in an instinctive way. If humanity makes the decision to consciously penetrate the spiritual world it is an objective possibility, my dear friends. Since the end of the 19th Century a wave from the spiritual world wants to enter our physical world. I could say, it storms in, it is there. Mankind only needs to open their hearts and their senses, and human hearts and human souls will be spoken to. The spiritual world has good intentions, but humanity is still resisting. What was experienced in the second decades of the 20th Century in such a terribly way, ultimately is the bracing of humanity against the inward thrusting wave from the spiritual world. However one could say, it is at its worst, just where scientific minds turn against the streaming in from the spiritual worlds. One should not however, once materialistic and intellectual thinking habits have been withdrawn, now introduce some sort of form which would rule, which could be acquired from the spiritual world.

In relation to this the intellectual-materialistic wave it had its peak, its impact in the second half of the 19th Century. Obviously materialism prepared this long in advance. I have repeatedly referred to its actual worldly historic beginning: what lived in Hellenism as materialism was only a prelude, somewhat in Democritus and in change. Its world historical importance only gradually developed from the 15th Century. It developed slowly, certainly, but it still, when the actual dogmatic tradition was relinquished, I might say, allowed a feeling for a spiritual world's existence within the physical, that the spiritual world can be grasped but not registered through mere intellectual gestures.

Today some who do not see the essence of it, point out with a certain nostalgia to not that far back in time, positivism and materialistic thoughts actually shamed the human being who was regarded as completely inhuman. After that, basically only in the second half of the 19th Century they came to view humankind as completely inhuman, wiping out the specifically human. Thus they avenged themselves by claiming that the human being had thoroughly educated itself in a relatively total abstract way of thinking, as it appeared in the renewed version of the Theory of Relativity. As a result it is always interesting and one should take responsibility for it, that there are still singular minds who refer back to the time when even materialistically orientated minds considered that anything pertaining to people should be dealt with through the mind.

Certainly, a thoroughly intellectual and positivistic mind was Auguste Comte but he wasn't alive in the end of the 19th Century when people were completely excluded from human observation even though, where intellectualism and materialism only became external nature's concepts—but only the outer nature concept, where a human being no longer considered his own humanity in relation to it, that even his own human qualities were thought of as being in the images of nature. Thus it is interesting if we can read what the English thinker Frederick Harrison, briefly wrote about Auguste Comte. He said: I'm thinking about a concise remark by Auguste Comte which he made more than sixty years ago. Auguste Comte, the positivist, the intellectualist who was still somewhat touched by the spirituality of olden times, already saw that in the future the human being will be completely omitted. Despite his positivism, despite his intellectualism it displeased him to what he referred to and what he had been creating, which only came about in the last third of the 19th Century so he hadn't seen it: our modern doctors, said Comte, appear to be essentially animal doctors. He meant, so Harrison continues, that they often, more particularly with women, are treated like horses or cows.

Comte stressed that an illness should be observed from more than one side, that it contains a spiritual element and occasionally even a prominent kind of spiritual element, thus the human doctor should just as much be a philosopher of the soul as an anatomist is to the body. He claimed that true medication would have two sides. From this basis—Harrison adds—he would reject Freudian one sidedness. Harrison continues—how this Comtian point of view has developed further and how people have gradually degenerated to the point of view where people are treated like horses and cows and how this has gradually made human doctors into animal doctors. Everything is relative—this is already contained in the kernel of the theory of relativity. The main teaching of Auguste Comte had a better basis and a more thorough philosophical depth and life than Einstein, he said.—It is always refreshing when one can still today hear such a statement, because we live in the age where the scientific mind opposes everything which comes from a spiritual side, namely what wants to transport the mind in human life, in human action and particularly in important areas such a medical activities.

If we ask ourselves: what is it then, which makes materialism and intellectualism so attractive for today's science? Look for yourself how things are taking place. Consider how our education is set up to hardly involve the teachers in the child's whole organization. The teacher is far too comfortable, and has personally been raised far too comfortably to really delve into the intricacies of child development, like I have depicted today again. Such things would rather not be bothered with—because what would be required? It would call for not shying away from every transition in daily life while living a delusion, to a life which is quite different, where our knowledge becomes reality.

This transformation of people, this otherness, this change pertaining to knowledge is shied away from today; people do not want it. People want to comfortably rise to higher truths which can only be the highest abstractions because to reach abstraction can be done with a certain comfort. This way no inner changes are needed in order to reach it. However, to come to a real life content, how it forms the basis of our outer sensory content, can't be attained when at least concepts aren't changed which have no significance for ordinary sense life, whose meaning one can only penetrate with a power coming from within and working outward. People are put into life which also stretches into the supersensible world, and in our age it relies on this supersensible world being elucidated in a healthy way. When I said yesterday that the materialistic-intellectual point of view doesn't just include a few scientifically educated people, even with a scientific education, but that they are popular beliefs in the simplest people still connected to ancient beliefs, then it must be said: it is urgent and necessary that whatever flows into our overall life in popular form should also contain information of the spiritual world.

Presently overall characteristic attributes can be found everywhere where the effort is made to introduce Anthroposophical spiritual science into areas of life. In medicine, in religion, the social life, everywhere the introduction of anything non-sectarian should be made: Anthroposophically orientated spiritual science, which comes to the fore with the same scientific earnest with which it had been introduced since the middle of the 15 Century as scientific, is to be fully recognized.

When a child has grown up and has had the luck to have undergone some higher learning, what becomes apparent today? These young people, doctors, theologians, philologists, lawyers, will not become anything else; they will not be converted but stay as they are and only accept abstractions applicable to their science. If an attempt is made to offer them some knowledge of the world then they immediately withdraw particularly into this comfortable life of abstraction in which they desire to continue living—but which is leading towards chaos. Thus we can observe an interesting symptom arising which I want to single out. On occasion where the Nurnberg main preacher Geyer held seemingly many lectures at various places, it can be noticed: here people suspect, mainly scientific people suspect that an attempt is being made to introduce Anthroposophically orientated spiritual science into their lives. This the people don't want. Even well minded people don't want it. They sense that here they must re-adjust their views in relation to their entire scientific orientation, here they must think quite differently about their own basic beliefs. As a result when something appears which challenges their own basic beliefs, they revert to their comfortable abstract criticism. So we discover already at the start of the Geyer lectures a quote by the topmost Medicinal Council psychiatrist Kolb, director of the mental hospital and nursing institution in Erlangen, but also a person who should be able to greet with inner satisfaction and joy anything available in this area where spiritual science can fruitfully bring clarification into the psychological areas and is fruitfully elucidated.

Spiritual science goes along a healthy path while the psychiatrist follows it in a morbid way. Psychiatry can only become healthy if it is enlightened in all areas, in all its details if it is based in the healthy manner of anthroposophical spiritual science. Through this the psychiatrist should rise up, letting his psychiatry be permeated by spiritual science; because this psychiatry has basically become nothing other than psycho-pathology. This is a terrible thing at the present—this psychiatry. What does the psychiatrist do? He doesn't sense how the rays of light which can come to him through anthroposophical spiritual science can clarify psychiatry. Instead, he positions spiritual science as he does psychiatry at present that means, he uses the same measure for both. Even if he means well by doing so it becomes something extraordinarily interesting because we can compare it to looking at our faces in a garden mirror ball—if you have a pretty face you will still see the beauty, but it is broken up in squares. Naturally spiritual science will thus appear checkered if it is opposed in full force even by someone with good intentions. It is always interesting to read a bit of what Dr Kolb, the principal medical psychiatrist, always meaning well, has to say:

“The famous Anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner I see ...” excuse me, I must read this—“a genial but extraordinarily imbalanced personality with some understandable striking traits according to psychiatric knowledge. The principal preacher Geyer from Nurnberg appears to base his teachings on Steiner. I have twice heard a public lecture like this from many highly respected clergy. The lecture as a piece of art, was charming. I would consider it an atrocity to pick this blue flower of poetry, which was served so gracefully, and the blue haze”—the blue appears to be less critical than the haze—“in which he brings us closer to Steiner's painted age clouded by critical colour. Now as psychiatrist I must say: the `clairvoyance' of Steiner is nothing other than ordinary thinking which is influenced by a kind of self-hypnosis when a genial and what I would like to accept as...”—after this it becomes quite different!—“an ethically high-standing personality with glowing scientific and general education, highly informed about the present religious-philosophic teachings, as Steiner is, to some extent see into your brain and offer the content of the brain as `Anthroposophy,' yet amongst a multitude of fantastic traits much which is good, noble and morally high standing, perhaps isolated valuable scientific thoughts can be found.”

Now I ask you, just listen to this: ordinary thinking, influenced by Anthroposophy, sees into the brain and what is seen in the brain, is presented as Anthroposophy! Please, take this genial quote from this psychiatrist: therefore everything perceived by looking into the brain is also a bit influenced by auto suggestions!

“When however his teaching up to now are thrown to be people from the pulpit, then fewer genial people, without previous training, will preach about the marvelling products of his `clairvoyance.'”

They have actually done quite well, these untrained people! It is in fact as if this psychiatrist, whose anthroposophical thoughts are influenced by auto-hypnosis which he sees in the brain, actually lives completely outside the actual world.

“As occultism is similar to communism with a fatal attraction on the mentally weak, on immature youth, the prematurely old aged, on dreamers, on hysterics, above all on psychopaths, the insecure, the sick liars and swindlers, so we will experience that demoralized through war, death and misery and worry about the future we have become susceptible for the rise of `Prophets' similar to those historical deeds of the Munster Anabaptists we read with horror. The Catholic church is greatly merited by rejecting Steiner with complete lucidity and sharpness.” This `lucidity and sharpness' you read near a living person here!—“and I would like as Protestant to ask every single spiritual Protestant heartily, to test the danger of the demise of our church into a dreary and dangerous sect before it becomes a dangerous temptation of ideally orientated Christians with pathological traits strongly recommending Steiner's teachings.”

This lesson was received by the principal preacher Geyer from the topmost Medicinal Council psychiatrist Dr Gustav Kolb, director of the mental hospital and nursing institution in Erlangen.

You see how the state of mind of a person is constituted who has completely accepted the thinking habits of the modern scientific spirit. Please, just consider for a bit, just for my sake meditate over what appears when a person, instead of directing his gaze to the outer world, directs himself through Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition and brings sharply into focus what is in my `occult science,' letting this gaze turn inward and depict the human brain, as if influenced by auto hypnosis. Isn't it true that what the psychiatrist is describing is madness! This depiction actually rises from a psychiatric base! Yet one must say that such a man as Gustav Kolb is well meaning and discovers that the blue haze should not be dissected by other critical colours; because he finds it barbaric to oppose the blue flower introduced by the priest Geyer. So from the one side he is even benevolent but he is really a typical representative of modern science.

This is the situation which can definitely be hoped for and expected from by modern science towards anthroposophically orientated science. Therefore it must always be mentioned that active, spiritual science orientated collaborators are needed, in every shop, found on every corner, who are revealed in this way and then drawn into the right light in which they are moved when there is a reference to, first of all, present day science being unable to be different from what it is, and secondly: brain instead of Anthroposophy.

Really, we must free ourselves from preconceived ideas in order to make it possible today, to convince the occasional person permeated by these modern scientific habits, to change. The joy several of our short minded followers often have that the occasional person can be converted, is a misplaced joy. It is concerned with unprejudiced humanity being penetrated by what anthroposophic spiritual science offers and then grimly facing the characteristics of modern science where it turns into nonsense, even when well meant. We are confronted today with immense seriousness. Therefore it must ever and again be stressed that at least among us many who sense this earnestness must rise instead of merely sitting and listening for a bit with the pleasure of hearing anthroposophic truths, but should rather want to permeate anthroposophic orientated spiritual science into every part of active life and also have the courage and energy to step forward where it is needed. I draw your attention repeatedly to what opposes spiritual science, with all the possible grotesque, ridiculous, deceitful and good-natured impotent forms it assumes. The battle which is fought against this, is even more sparse. It has to be done for the salvation of the further evolution of humanity. Healing must come through the modern spirit of science—as you know, where it is entitled, it is also appreciated by spiritual science—because it wants to set itself up in those areas of which it understands nothing, making it sick.

Dear attendees!

What I have to present to you today about spiritual science, as it is meant here, cannot, of course, be anything that could be convincing from the outset. Only suggestions are to be given, more or less drawing attention to what is intended by this spiritual science, as it is meant here.

Those who are grounded in this spiritual research know that many prerequisites are necessary to enter into those paths of spiritual contemplation and activity that make it possible to regard this research, the core of which I would say is no more than a vain fantasy, as a reverie. And it is almost self-evident that such views initially take hold when one hears the first suggestions from this scientific direction.

The starting point of this spiritual research, dear attendees, is that it must hold the opinion that, through the impulses inherent in the development of mankind, similar conditions prevail in the realm of the soul's life today as they have for three to four centuries, since the dawn of the modern scientific world view of nature and its phenomena.

In truth, this spiritual research wants to be nothing other than a genuine continuation of the scientific way of thinking. And it wants to gain knowledge about soul and spiritual facts from the same concepts of truth - yes, I would like to say, perhaps better say - from the same sense of truth, from the same sense of knowledge, as science gains knowledge about natural things and their interrelations. But for this, an understanding of something is necessary, for which one must acquire spiritual understanding.

Those who are of the opinion – and I say explicitly – that the scientific methods, the basic views of nature, have gradually become something exemplary in terms of the way science is conducted, will all too easily to believe that all research, absolutely all research into reality, including research into the spiritual and soul life, must proceed exactly as research into nature and its results are sought. If, for this very reason, spiritual research must take different paths from those of external natural science, then this is certainly something that cannot be admitted directly from the outset.

Now, after these introductory words, I do not want to beat about the bush in the abstract, but would like to get straight to the heart of the matter.

The first point to be made is that spiritual research, as it is meant here, is based on observation, on the observation of facts; indeed, in a way that one can say: on the production of experiments, but only if all observation and experimentation takes place in the most intimate life of the soul itself. It is not the same as conducting experiments in a laboratory, not the same as conducting zoological, botanical or other observations with the outer senses and with the intellect [research] that is connected to the brain. The things that lead the spiritual researcher to insights into spiritual and psychological life are pure, inner experiences. And here it is difficult to see that pure inner knowledge can completely strip away the character of everything subjective, everything individual, and can become truly objective, that is, can become such that they can provide insights into facts.

The scene of the research is therefore not something that can be pursued with the external senses; nor is it something that can be grasped in any way – or, rather, grasped – with the mind that is applied in ordinary science. Rather, the point is that spiritual research must first develop the powers and abilities in the human soul that lead to the pursuit and observation of spiritual facts in a way similar to that in which the external senses and the armed external senses lead to the observation of facts and to external experiments.

Now, the first thing that needs to be developed is an inner ability of the soul, which is latent, one might say, in both ordinary everyday life and in the ordinary scientific method. In all ordinary life and in all scientific life, this first ability is not actually applied. And it can be characterized externally in such a way that one says: everything that one does in terms of external handling, external observation, thinking about external observation in everyday life, in ordinary science, leads to a certain result. It leads to one visualizing through concepts or ideas – or however one wants to call it – that which one believes to recognize as the laws of nature. And then, when you have arrived at results through the effort of the soul in the handling of observation of the experiment, of reflection, then you have reached a certain conclusion, so to speak an end, with regard to external life, with regard to ordinary science.

What is considered the end, what is considered the conclusion with regard to outer development and outer life, is, for spiritual science as it is meant here, basically only the beginning. From there, all further development of inner soul forces must proceed. That means that the methods used in ordinary science, the results obtained, the peculiar mental experiences that one reaches, these are the preparers, they first prepare the human soul powers to become what they must become if one wants to look into the spiritual world. So that one must start at the end of ordinary science for the development of spiritual research.

Now, in earlier lectures that I have been privileged to give in this city, I have already said a great deal about the principles of how the soul must train inwardly in order to reach the point where it can observe the spiritual world. But since there are a great many honored listeners here today who were not present at previous lectures, I must, at least very briefly, mention some of the principles of what the soul has to do in order to arrive at actual spiritual research.

Of course, dear attendees, I can only mention the very most fundamental principles here; everything else can be found in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds” or in the second part of my so-called “Occult Science”. There you will find a detailed account of the soul's inner workings, the purely spiritual and soul-like workings that must be carried out in order to achieve what I will now only discuss in principle.

First and foremost, it is a matter of a very specific development of the human being's ability to think. I do not say “of thinking”, but “of the ability to think”. And essentially one can say: What is at stake in such a development of the human being's ability to think is that this thinking is strengthened inwardly, inwardly strengthened, and so not only grows in intensity compared to ordinary thinking, but also, in that it is gradually strengthened, becomes in a certain sense of a different quality, of a different scientific nature, becomes a completely different ability.

Technically, what the soul has to do with itself is called concentration, meditation. But I ask you to pay attention to the fact that in spiritual research, as it is meant here, these words do not completely coincide with what is otherwise understood by these words. I therefore ask you to pay attention to the fact that here only that which is to be expressed briefly now is meant by these words.

The point is that while in ordinary life and in ordinary science, the spiritual faculties of man spread over a certain field, going from one to the other, also passing from one to the other over time, the point is that in order to prepare oneself for spiritual research, one must concentrate on a single point of presentation, I would like to say first. The life of the whole of our inner picturing and visualizing must, as it were, be strengthened and made more powerful by the constant exercise of our inner will, to which we must first train ourselves. I have shown in the books mentioned how this is to be done.

I will first give only one of the principles by which this can be done. One should place – as I said, meant purely technically now – a certain idea at the center of one's mental life, in – as one could say – one's total consciousness.

It is not necessary, and indeed it is better if the idea chosen has no external content of truth. It is not important that the idea means something in the external world, that it represents or expresses something. What matters is the activity of thinking, not knowledge of anything in the first instance. Therefore, it is best to use, let us say, allegorical, symbolic ideas. What truth value they have is not important. What matters is the strength that one develops in the inner application of the power of thought. I will give an example.

Let us say that someone imagines: flooding light, and in the flooding light wisdom. Of course, it is not a concept that can initially be said to mean anything in terms of an external truth, an external truth to which one is accustomed. But that is not what really matters; what matters is that you now concentrate all your thinking power, all your imagination, on this one concept, and to persist in it, that is, to learn to send your whole soul in this one direction.

Why it does not depend on the truth of the character, this follows from the following. I will make clear, dear attendees, by means of a comparison, what it actually depends on. Let us assume that we perform an external task, some manipulation, a manipulation that is part of our trade, our business, through which we want to get ahead in the world. We often perform the same task - now, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow. Every person knows that not only what we produce through our handling happens here, but that our skill grows, that we can do the thing better and better, that our activity, our ability increases. That is a side effect. For the expressions of ordinary life, one knows very well that this is a side effect.

What matters is this accompanying phenomenon in thinking. You can completely disregard what you think in preparation. For spiritual research, it is important to learn to gradually focus on this inner mind, on this inner development of the ability to think.

So I say explicitly: what matters is not the thoughtfulness or ingenuity of ordinary logic; if one is predisposed to it, one has it as if from the outset. What matters is to become aware of this increase in inner thinking power, to learn to grasp it as something real in its workings.

Such exercises, honored attendees, are by no means effective if done only temporarily. Certainly some people believe that if they have devoted some time to such exercises, they must achieve a result. It also takes different lengths of time for different people to achieve a result: for some it takes months, for some years.

You don't need to spend much time on it in detail. We will see in a moment why you don't need to. In fact, spending a lot of time every day on such exercises is not always beneficial. But the point is that such exercises are repeated over and over again, even to the extent that the same meditation content appears again and again in the soul, so that the meditation content gradually becomes completely irrelevant and the activity for the purpose of strengthening the inner strength of thinking becomes particularly prominent.

Now, honored attendees, if you have been doing such exercises for a while, have seriously done them daily, and have mustered that energy - which you will already be convinced is necessary when doing such exercises - you will, after some time, come to notice that thinking actually becomes something quite different. Above all, the power that works in thinking is experienced as something much more real inwardly than that which lives in the ordinary physical [world] or in ordinary outer research.

Admittedly, one has strange experiences at first; experiences that can be discouraging. And inner courage is necessary to continue to progress in the appropriate way. This discouragement consists, for example, in the fact that, precisely by doing such exercises, one notices how, little by little, one becomes more and more - one can already say - a slave to those thoughts that one has once conceived. Reminiscences of the soul life, memories of the soul life, they gradually come up more and more. And one also feels that by looking at these reminiscences of the soul life, one lives with one's soul in the midst of an army of thoughts of nothing but reminiscences. The point is that you continue anyway; because you gradually arrive at a certain point - only experience can actually provide the appropriate explanation for these things - you arrive at a very specific point. You arrive more and more at having an overview of life - the life you have lived since you began to think consciously. Really, endless details emerge. Details that you didn't even notice before! You learn something very strange: you learn how much you actually go through in life without your consciousness being seized so intensely that you pay attention to it. Much of what has remained unconscious and subconscious now comes to the fore; but you don't recognize it as such.

To go into details would be going too far. But the experience is that one not only learns to recognize one's conscious soul life that one has gone through, but really also a lot, and finally, as in a view, everything that prevails in one's subconscious soul life. One learns to see through oneself, so to speak. But one makes the discovery that, especially in one direction, the whole power of thinking changes, and that for the activity that now emerges from thinking like a new birth of a certain inner power, one loses completely — or actually never had — what one calls memory for ordinary thinking and for ordinary scientific thinking.

This is an experience that one must have. The experiences that crowd in like this then pass before the soul; but one knows: they pass like fleeting experiences, which have the particular character that they do not imprint themselves on the memory in the same way as the experiences made through the senses or ordinary imagination. They sweep by and could not be had a second time if something else did not occur. And I ask you to pay close attention.

What occurs is something that was not known before. We know that memory retains thoughts – I do not want to discuss the inner process of memory now – memory retains thoughts. And something that was previously there as a thought experience enters consciousness again at a later time – I would say – from the deep underground of the soul life, over the threshold, into consciousness.

This is not the case with these experiences, which one cannot have in this way; but it is somewhat different, in that what one experiences - the imaginative experience - cannot be evoked again at all; but the activity, the inner soul activity, that one has performed when the experience was present, can be evoked. One can only return to one's own activity. One can relive what one did inwardly in one's soul when one had the experience. And one knows this quite precisely. And that is what matters: instead of memory, which one now recognizes as an ability for the external physical life, one acquires a completely different ability: the ability of an inner tendency to evoke performances again; and that through the evocation of these inner performances the experience again presents itself to the soul – now not just like any other memory, but like something that again approaches us anew. One would like to be led out of the ordinary life of the soul perhaps into this very different life of the soul, ladies and gentlemen.

And so let me – actually only comparatively, not to prove anything, but only to explain something – let me cite something that is not yet what is meant here, but which has, so to speak, prompted what is meant here.

The poet Grillparzer had already worked out the idea and also the details of his poem “The Golden Fleece”; he had it completely in his soul; but he had forgotten it. - It is a well-known phenomenon; a phenomenon that is familiar to anyone who is familiar with the biography of Grillparzer. He had forgotten, and he really could no longer remember what he had come up with as his poetic treatment of the “Golden Fleece”. And lo and behold, when he played some piano pieces again that he had played at the time, as it turned out when he was formulating the concepts for this “Golden Fleece”, the content of the “Golden Fleece” came to his mind again. That is to say, when he performed the same activity that had taken place in his soul at the time when he conceived the “Golden Fleece,” that which had been in his soul at that time emerged again. It was therefore the activity that actually emerged again within him.

And so it is in a heightened sense with what is meant here. So it is not a memory that one is dealing with, but a re-evocation of the activity and a new experience.

That is the first change in the inner soul forces when such exercises are undertaken.

The second thing that should be said about this point, dear audience, is that one now experiences how what otherwise happens in the life of thought becomes something completely different. One now really gets to know a soul experience that one did not know before. When one is confronted with one's thought life, one is aware that these thoughts must be something that is merely figurative. If the thoughts we have about the external world were not of an imagistic nature, then they would not really help us, because we do not want to gain anything from them that is added to the external world - even if it is in an epistemological sense, but that is not the point now, I do not want to talk about that now - but rather, what this external world faithfully reproduces. Thoughts must be as little as possible something new compared to the external world.

That is the meaning of the newer truth research, that one treats thoughts critically so that they do not add anything to external reality. So that one has the feeling: in one's thought life, as in a passive way, to have the external world as an image.

But this ceases as soon as the forces are experienced, which - as I said - emerge from the thought life through a kind of consciousness, in the way it is meant here. It must be said: one lives oneself, by experiencing these new inner soul abilities, into a world that differs from the thought life precisely in that one experiences it as a reality, as a flooding, living reality.

And that is also – I would say – the harrowing thing that the soul life has to go through. When describing these things, it really seems as if one were describing mere fantasy. But anyone who is compelled to describe otherwise unknown facts must not be deterred by what seems incredible. If one imagines that the thoughts that one otherwise has passively present in consciousness begin to live inwardly, to have a life, then one has approximately what the spiritual researcher comes to in the point that has now been indicated.

Now, dear attendees, I have described to you – I would like to say – in simple words something that is extremely meaningful to go through in the soul, because it is really connected step by step with inner shocks, with inner experiences that bring something new and surprising again and again.

We can know that we have come to a certain conclusion in the direction that has been described so far: when we have a very specific experience, an experience that has actually been assigned a certain word for thousands of years, a word that can only be fully understood by someone who knows something about this experience.

You see, spiritual science, as it is meant here, is only now able to emerge; just as, let us say, Galileo's view of nature, the Copernican view, first emerged, but out of different soul forces in the human epoch, where the souls had to work differently. It is always something that led certain people who were prepared for it to look into the spiritual world. And such people, of whom little is known in external science, in external history, such people already knew how to describe the point until one arrives when one proceeds on the path meant here. And they describe this point with the word: Man arrives – but I emphasize here expressly: only with the inner soul life he arrives first there – man arrives at the gate of death.

And this experience, which is referred to as “arriving at the gate of death”, is a harrowing experience, because one now gets to know it as an inner experience. And from the time one arrives at this point, one knows through inner experience what it means to carry out an activity that is no longer carried out through the instrument, through the tool of the physical body. One knows from that moment on that one can weave and live with spiritual experiences in something that has separated from the physical body, which basically proves to be detached from the physical body of the person.

What it is called – since names usually cause the most contradiction, we want to refrain from using them altogether – what it is called, that is unimportant. But if one perceives from a certain moment on that in the person who is given to external science, that is, to external sensory observation [...] that in this physical person there is another, finer human body inside - 'body' is perhaps used a little improperly ; one can only apply 'body' to the physical. There is a finer organization within, and the measures that have now been taken in the soul life have led to the detachment of this inner organization from the coarser, physical organization. However, one now stands in relation to the outer physical body as one otherwise stands in relation to an outer object or an outer event that one observes with the senses, and in relation to which one is the one who has it in his hand. Now you are facing your own physical organization. Now you know: This is you, you who have emerged from your physical body and survey your physical body. Everything that has happened before takes place in it. We will see shortly that this is very important. And because one has an inner life that is independent of the outer body, one experiences this as approaching the gates of death – although in theory it is meant as an experience – one knows what it means to live outside the body. One learns to recognize the phenomenon of dying. You learn to recognize that something lives in a person when their physical body is being returned to the element of the earth, in inner experience, in inner experience.

But first of all, if the exercises that have been characterized would lead to nothing else than what I have explained, then a significant inner grievance would arise, yes, a danger, not in the physical sense, but a danger in relation to error and truth, if something else did not take place in the soul parallel to what I have described. But if one does the exercises exactly as described in my book 'How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds', then the way in which these exercises are carried out prevents one from arriving in this one-sided way, as I have described it, at what is called with a weighty word: arriving at the gate of death. Because if the exercises were to reach this point in the way I have indicated, and if nothing else were to happen in parallel, it would be the case that one could not maintain oneself in this inner experience. It would be like being consumed from the outset; one would feel how it would slip away, be forgotten. One would feel this as long as one lives in one's physical body: [The physical body is always willing, always able to draw in life, and yet it cannot let it arise.] In short, attempts to experience the spiritual world would be continually unsuccessful.

Dear attendees, meditation and concentration should not only lead to a strengthening, to a revitalization of thinking, but it must also go hand in hand with a strengthening of the will and feeling, of the soul's power of mind. That which lives in the will must also change in the course of the exercises. And if the exercises given in the book mentioned are done correctly, this will already happen.

I would like to explain again how the soul's state of will, its mood of will, must change. I would say that, just as we experience the will in ordinary life, the expression is imprecise, but that does not matter in this case for our consideration, I would say that, just as we experience the will in ordinary life, the expression is imprecise, but that does not matter in this case for our consideration, I would say that, just as we experience the will in ordinary life, the expression is imprecise, but that does not matter in this case for our consideration, I would say that, just as we experience the will in ordinary life, the expression is imprecise, but that does not matter in this case for our consideration, I would say that, just as we experience the will in ordinary life, the expression is imprecise, but that does not matter in this case for our consideration, I would say that, just as we experience the will in ordinary life, the expression is imprecise, but that does not matter in this case for our consideration, I would say that, just

Philosophers know this very well, otherwise they would not discuss the will so much. The contemplation of the will always slips into action. One presents that which the will accomplishes. But one cannot actually follow the will as it runs into action. As I said, this is only briefly expressed, a very important, a very significant fact of the inner life of the soul, which could be philosophically examined in all its breadth, if time were not too short for it, if time were sufficient for it, as I said.

Now the point is to get this will, this constantly eluding will, into the soul's view, to really learn to look at the will, to really learn to have it before you – mentally speaking: to have it before you.

This can be achieved by now also undertaking exercises, esteemed attendees, whereby the inner processes of our soul life are viewed in the same way that natural processes are otherwise viewed. [Just consider, for example, how different what we might call self-observation of nature is from the ordinary external observation of nature. We see nature in its processes; for we are always inclined to separate from the observation of natural processes everything that moves us only subjectively. There we are always inclined, compelled by objectivity, to come to a certain kind of objectivity ourselves. If one now practices observing not only natural processes objectively, but – it is strange that this is necessary, but it is necessary – but also what one might otherwise call theoretical, cold, in the observation of nature, [that one now] intensifies it with heartfelt concern, with deep inner concern, to the point of heartfelt love for natural processes [...]; so that [one now, although you are objectively immersed in the laws of nature – including the laws of mineral processes, plant growth and animal behavior – by immersing yourself in them, you also develop an inner sense of involvement, a step-by-step approach to what is taking place as a lawful process, in the same way that you would otherwise only do so with regard to a world being. If one learns to observe the natural event with the utmost interest, without allowing one's objectivity to be clouded, if one remains as objective as only the external natural scientist can remain, and yet can accompany this sober natural research with an inner experience, I would even say an inner merging with what one is investigating, then one acquires the ability to take up a completely different position in relation to the will than in ordinary life and in ordinary science.

But, as I said, this is a slow practice. You have to cultivate in your innermost soul life what is actually meant here. And from that you can acquire a very definite ability in this way. At a certain stage, at a point that one attains there, one notices the following.

I must start from an occurrence in everyday life to illustrate what one notices in oneself. In everyday life, we fall asleep and wake up. Our daily life follows this rhythm. When we fall asleep – I do not need to show the individual phenomena of falling asleep, the individual phenomena of waking up, but everyone knows what happens in their life when they transition from conscious daily life to subconscious or unconscious sleep – what happens in them, that happens without their will, at least at first. In everyday life, arbitrariness has only a very small part in [this rhythm].

When practiced in this way, as I have described it, one is able to voluntarily induce this transition, which otherwise always occurs involuntarily, between sleep and waking life, waking and sleeping life. That is to say, to be able to command oneself to bring about that standstill of all sensory activity, of all expressions during the course of the day, of all intellectual and imaginative perceptions; to command the faculties that are otherwise present to stand still, and yet not to pass into a state of unconsciousness, as is the case during sleep, but fully consciously to leave one's physical body again and enter into a state that would be there. Again, it is strange when it is described, but it must be described because it is a reality. One attains a state that would be there if one were to wake up fully consciously, but one does not wake up by being in one's body again , and through the eyes and ears sees and hears the external reality, but that you would keep your body out of yourself and remain in what you are in - you now realize that during sleep you have gone out in essence - wake up out of the body in what you are in between falling asleep and waking up, but consciously in it.

Through this arbitrariness, one has gained the ability to strengthen the will to such an extent that one is consciously aware of one's being, in which one is otherwise unconscious between falling asleep and waking up, by attaining this parallel guidance of the soul forces through meditation, through concentration. The first ability that one has acquired is formed [by having obtained something new from the power of thought and something new from the will]. And only now does one live outside the body, with the ability to truly perceive the spiritual world around oneself, which is always there, which is there for everyone, for whose beholding one must first educate oneself, educate oneself inwardly, must practice.

In turn, it is a harrowing subjective experience that forms the transition in the inner experience to this culture of the will. If one has first learned – I would say – in theory, but in an experienced theory, what dying must mean, then one now gets to know something by the will moving over to an out-of-the-body inner experience. One now learns to recognize what, on the basis of all being and all becoming, is pain and suffering. One becomes acquainted in an unexpected, harrowing way with the pain that runs through all existence. One learns to recognize how unwise it is to ask why all existence is based on pain.

Existence – if you observe it and have a heart and a mind for existence – dear attendees, it is beautiful and great and sublime here and there, and it would not be in the full sense of the word to be “human” if you had no sense of the greatness and beauty of existence. But just as a flower emerges from the root of a plant, so everything that is beautiful and great in life must arise from the foundation of pain and suffering. And as the most beautiful things must arise from the soil of pain and suffering, one becomes familiar with this. One experiences an inner world process consistently. One also learns to recognize that the one who, for example, wanted to criticize that a wise providence did not do as well as he thinks in his [own] wisdom, even without the basis of pain, [to be able to evoke the corresponding , one recognizes that this demand is about the same as if someone wanted to demand of the mathematician that he should work towards the fact that one should not look for 180 degrees in a triangle in its three angles. This is connected with a law, with inner laws. But these laws are now being learned. And so, by acquiring a new research of the inner soul life from the ideas about pain and death, one has brought out of thinking and will those entities of the soul which, by living in them now, show one how one is in the spiritual world, what is beyond birth - or let us say conception - and death in man.

Now the idea that we were something before we were born – or conceived – ceases to be a mere theory. The idea that we will still be something when we have passed through the gate of death ceases to be a mere theory as well.

And in the same way, another idea will be fulfilled by very concrete content. There is nothing speculative about these ideas anymore. Instead, the soul has developed powers within itself to experience what could be called its immortality in a living way – to experience that within itself, the powers, the essences, that goes through birth and death.

But something else is experienced as well. What is experienced, dear honored attendees, is that by learning to observe the will – by learning to recognize something in the will in an intimate way – yes, what one learns to recognize when one characterizes it in this way, it looks as if one were merely dissecting a picture, a sum, something fictitious; but it is not like that. If you really succeed in having the will within you as I have indicated, then you realize: In this will lives a core essence of the human being; a second person lives in it, but a conscious second person, a person with a very different consciousness that we carry within us. As I said, this is not an image; but it is also not a reality that we have within us in the same way that we have a physical heart within us. However, it is as true as it is that there is an inner person active in our inner will who is conscious. we now externalize, an external observer, a spectator; but such a spectator from whom we recognize that we can only unite his consciousness with our consciousness when we get to know that power of thinking, which is gotten to know in the only characterized way.

Thus, in what one finds in the will, one gets to know a second person; but a person – it is revealed by looking at it, by experience, by inner living – one gets to know a person who lives in the human being in a spiritual-soul way, just as the plant germ lives physically in the plant and blossom, as it lives in the plant as a germ, and one knows: in this plant germ there is something that, depending on the external conditions, can become a new plant. This is in the nature of the germ! So, dear attendees, through the direct experience of inner observation, we know that this observer, whom we have found to be a reality within us, is what the individual human beings carry through the gateway of death, what is carried through the spiritual world, and what must be carried again into a new earthly life. For this is formed in it, as the new plant is formed in the germ of the plant. And while the germ of the plant can perish through external conditions, one knows, one has found this core: in the spiritual world there are no such external obstacles; the human being returns again, will live in the outer world. And one also learns to recognize that this life, which one is now investigating here, is the consequence of earlier lives on earth. What Lessing and other geniuses sensed as a necessary consequence of the presentation of the newer spiritual life becomes a strictly inwardly researchable, inner fact: repeated earthly lives!

But one must realize, when one is living in the spiritual world, that one perceives differently than one perceives in the external world. In the external world, one perceives through the fact that things stand before one, and one faces the things themselves and looks at them. Those who, starting from the trivial concepts of everyday life, want to form a picture of what this new thing is that has been spoken of here today, who think that the spiritual world is only a finer ethereal repetition of the ordinary sense world, and they imagine that the beings in the spiritual world come towards one out of mist or finer things. No, it is not so, esteemed attendees; but everything that comes towards one, when it is properly investigated, comes towards one in such a way that one suddenly moves in the investigation as in the spiritual world among nothing but spirit beings. The developed will shows spirit beings that fill the world – how whole multitudes of spirit beings fill the world. So here it can be a matter of perceiving an abundance of concrete spiritual beings in the spiritual world – they perceive! Let us assume that a soul that has passed through the gate of death lives in the spiritual world. At first you perceive this in such a way that you really know: it now enters, as it were, into your own sphere of will; it unites with the consciousness that you discover in your own consciousness; and you experience that your own consciousness melts together with the consciousness of the other being. Through consciousness, through this new consciousness discovered through the sphere of will, you enter into the world of spiritual beings.

Although what I have already stated is, I might say, eccentric enough, I do not want to be deterred from presenting, as I might say, further compromising evidence in this field. Then, of course, one must come to the experience itself. And it is neither out of immodesty nor for any other reason that an external experience is presented. It is, for example, the case that I really only want to mention a very simple one from the wide range of experiences that could be cited.

It was about the fact that I had to deal with certain artistic tasks that required me to invent something, I might say. Now, the point is that a long time ago a personality died whose soul was full of intentions, of tendencies towards such artistic creation. She had passed through the gate of death. Just as, dear readers, in the ordinary physical life one learns to distinguish between the flower one sees outside and the flower one's own eye creates, so too in this spiritual realm one learns to distinguish between what is objective and what is subjective. And so I knew that I had to do certain artistic things - and for those things something like an inspiration was necessary - that what came from this deceased soul entered into my consciousness.

That is to say, one can observe the interaction with these deceased souls in the same way as one can observe the interaction with external beings. Of course, in this case vanity would have it that it is all the result of one's own powers of invention! But one comes to quite different views about the spiritual world when this spiritual world can be gradually seen through the exercises of the soul powers.

Now, dear readers, precisely in view of the misunderstandings that are brought to this spiritual research, as it is meant here, some things must be mentioned.

Anyone who approaches spiritual research with a scientific worldview will, of course, have a great deal to say in favor of the fact that everything I have described so far is basically nothing more than a collection of illusions, hallucinations, and so on. If the scientifically minded person now believes that someone grounded in spiritual science will come and tell them they are wrong and start arguing with them, they are completely mistaken! The spiritual researcher is fundamentally full of appreciation for what the natural scientist has to say, right up to the exploration of the borderlands between the soul and the purely external natural realm. Not even does the spiritual researcher need to reject anything that has been achieved on the basis of experimental psychology, for example. But I do not want to go into this any further now.

But anyone who, starting from a natural scientific world view, objects from the outset – I will now point out the most common objections –: Yes, look, from a certain point of view one believes one can prove the immortal life of the soul ; then one turns to the present way in which thinking, feeling and willing proceed; one believes that one can fathom something through ordinary logic; one perhaps believes that one can achieve something through some mystical process that points to the immortality of the soul. But now natural science shows – and as I said, the spiritual researcher is completely on the ground of natural science here, even more so than the natural scientist himself – natural science shows that man develops from childhood on. Just as the external organs and organ systems gradually develop, so do the spiritual faculties. And again, when the external organs become paralyzed in old age, the mental and spiritual faculties decline. Yes, it can be shown how some part of the mental system, the central nervous system, is paralyzed, how very specific mental and spiritual functions suffer. Doesn't the natural scientist ask the spiritual researcher, don't you see how closely the spiritual and mental life is bound to the organic functions and to the organic tools?

All these things are certainly convincing. But just when the spiritual researcher has arrived at the point that I have described, when I stated the cultivation of the life of thought, the inner education of the life of thought, the inner exercise of the life of thought, then he describes how all thinking, feeling and willing in ordinary life is connected to the bodily organs; what occurs as thinking, feeling and willing in the physical world between birth and death cannot, however, occur without the bodily organs. That is precisely what spiritual research shows. [And it is based on the fact that you cannot gain anything about the immortal soul through speculative theory or mysticism. It is precisely the progress in the field of natural science that will show that what is present as thinking, feeling and willing in ordinary life is a transposition of activities that only have a meaning between birth and death because they are bound to the external organs in their appearance, just as they occur in consciousness. But within thinking, feeling and willing, the spiritual researcher discovers something that is not bound to the organs, which he can only discover in such a way that he knows: this is present in every human being – only one must first become aware of what is still bound to the organs – as if it were something else, something that enters through the gate of death, something that is connected to it. That which is not bound to the organs must first be sought out!

Therefore, the spiritual researcher completely agrees with the natural scientist – and it is a fundamental error to repeatedly state some kind of contradiction between natural science and true spiritual research. True spiritual research stands precisely in relation to the interpretation of ordinary thinking, feeling and willing on the ground of ordinary natural science. Even if what underlies this natural science is still often an ideal, something is present; and the natural scientist can today, from his world view, indicate certain abnormal conditions in human life.

A very important spiritual and natural scientist has called certain states that occur, and even underlie the dream life, and in particular underlie hypnotism, all possible forms of clairvoyance, etc., “rigid states of consciousness”.

But we must not think that the spiritual researcher can in any way confuse what he is aiming at with what is described from this side as abnormal states of soul development! The important thing is that in true spiritual research, as it is meant here, the soul life that develops as another, as an extra-corporeal soul life, as it has been described, that this soul life proceeds in such a way that it is not a transformation of the ordinary soul life, but that it places itself alongside the ordinary soul life. And the healthier this Hellerscher vision is to look at, the healthier it is when the person who develops it develops this vision in such a way that everything else — thinking, feeling and willing, all the other so-called social soul life — continues alongside it! Only that he normally overlooks it in the moment when he is in vision.

Take any of the conditions that occur in the pathological life of the soul: how do they appear? They occur in such a way that the so-called normal life of the soul ceases, and even if only for a short time, passes over into the morbid life of the soul. The person afflicted with any kind of disease of the soul — if I may use this expression, which of course is itself imprecise — is characterized precisely by the fact that he cannot look at his healthy soul life in the disease, otherwise he would not be ill!

What is essential now is that the one who becomes a genuine spiritual researcher does not, as it might appear, enter into the soul life of another person from his own healthy soul life, but that the two soul lives are juxtaposed clearly and with full consciousness. The spiritual researcher passes through the spiritual world, observing it with developed vision. And for ordinary life, for all the tasks of ordinary life, he thinks and feels and acts as other rational people do. This overview is the essential thing.

Therefore, it is not particularly good for beginners in spiritual research, dear attendees, as it happens out of certain conveniences of life – one might say – and also out of certain enthusiasms of life ] when they get involved in some kind of spiritual science with all kinds of enthusiasm, and so, as it were, convert from one religion to another, they enter into a completely different soul life and simply forget the first one. On the contrary, it is particularly beneficial for beginners in the right state of mind if everything that a person was before, how he thought and lived before, is continued as much as possible, and if the other way is added alongside, so that he can see the first one in its entirety.

Special institutions, which are used, for example, to cultivate spiritual research, which one takes out of the ordinary social life into all kinds of colleges, so that they enrich one's life with it as much as possible, actually lead to nonsense in the end. [At least something that is particularly beneficial for the health of the spiritual life of the spiritual researcher is ignored!] Of course one could think of preparing a certain number of people for spiritual research and, so to speak, bringing them into colleges where they can particularly oversleep the outer life they have led so far; but then those concerned would have to become so unfree in a certain sense that what they have been accustomed to so far would now be transformed into a new life that is not geared to the outer world. This has its dangers. The best thing is when a person remains as sensible for their ordinary life as they were before, and spiritual research is only added, so to speak.

But this is also the fundamental difference between all morbid mental life. And if someone who is equipped with a proper scientific attitude would only survey with full understanding what, for example, the exercises of the soul powers according to the direction indicated in “How to Know Higher Worlds” stand, he would see that precisely those who want to engage in true spiritual research and spiritual research methods are made aware and are aware of what could lead, in one direction or another, not only to mental illness but even to nebulous soul aberrations.

Indeed, many misunderstandings arise against spiritual science. Not only are they theoretical misunderstandings on the part of those who, for example, stand on the ground of natural science, on the ground of a natural scientific world view; but they arise - I would say practically, in that people want to enter the spiritual world in a much different way, a much more comfortable way, than has been described world, and then, instead of a science of the supersensible, which could be attained in the way I have described, they actually attain a science of the subsensible, that is, they attain something of what is so often called clairvoyance or the like in the ordinary sense. This clairvoyance, what is usually called that, is actually diametrically opposed to spiritual research. It is something that arises from the fact that the human being is bound even more closely to his personality than he is bound in ordinary social life. I need only point out - although this is of course only said comparatively, by way of explanation - that when we teach ourselves any kind of intervention, we feel the place with our consciousness, especially when something in us is pathologically organized in the stomach. If we have organized something in our nervous system or somewhere in our body in this way, then our consciousness turns to it in a morbid, abnormal way. But then all kinds of things can be 'seen' as a result. What one can call hallucinations, illusions and so on with a certain justification from the point of view of natural science can arise. This arises precisely from the opposite occurring to what occurs for true spiritual research, which has been described today. There is a strong attachment to the body. And in what is referred to in trivial life or also in a fraudulent way as “clairvoyance”, dear honored attendees, one has something that has much less eternal or spiritual value than that what can be observed in the normal life of the soul, where the soul is present with all its corporeality, whereas in pathological clairvoyance or in the pathological state of hypnosis or suggestion or the like, one is only dealing with a part. In these states, one comes into contact with the sub-sensible, with that which has less reality value than what one sees in ordinary life. Whereas the real, true clairvoyance consists in becoming independent of all corporeality and looking back at corporeality, observing how it has remained normal in relation to the external physical world and transcending corporeality, [so that one] arrives at the supersensible, not at the subsensible.

Once, dear honored attendees, this difference between the supersensible and the subsensible is grasped, once it is recognized that what the pathological clairvoyant does is something that has much less significance for man than that which, let us say, lives from birth to death and which can be grasped by the normal life of the senses, and that only a developed life of the soul, which has freed itself from the body, will lead into the supersensible world, then the misunderstandings that are brought by the opposing side to spiritual research will disappear!

And another area of these misunderstandings is that which is brought to spiritual research by the various religions. It must be said that we are dealing here, Ladies and Gentlemen, with an area where the religious element must be distinguished from the scientific element for a healthy consideration. Spiritual science, scientifically developed, will have to explore the spiritual and soul realm, up to the immortality of the soul, and the perception of spiritual and supersensible worlds. But it will get just as little in the way of religion if it is only properly understood as the external natural science has gotten in the way of religion. I must say that a sentence that a priest used when he took up the post of rector at the university in the 1890s is always beautifully present before me. He gave a speech about Galileo – the theologian about Galileo – and he said at the time: Certainly, in the time when Galileo lived, the Church persecuted Galileo; but now the time has come when it can be known that what Galileo said about the structure of the worlds only leads to greater glory of the divine worshipped and adored by religion. Just as people only wanted to find a contradiction with religious life out of misunderstanding in the time when the newer scientific world view emerged, and also introduced it into practical life, so it is based on a misunderstanding if one believes that spiritual research - which for today must be something similar [to the natural research of Galileo, Kepler and so on for their time] - that this could somehow interfere with religious life. This spiritual science, and it wants to be, is really, honored attendees, a continuation of the natural scientific way of thinking for the spiritual realm.

But it is understandable. Especially when one has a good grasp of the history of science, it is understandable that today there are still few people who have a sense for what is at the core of this spiritual research. But anyone who has lovingly tried to explore the course of truth through human development knows that truth will make its way through human development through the thinnest crevices of even the hardest rocks that human prejudices pile up.

And not to engage in propaganda, truly not, but only to mention that there is already at least a small circle of friends of the spiritual-scientific direction, as it is meant here, I would like to point to the building erected in Dornach, near Basle, through the sacrifice of a number of those who profess our spiritual science, or, I might say, of the disciples of our spiritual science, as a kind of School of Spiritual Science.

But this building, too, has been misunderstood. In conclusion, just a few words to point out how misunderstandings about spiritual science itself are encountered in the most diverse ways, and this building is no exception. There are even people who say that this building has something fantastic about it, that when you enter it you see all kinds of symbols, all kinds of magical signs; there is even a sequence of seven columns inside, for example.

Now, anyone who tries to understand the whole structure inwardly, esteemed attendees, can believe that those who have seen what is being built in Dornach and then speak in such a way that they have hardly seen can hardly see, but only believe, that if something arises in some area that they do not yet know, it must be something magical, something magical, magical; out of this belief they characterize.

You see, dear ones, let us take something that is tempted, I would say, in the column sequences on the left and right of the building. People think: these are superstitious people, they have constructed a column order out of the number seven because they have seven columns on each side! Yes, such a statement is just as much as if someone were to assume that there is something symbolic or magical about the fact that on a violin there are exactly the E string, the A string and so on. The inner nature of the thing demanded it! Just as light is divided into seven colors, appearing in the seven colors of the rainbow, just as tones open up in the seven-part structure of the scale and the octave is the repetition of the fundamental tone, so the fact that there was a break with the usual architectural styles – a totality of art had to arise from our artistic conviction, only because there was a break with the fact that one chapter is like the other when you have columns. But when you have a column and a chapter, the next one is different, the third is different again. But it followed from the purely artistic principle that there was a conclusion with the seventh – just as there is a conclusion with the seventh note in the musical scale, and just as there is a repetition of the fundamental note in the octave – it followed quite naturally, with the same necessity as the seven colors in the rainbow necessarily follow. And so it is with everything in this structure. There is no attempt at any kind of symbolic formation. Everything should be poured out purely artistically into the sculptural, the architectural and the pictorial. Therefore, one will never be able to achieve an art that is in line with spiritual science by painting or sculpting what one has recognized through spiritual science. This was not even attempted with our building in Dornach. There are many aptitudes in the human being that remain hidden in ordinary life, and all the aptitudes of humanity have not yet emerged in the course of the past epochs of human development. But spiritual science, because it leads to a living understanding of the living world, is a stimulant, not of an idea – not what it finds as science, should somehow be symbolically embodied in art – that would be an inartistic way – but it must stimulate artistic ability. And in this way, because spiritual science itself introduces something new into humanity, a new form of art, a new principle of art, is also created. Of course, this is just as surprising and misleading as the new aspect of spiritual science itself is misleading and surprising.

For example, an attempt has been made in the most eminent sense to express in the form of architecture something that shows in the frame, in the inner shell of a room, what is going on in the room, what the room holds. But not symbolically, but by trying to grasp the inner life. For example, an attempt was made to continue it in the shaping, in the sculptural shaping of the walls [...]. [In old architecture, for example – and I want to emphasize this detail – when you grasp it artistically, the walls are such that they close through what they are in their forms.] Our walls in Dornach are such that they do not close, but in the moderation of their forms evoke the feeling that they are permeable. And when you look at them, you get such artistic insights that you actually have to practise letting your gaze wander into the infinite of the world's existence. That is precisely the difference compared to an earlier artistic conception. But differences were bound to arise as we progressed from ancient art, from antiquity to the Gothic and so on.

I would, of course, have much to say if I were to address the misunderstandings that arise – I would like to say – in this still quite incomprehensible aspect of the Dornach building, if I were to talk at length about these misunderstandings. I would not like to leave unmentioned the fact that I myself, in particular, dearest attendees, have no illusions that the Dornach building is anything other than a very first beginning, a very imperfect beginning. But perhaps something of a new artistic creative power lives in these primitive initial forms, which are perhaps still completely missed in some respects. And that should be the case. For if spiritual science is to be something that can intervene in human life in a living way, that it can intervene in all areas of human life – and I would like to say that only external circumstances have made it possible for it to have initially penetrated artistic creation in this way – then it must develop the special talents of humanity that are associated with this spiritual science today.

As I said, I do not wish to propagandize for what has been mentioned, but only to draw attention to the way in which spiritual science is also expressed artistically.

But, esteemed attendees, I would still like to say that just as one does not need to be a chemist to absorb into our world view what is coming into it through chemical research, nor does one need to be an astronomer or a physicist to the results of astronomy and physics, just as little as one needs to be a spiritual researcher oneself - although, as the book 'How to Know Higher Worlds' shows you, today, to a certain extent, every person can become a spiritual researcher, every person can develop the abilities of their nature, but one does not need to be one. Spiritual science can also present its results to humanity, and because it is based on truth and not on error, it can convince. If one grasps the insights in the right way, one is led to conviction, to absorbing the spiritual-scientific results into the soul's sense of truth, into that which ultimately unites into an overall conviction about world and soul and world and spirit. But that this spiritual research is still met with misunderstandings: one can understand it, honored attendees.

One need only remember, for example, that when the newer world view, the newer natural science, had to be brought to mankind, did not I want to say that a view had to be brought to mankind that was the opposite of what people had thought until then? A view that even contradicted what the senses saw? Throughout the Middle Ages, certain circles of humanity believed that the blue firmament was up there and that the stars revolved around the earth. That changed! The earth, which had been stationary for consciousness, had to be imagined as rushing through space; and the blue firmament – one had to recognize that it is not up there at all, you create it yourself from your own view. And you only imagined this blue firmament because you had previously meant it! That was the great turning point, to which, for example, Giordano Bruno pointed out that one has to see nothing in this blue firmament but what is made out of the human way of looking at things; that what extends into the vast infinities of the world is the spatial universe.

What happened in the past can be said to be happening again: it is a different firmament that humanity is looking at today; but only through its own way of thinking. If, on the one hand, a person looks as far as birth, and on the other hand as far as death – or, to put it another way, if they look as far as conception on the one hand and as far as death on the other – it is like the firmament: there is no limit. If we now work our way outwards, what happened for the natural scientist in the past can happen for the spiritual life: that the boundary between birth and death - or conception and death - is drawn by the human soul life itself. Then we shall look out into the temporal and eternal, in which our repeated lives on earth and those lives that we spend between death and birth in a purely spiritual world are embedded. And the spiritual world will open up for people as surely as the spatial world opened up beyond the non-existent firmament.

Those who are currently at this level of spiritual science will not be at all surprised if what he has said is still regarded as fantasy, reverie, perhaps even today.

Finally, I would like to summarize what I have attempted, as something that cannot a priori evoke conviction but can only give new impetus, as if in a great intuition:

Those who try to get to the bottom of spiritual science know that it can be suppressed no more, nor eliminated from the world, than the scientific worldview that emerged at the dawn of modern times three to four centuries ago could be eliminated from the world, despite all opposing ideas. For he knows that one can hate the truth; but the one who has become so familiar with its character also knows that the one who hates the truth cannot so easily displace it.

And even if it is not yet time, esteemed listeners, for this way of looking at the spiritual world, which has been spoken of here today, to penetrate into wider circles, that time will come.

The fact that the truth is hated for a time – that is a humanly understandable phenomenon – but it can never prevent this truth from recurring again and again, as it has also happened with the scientific worldview. Truth can also be reviled; but the words of revile ultimately fall back on those who utter them. And those who know the Being, which one can see, I would say, as embodied in the truth, know that it has so much self-awareness that it can know how it is effective in the world even against all abuse. One can want to suppress the truth, but one can never want to destroy it!

These are the feelings that inspire anyone who, through the nature of spiritual research, has today attained a certain relationship to this spiritual research. And he must think about the truth that precisely because it is grounded in the innermost being of the human soul, one need only delve into this human soul, honestly apply the developed thoughts to this soul itself and say to oneself: What one has as will, thinking and feeling in ordinary life can be further developed; then that which was truth for the finite world also leads to a power of truth for the infinite world, for the primeval eternal power, for the eternal powers of mankind, which go through births and deaths.

This truth will bring about its recognition. The one who has fully come to know the inner character and quality of spiritual science expresses it as a belief, as a conviction; he believes that the truth he thinks he recognizes is as deeply rooted in the human soul as love is deeply rooted from one sister to another sister when there is a right relationship. Yes, the human soul and truth are sisters! And whatever misunderstandings may ever arise between the two, in the end there must be full agreement between the one and the other sister: between the human soul and the truth; they must remember a common origin, which is there in the world spirit that rules through all phenomena, which always and forever rules and weaves behind the merely sensual phenomena, as the inner ground, as their creating power, as the spirituality that governs and weaves through them, and which can be found precisely through supersensible research.

In this time where so many people have the comprehensible need to orientate themselves about the earth-shaking events you often hear, history “teaches” this or that. One means that one could judge about any fact of the present because of similar facts of history. If we ask ourselves, which possibilities present themselves to the human beings to judge this or that on basis of historical experience, then, however, you get to a somewhat dubious judgement about what history “teaches.”

I would like to point only to two things, but I could increase them a hundred times. I would like to point to the fact that at the beginning of this world disaster many people were of the opinion that these critical events would last four, in the extreme case six months. One regarded such a judgement as completely entitled. You cannot say that these human beings had not applied all logical precautions to deliver such a judgement. Now, the facts themselves have taught such people rather thoroughly the opposite of that what they have believed. Just at this example, one also sees how narrowly that which history should teach is associated with the judgement of the social or other world relations, so that you can expect from a consideration of the historical life of humanity that also some light falls on the judgement you have to exert for the social and economic living together of the human beings.

However, I would like to bring in another example of the limited validity of the sentence, that history “teaches” this or that. An ingenious personality received a professorship of history at a German university more than hundred years ago. Really, from a brilliant conception of that which history gives and which one can apply to the human life, this man spoke the following words approximately: the single nations of Europe have become in the course of the human progress, as history teaches, a big family whose single members are still feuding, but can never tear each other apart. - Really, a significant personality believed to be able to judge in such a way out of his insight into the course of history at his inaugural lecture. This man was Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805). He spoke these words in the eve of the French Revolution which contributed so much to that what one can call the tearing of the European nations, and particularly if he could see what happens in our present. It seems to me that from such facts Goethe got the sensation, which he pronounced in a wonderful sentence: “The best that we have from history is the enthusiasm which it excites.” It seems, as if he did this quotation just to reject the other fruits of the so-called historical knowledge and to appreciate that only which can arise as enthusiasm, as a certain positive mood from the historical documents.

Today we want to examine which position spiritual science has to take towards two opinions: history can be the great master of life, and the other: the best what one can have from history is the enthusiasm that it excites. At first it will be interesting just in case of the consideration of the historical life of humanity and the consequences which can be drawn from this consideration for the judgement of the social life to which view one has come in the present about the historical evolution beyond spiritual science. Since the historical life of humanity is attached to that what goes through every single person because every human being is cocooned in the historical evolution. And really, just in the present it is important to look at this judgement of the contemporaries because the judicious viewers of history think that also the judgement is in a crisis how one should found history. I would like to talk not in abstractions, but to attach my considerations to realities. There one must comply with examples that of course are single examples out of many.

I would like to comply, for example, with the judgement about history, how it should be anew founded in the present, which the famous Professor Karl Lamprecht (1846-1915) has done. You can find that which one can feel from his monumental German History (1891-1909), in a comfortable way summarised in his lectures What is History? Five lectures on the Modern Science of History (1905) which Lamprecht held partly in St. Louis, partly in New York at invitation of the Columbia University. There he tries to summarise what has arisen to him about the kind how history should be taught out of the requirements of the present. It is even more comfortable to get an idea of that what this famous historian wanted to say, actually, by the fact that he treated a segment of the historical evolution of humanity exceptionally clear in the second of these lectures. Lamprecht briefly told the whole development of the German people from the first Christian centuries up to now to the Americans. He told that in such a way as he meant that science of history has to become according to the requirements of the present. Now you can judge such things, actually, only properly if you can compare them anyhow. There just a lecture by Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) offers itself which he held on the development of the North American life, so that you can compare two spirits who are emotionally and spatially far from each other how they look as historians at the history of their peoples in each case.

Forgive if I let—not by courtesy but for stylistic reasons—the considerations of Woodrow Wilson precede. None who knows me more exactly states that I overestimate Wilson. I am also allowed to point to the fact that I already made my judgement about Wilson in a series of talks, which I held in Helsinki before the war, indeed, at a time when Wilson was already president of the United States (1913). At that time I already said that it is very unfortunate that at a position from which so much depends for humanity a personality is who is so frightfully narrow-minded in his judgement. Since although in those days still numerous people worshipped Wilson enthusiastically, for example, because of his books The New Freedom (1913) and Mere Literature and Other Essays (1896), one could prove that his independent judgement flowing from his personality is very much limited internally. Without being swayed by the present political events, I stress what I said before the war about the so misjudged, that is overestimated personality. I have to say this in advance, so that one does not doubt the objectivity of that which I still want to say about Wilson as a historian.

It is very strange if one compares how Wilson considers the history of his people with that what Lamprecht says about the history of Central Europe. One detects that he finds out the most succinct point almost instinctively to answer the question: when have we become, actually, Americans, and how have we become Americans? How has this happened in history? There he makes an exceptionally appropriate distinction between all those who were sooner in the union whom he considers, however, as “Not yet Americans” but as “New Englanders” who are because of their whole disposition, their mood “New Englanders,” and the later “real Americans.” There he distinguishes to a hair's breadth a prehistory of the union and lets the union start its historical becoming when the population crowded together on a narrow space in the east expands to the west of America when the people develop that disposition which he calls the disposition of the frontiersmen. Now he shows how America's history consists externally and mentally of the fact that the east expands to the west, and he shows rather obviously how the regulation of the land distribution, of the tariff question, even the regulation of the slave issue which he ascribes not to some principles of humaneness but to the necessities which arose from the settlement and the conquest of the west. All these questions are put in the development of modern America. The essentials of this talk consist in the fact that he shows how the historical becoming has grasped a sum of human beings from an outer situation, and that that which goes forward with these human beings can be understood strictly speaking from that what they had to undertake under the influence of the described conditions.

Various things are interesting if one pursues just these considerations of Wilson, and that what Wilson has performed, otherwise, as a historian. Just to get some thoughts on various things that are associated with the topic of the today's talk, a comparison of that what Wilson says about the most different historical objects with that which the Europeans say is very useful.

It has exceptionally astonished me at the most different places of Wilson's explanations that there is a strange correspondence—to me already strange because I would have preferred it would not be this way—of the contents of sentences, of the contents of thoughts what Wilson explains about the most different objects, and of that what, for example, the spirited Herman Grimm, often mentioned by me, said about various things of the historical course of humanity.

If one considers Herman Grimm as brilliant as I do and Wilson as prudent, as I must do, it may be quite unpleasant to someone if he reads Wilson sometimes and says to himself: it is peculiar, there I read a sentence that I could also read with Grimm. Although this is in such a way, although I have tested it with judgements that Wilson and Grimm made about the same personalities, like Macaulay, Gibbon and others, nevertheless, in spite of the often almost literal accordance, without having any relation to each other, it is obvious that in reality the attitudes of both men are completely different. Just on such occasion it becomes obvious that two persons can say the same but they do this from quite different mental undergrounds. In this case, it is particularly interesting because the colouring that the judgement receives in the one and the other case is associated with the roots of the one or the other personality in his respective national character. Just while one notices such resemblances, one discovers that the one is American and the other is German.

It can strike you quite externally, which difference exists there. There is a volume of essays by Grimm that contains as frontispiece a picture of Grimm as this happens today so often. The German issue of Wilson's essays Mere Literature also contains a picture of Wilson. One can compare the portraits. Already this proves something quite strange to someone who knows to judge such a thing. If you look at Grimm's portrait, after you were engrossed in what he says as a historian, then you can realise that every feature of his face expresses that every sentence and every turn is connected intimately with everything that this man has wrested from his soul. Then you look at the portrait of Wilson, after you have also read his book first: it seems as if this man could not have been present at all with that what was judged there in the book; a certain foreignness appears. If you realise this, a riddle of the way dawns how in this case two persons consider history, and you can ask yourself in what way is this resemblance and the strongly felt basic difference caused? Then there appears something very strange. Just that what Wilson says about the American people makes sense immediately, so that you know, this is true of the historical development of this people as he wants to show it. However, you get on gradually—only the psychological observation can prove that—: Wilson has not grown together so intimately with his judgement as we imagine this within Central Europe. Another relation between judgement and human being exists there than we are used.

I know that I say something paradox, but it is intimately connected with that what I would like to explain about the historical development of humanity. If it did not sound so superstitious, I would say, you find out for yourself that somebody like Wilson himself does not judge if he makes such suitable judgements as in this interpretation of history and at other places, but he is possessed by something in his soul. I would like to express myself somewhat different:

With such a personality like Wilson, you have the impression that in the soul something is that suggests this judgement from the inside of the soul. You do not have the impression that the own individuality has completely developed it; you rather have the feeling that something like a second personality, a second being is in the soul, which has suggested it.

If one looks at Wilson's appropriate judgements about the character of the American people where he says:

• that already the outer appearance and behaviour shows the right American because he has the quickly movable eye

• that he is inclined to take up courageous, but also adventurous lines of thought quickly

• that he is little inclined, on the other hand, to be attached to his native country as other people are

• that he likes a lot to make plans which can be carried out everywhere,

if you envisage this characterisation of the Americans by Wilson, then they have something in themselves that oppresses them externally: not the sensibly looking, quiet eye—I could also adduce the other characteristics—, but the quickly movable eye is a sign of the fact that something oppresses the American from the inside, and such suggestions continue to have an effect if the judgement of Wilson is accurate.

We compare what I had to say with an interpretation of history, which is spatially and mentally somewhat far away, with that what Lamprecht puts as his ideas about the historical development of Central Europe. These are original ideas. He tries to realise how this being of the Central European people has developed in the course of centuries, since the third century up to now. One notices that he has internally worked for everything that he says. One has not to agree with many things, in particular as a spiritual scientist; we will immediately have to speak of it. However, he gained everything from his immediate personality. It would be complete nonsense to say, any inner force would suggest something. He does not have it so easy. He has to grasp a thought bit by bit, has to overcome thoughts to get to a judgement. Only then, he gets to a conception of the historical development that is relatively new, even in the view of Ranke (Leopold von R., 1795-1886, German historian) and Sybel (Heinrich von S., 1817-1895, German historian), new insofar that Lamprecht understands historical development as the development of the whole soul. Lamprecht tries to pursue the mental dispositions of the people as mental expressions as the psychologist pursues the soul development of every single person.

Up to the third century, the German people developed according to Lamprecht in such a way that one can say, this development shows a symbolising tendency. Also the outer actions, also the political development run in such a way that one realises that it comes from the desire to interpret the world phenomena as symbols, to realise symbols everywhere, even to make the heroes symbols and to revere them as living personal symbols. Then comes the period from the third century to the eleventh, twelfth centuries. Lamprecht calls it the categorising one. There is no longer the desire to use symbols, but to establish types. One revers those persons whom one reveres whom one obeys in such a way that they work not like single individualities, but as types of a whole clan, a whole city.

Then the time comes from the twelfth to about the thirteenth centuries in which knighthood develops particularly; Lamprecht calls it the conventional time in which one judges and feels his will impulses in such a way as the convention demands it from human being to human being, from state to state, from people to people, the time of conventionalism. Then follows—it is important that Lamprecht notices this, although he does not figure the consequences out—the individualistic age with the turn of the fifteenth century where people really feel as individuals within a community. This lasts about up to the middle of the eighteenth century. There begins the age of subjectivism in which we still live where the human being tries to internalise himself, to work out of the depths of his personality, to work, to think and to want out of the depths of the subject. Lamprecht divides this age into two parts: the first lasts until the seventies of the nineteenth century to which the great classical period of Goethe, Schiller, and Herder belongs, and then since the seventies our time follows.

It is strange now, that Lamprecht, as the maybe most significant historian of the present, is completely clear in his mind that he has to look for an impulse first to see how the course of history goes on, and he investigated incessantly how one should start lining up that which the documents, the monuments, and the archives give in such a way how to tell and describe them so that on can call it history. So the most important question of history, the question of existence, became topical to Lamprecht.

He said to himself, one can get only to history—for he did not regard the historiography of Ranke, Sybel and others as history—if one tries to describe the mental development of a nation or of the whole humanity. Then one must have the possibility to observe this mental development to find some laws in this mental development. There it is interesting that a strange contradiction faces us in his whole approach after the habitual ways of thinking of the present. After the habitual ways of thinking, Lamprecht said to himself, the former merely individualistic approach cannot remain. How can one put the facts in order generally? There he says to himself, you have to look at the soul development in such a way that you describe it social-psychologically. This arises to him from a necessary way of thinking of modern time to take the social life, the common being together of human beings into consideration. He says this to himself on one side. Now he has no possibility to look at the social in the soul life or at the mental in the social life following a set pattern. He turns to the psychologists, asks how the psychologists look today at the single individual souls. Here they see in the individual soul the thoughts associating, the feelings ascending, the will impulses developing. Then he wants to apply this to the historical events, wants to investigate how the thought of the one human being works on the whole clan how the thoughts associate externally, as, otherwise, in the individual psychology a thought associates with the other. Thus, he wants to consider history social-psychologically according to the model of individual psychology.

There arises, as I have already indicated, a very noteworthy contradiction. He wants to get away from the individual interpretation of history and to get to the social-psychological one; but he takes the means from the consideration of the individual psychology. A strange contradiction that he does not notice at all.

Something else: if one is engrossed with that which this modern historian performs describing so clearly:

• how a cultural age changes into the other,

• how the feelings of the human beings become explosive at such transitions,

• how there the thoughts associate with each other and separate,

• how they follow in rapid succession,

• how new feelings form,

• how the will impulses work,

one has the feeling that the man misses the trees for the forest. I do not take stock in the saying that one misses the forest for the trees. I would like to know how somebody wanted to do that while he is in the forest and wanted to see the forest! One has to go far away to see the forest. One has the strange feeling that Lamprecht cannot exactly work out the differences of the single periods. Briefly, one gets to the result that he is a researcher who has gained a view of the historical development for himself who, however, could not find the means to present the question to himself: what is now, actually, this historical development of humanity? Is that already history what one attains from the documents, from the archives, or do we still search anything quite different?

Here you have to start if you want to consider the historical life and its riddles spiritual-scientifically. You have to put the question to yourself: is the object of history already found in the usual consciousness? Does one know already what one wants to judge if one approaches history? To answer these questions, however, I have to adduce something from spiritual science that is attached to things, which I have said here in former talks.

The human soul life is within the change of being awake and sleeping. However, the alternating states of sleeping and being awake are normally considered one-sidedly, while one says, the human being spends two thirds or also more of his life awake and a third sleeping. However, the things are not so simple. It is only obvious that the sleeping state continues into the awake life that we are only partly awake in a certain sense from awakening to falling asleep. We are in reality consciously awake only with the percepts of the outside world and the mental pictures that we form from these percepts. Compare only how the feelings are experienced. Someone who gradually learns to observe how feelings arise in the human soul,—I will come back to this issue in the next talk on the Revelations of the Unconscious and say something fundamental now only—, learns to compare the emotional life, the affects and passions with the dreams.

The dreams put pictures before us that are not penetrated with logic and moral impulses that we have only in the awake life. The visions differ indeed from the feelings from the passions and affects surging up and down, but there is something in which both are similar concerning the soul: it is the degree of consciousness in which we are given away to the visions. We have the same degree of consciousness if we are given away to our feelings, save that we accompany our feelings with mental pictures at the same time. If we get an idea about a vision, the light of the mental picture falls on the dream; then the dream becomes completely conscious, then we integrate it properly into the human life. We are doing this perpetually with our emotional life. We integrate our feelings into life by the mental pictures running parallel, but one experiences these feelings are with similar intensity as the dreams, so that the dreams continue in our wake day consciousness and become our world of feelings. You can easily realise that, however, also the deep, dreamless sleep continues in our awake life, namely as our will impulses. We know in the usual awake consciousness about these will impulses only if they are accompanied by mental pictures. We probably imagine what we should do, but it remains unaware to our usual day consciousness how the mental picture changes into the will impulse and then into the action, as we remain unaware in the deepest sleep. Only because we can imagine our will impulses, we accompany these sleeping impulses with the awake life.

Thus, the sleeping life continues perpetually in our awake day life. Even if our feelings, our affects, our passions are only dreamt by us, nevertheless, our emotional life is connected with something objective spiritual-mental as with our own spiritual-mental, with our mental pictures and percepts. However, the connections of the contents of feelings and will impulses with the objective spiritual are in the subconscious. We oversleep this connection with the spiritual-mental, and only that towers above the sea in which we are embedded this way, which we experience by our mental pictures and percepts. If you learn to behold in the spiritual world, you know: indeed, with the usual consciousness you cannot perceive the world in which our feelings submerge just with that part of our soul, which remains unaware to our usual consciousness, but you can it perceive with the beholding one. Since the soul can develop pictures from the contact with this spiritual world by the strengthened will or by the mental capacity strengthened by the will impulses.

The Imaginative cognition forms in it. It is the first level of supersensible beholding by which you get to the real spiritual world. This Imaginative cognition is the completely conscious beholding in a spiritual reality, so that the Imaginations are no imaginations, but reproductions of spiritual reality, although the soul does not experience them denser than the visions, save that you know that the visions have no reality value that, however, the Imagination points to an objective spiritual reality beyond us. You learn to recognise that with which the world of human feelings is connected, which is only dreamt for the usual consciousness; you learn to recognise it in its reality with the Imaginative beholding of the world. In the same way, you learn also to recognise that on the second level of higher consciousness, with the Inspirative consciousness in which the will impulses are embedded. You get to know the spiritual world as far as the will impulses that usually remain subconscious are also embedded in an objective spiritual reality.

If you have figured these things out and if you ask yourself for the real object of the historical course, then you realise what, actually, the historical development is. You do not experience this as that development which is experienced in the everyday life, while we get into contact with the object personally. No, this historical development is something else in which something strange is contained as it is contained in that, which the human being experiences as a feeling, as a will impulse. As the human being dreams his feelings, he dreams the real stream of the historical development. This knowledge is the stupefying result of that observation which turns away from the human being to historical development, and it shows that we cannot use these mental pictures, which control the outer conscious life, to grasp history anyhow. Since that which you experience in the everyday consciousness as a single human being is experienced in the awake state. However, in this awake day life history is not included at all. The human beings do not consciously experience history, but they dream it. History is the big dream of the development of humanity, and history never enters into the usual consciousness.

You may have an astute usual consciousness, you may be the most significant naturalist with that reason which can arrange the things according to cause and effect, and you may have that attitude which is especially appropriate to look properly at nature and to show her lawfulness. If you learn to recognise the real stream of historical development, you say to yourself, with any mental capacity that can understand nature, you cannot look into the historical development. This is not experienced in the usual consciousness like nature, but only on that level of consciousness, which you have also in the dream. It will be once for the interpretation of history one of the most significant results if one gets on

• that one has to find the object of the interpretation of history first

• that the stream of historical development is not at all there as nature is there

• that also that which is there as nature, namely the facts which are registered in the archives as documents which one normally already calls history, are not at all history.

History is in reality only behind the facts; these facts emerge only from the historical development and are not the historical development.

Once Herman Grimm said to me, one could consider the historical life only if one pursued the developing imagination of the people. One can say that Herman Grimm was on the brink to doing a discovery, but he did not want to make the transition to spiritual science. Hence, it appeared to him to be the only fertile to look not only at the outer events and to line up them in such a way as the naturalist does it according to the laws of causality but to look at them in such a way that he saw through them really at the developing imagination of humanity. This was an imperfect expression of that which he could have recognised: the fact that the historical development also does not take place in that which imagination experiences, but is still much deeper in the subconsciousness in which the dreams are woven. As well as the depths of the sea surge up in the waves, the single events surge up in the course of history.

If we apply our usual reason to the historical development, we strangely meet the forces of decline only. Herman Grimm asked himself once why the historian Gibbon (Edward G., 1737-1794) portraying the first centuries of Christianity describes the decay of the Roman Empire only, but not the rise of Christianity. Grimm made a right aperçu, however, did not get on the reason. The reason is that Gibbon, although he is profound, applied that reason only to the interpretation of history, which one applies, otherwise, to the consideration of nature. There he could look only at the decline, not at the rise since one can only dream the rise. In the course of history that which is rising, growing, and sprouting is connected vividly with that what is declining, what is dying. That is why one can look with the usual reason only at the dead in the course of history. What does you need if you want to recognise the growing, the prospering element in the historical development, that what furthers the human being?

In ancient times, one looked deeper in this respect, but just in the ancient form. One did not tell history, one told myths and legends. These myths and legends that should describe the historical dreams of humanity were truer than the so-called pragmatic history. However, we cannot go back in the development of humanity to myths and legends, but we can do something else. We can make up our mind to bring up that what rests for the usual consciousness as dreams in the subconscious, while we apply the Imaginative knowledge to the historical development. With the historical development, humanity and science will recognise that it cannot even reach the object of consideration if it does not want to go over to the spiritual-scientific consideration. Below the consciousness, that remains which works in history, if one does not bring up the dream into the consciousness. Then, however, one has to bring up the dream in the supersensible consciousness that can imagine the spiritual. Imaginative cognition only will create history.

Then someone who can get to the heart of spiritual science and gets involved with the struggle of a man like Lamprecht, will realise that there a way is searched to a goal. However, where is this goal? Why does Lamprecht try to adduce everything to find history generally and, nevertheless, gets to nothing but to the usual psychology, although he believes that one has to apply social psychology? However, what the human being experiences as a social being what becomes his history, he dreams this, this also does not penetrate the individual psychology. There one has to apply that new psychology which spiritual science only can give. You find the demand with Lamprecht, you find the answer of the riddle of historical development in spiritual science. What will become, however, from all that for a conception of history? You see that Lamprecht does not get away from the intellectual consideration of the consecutive events. He considers that what happens up to the third, up to the eleventh centuries and so on even if he considers it brilliantly. But he does not get on to judge the events in such a way that he reaches that what the human being only experiences as a dream.

One can easily find proofs of that. I want to bring in one example only where Lamprecht advances to the modern time. Among the rest, he asks, which are the most significant cultural phenomena in these modern times? Consider that Lamprecht held the concerning talk in 1904! There he asks, which are the most significant cultural-historical moments that appear as achievements of humanity today? He wants to bring in the most significant soul phenomena of the beginning twentieth century. What does he bring in? The answer is very interesting, just for a man who attaches so much significance to the soul. First, he brings in the attempts to propagate unselfishness, an altruistic life of humanity, various societies for ethical civilisation that came especially from England and America to Europe in those days, and secondly, he brings in the peace movement as something especially outstanding. An approved historian of the present says this. Is such a conception of history on the right way, even if Lamprecht endeavours so much? About at that time I held a talk here about similar ideas and explained that the least of all typical ideas of the beginning twentieth century are just these both movements: the movements of ethical civilisation and especially the peace movement. At that time, I summarised my talk saying: this is just the typical that that time in which the peace movement appears especially loud will be the same time in which the biggest human wars will take place. However, a famous historian said the one thing, a crazy representative of anthroposophy said the other, and it goes without saying in the present to whom one listens.

The point is to recognise how one has to use the facts which one called history up to now so that it points you to the deeper currents of human development by this coherence between the human soul and that only dreamt spirituality which flows along as historical current. One can do this only if one replaces Lamprecht's and all other conceptions of history with that which I call symptomatic conception of history if one is aware that one has to use everything that one can find out in the archives, in the documents, briefly, with the usual conscious reason that one evaluates and appreciates it, while one relates it to something that is a symptom, an expression of it.

One does not consider the great men of history, their appearances, and actions, for their own sake if one wants to describe the historical development of humanity but only as symptoms. One is aware that one properly describes history if one is able to connect the right symptom with the underlying spiritual current of development. Symptomatic history will look quite different from history, which runs in such a way, that one only strings together the facts and tries to use individual psychology to the explanation and analysis of these facts as Lamprecht does it. Symptomatic history consists of the fact that one becomes aware of this attitude which Goethe had that one can approach, actually, a spiritual being only from all sides, that one can get to know it only by its symptoms if one realises that that at which one has looked as history up to now is only at the surface and positions itself quite strangely in life like dream contents.

Observe the dream contents, and you will realise that you often dream something quite different from what is directly attached to the most significant events of your day life. Nevertheless, it is anyhow associated as memory with your life, but in a much-concealed way, and it is associated with deeper forces of life. There is a reason why just this or that which works in the subconscious emerges symptomatically, while we do not dream anything significant that seems to be significant in the awake life, but maybe just something that appears to us as externally unimportant.

Symptomatic historical research has to consider events that control the situation for the outer reason as unimportant for the true history and apparently unimportant events as far-reaching symptoms. Only thereby, one will penetrate from the outside to the inside of the historical life. One cannot transfer the individual soul life to the historical development in such an external way. Of course, I can do here no enclosing interpretation of history to show how this symptomatic consideration grasps the essential in the development of humanity, but I can at least indicate something. I have said in a former talk, if the spiritual researcher learns to behold in the spiritual world and its development, then he notices that the results, as one expects them, normally do not happen this way. They happen as a rule different from one could expect them after the judgement that one has gained in the sensory world. I want to bring in an example:

One could expect that the historical events run in such a way that one could compare them to the childhood, youth, mature period, and old age of the human being. Indeed, some historians were under this illusion. These analogising considerations can be rather witty but have nothing to do with reality. However, something else appears. The result of which I have to inform you here is attained really with the same seriousness with which another scientific result is attained; I can state it, however, only as a result.

Lamprecht tries to find periods of historical development for the German people at first. I have already indicated: it is owed to a right impression that he determines a transition from an age to another around the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is also very typical that he calls this time the individualistic age. To spiritual-scientific research, an important incision likewise appears around the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. However, while one spiritual-scientifically beholds in the current of the historical development, it becomes obvious that one has to go back further and has to disregard the borders of tribes or peoples. One has to envisage the general historical development of humanity. There the events combine for centuries, namely from the fifteenth century A.D. until the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. This age from the seventh century before the Mystery of Golgotha to the fifteenth century after it has its own character. This character changes from inner reasons in the fifteenth century more than modern people believe. Lamprecht recognises this, but he does not recognise the whole scope of this fact. Others have already pointed out from different viewpoints that one has to explain not for outer reasons, not even because of the emergence of Renaissance et cetera, but because spontaneously that significant reversal arises from historical life, from the souls of the human beings, which asserts itself in this time almost across the whole earth, but particularly across Europe.

It is remarkable that the most significant Germanist of the present, Konrad Burdach (1859-1936), has pointed to that in very nice essays. Burdach recognises from wholly literary-historical investigations that from the soul development of humanity something quite new has arisen in the spiritual configuration, in the activities of the human being.

Now we live in the period from the fifteenth century on. Spiritual science is able to go further back. Now there something very strange appears. If you look at the impulses that control the human beings since the fifteenth century historically, they are different from those, which controlled the human beings in the preceding period. However, one cannot say, the impulses of the preceding period relate to those of the following period in such a way as in the individual human life any life period relates to the following one. This is not the case. Rather the weird turns out that today the historical works in particular in that in the individual human nature, which develops until the twenties of life. The secret of our present development is that we develop those forces by the historical conditions, which belong to our individual life during the twenties. In the preceding age, the historical life of humanity especially grasped the thirties. One can show the matter also different. One can say, today our souls are organised so that we develop from childhood to the twenties, and that we carry that which we have developed during the twenties into the rest of life, so that the human being feels that his developmental period is finished after the twenties. One can prove this with wholly external things.

Scarcely anybody will state that somebody wants to learn earnestly today during his thirties, in a time where already the youngest people write essays in the newspapers. However, one will experience very easily that people say, one reads Goethe's Iphigenia, generally the classical writers, in the youth, nobody does that in his later life. One could still bring in other symptoms. However, if one goes back to the preceding period, one finds that the growing life lasted until the thirties. As paradox as it sounds today, it is in such a way, and one will once have this as a backed historical achievement. The Greek and Roman developed unlike the modern human being develops, and history happened in those days different because the human being remained longer able of development. Spiritual science shows that one gets, going back even further, to times where the human beings remained capable of development until the forties. So that one can say, one finds three consecutive periods in the historical life of humanity: one behind the eighth pre-Christian century in which we find human beings who feel young until the forties; then the period of the Greek and Roman cultures comes when the human beings remained young until the thirties; then the period in which they are capable of development until the twenties. If you reflect about that, you recognise that you cannot compare the historical development of humanity possibly with the course of the single individual life. In the individual life one grows older and older, humanity as such develops in reverse direction; it grows younger and younger, that is it remains younger and younger; it carries youth less and less into the later individual age.

Hence, the civilisation makes a younger and younger impression in the consecutive periods; that means, the human being carries that which he gains to himself in his youth more and more into the old age. One could have believed that in the time before the eighth pre-Christian century, if one had taken prejudices as starting point, one just finds a younger humanity, then an older one, and that we have now become much riper and older. One has to answer the question first what in the course of development, not in the single life, maturity and age do mean. However, you can consider this developmental process of humanity only in such a way as I have indicated now. You see, something quite different results from what one normally imagines as inner laws of cultural development if one looks really symptomatically at the historical development.

I want only to emphasise one thing in the end. One can also go into the whole attitude of the human beings in two consecutive periods. There you recognise that in the period which began with the eighth pre-Christian century another attitude was there than in the present period. If you consider the human soul spiritual-scientifically, you do not have the same comfort as the trivial psychology has it. Then you have to realise that there are three quite different shadings of the whole soul, and, hence, one distinguishes three soul members. I call one of them the sentient soul. In it the desires and passions are anchored, but it also connects the human being with the outer nature by his senses; then one distinguishes the intellectual or mind soul, and thirdly the consciousness soul in which the real self-consciousness is anchored. While now in the course of the historical development always other forces intervene in the human soul, the following turns out: during the period which lasts from the eighth pre-Christian up to the fifteenth post-Christian centuries where the European civilisation is coloured especially by the influence of the Greek-Latin culture particularly the intellectual or mind soul is working.

Hence, everything faces us that the human being accomplishes in the course of the historical development and in the outer life, in the social and economic life, as if his mind worked instinctively, as if he grasped the outer world with body and mind equally strongly. The human body and mind are balanced in this time, and the mind itself works instinctively. This becomes different with the big reversal in the fifteenth century. There the self-consciousness appears. There the consciousness soul becomes especially strong, there the human being does no longer have the mind instinctively, but he has to reflect everywhere. There the individuality starts forming. There he does no longer feel instinctively if he meets another human being: you have to behave to him this or that way. There he reflects, there he turns to the inside of his personality. So that we can say, the whole historical structure since the fifteenth century is characterised by the fact that the consciousness soul works since that time, while before the more instinctive intellectual or mind soul has worked. You cannot understand the Roman Law, nothing that comes from antiquity properly if you do not envisage this difference between the instinctive mind and that what in modern times works in intellectualistic way.

It arises that that which Lamprecht searches up to the fifteenth century is just the preparation of the consciousness soul in the German people. The German folk soul carried that into the coming period what flowed from the south, while it was just minded to further the stream of historical development from the intellectual or mind soul to the consciousness soul and its various nuances.

If one learns to recognise what really works there, then this shines into the details. Then you can ask yourself again, what is that, for example, what Wilson describes as the real nature of the American people? This is another nuance of the consciousness soul. The western nuance is experienced in its archetypal phenomenon, in its original characteristic here in Central Europe. Here the struggling egoity of the human being is really experienced which relates to the consciousness soul quite consciously which wants to penetrate with all forces of personality that what wants to enter life wholly consciously. This appears in another nuance in the American people where the human soul is like possessed by itself. It is sometimes disagreeable to face the truth. However, just the catastrophic events of our time necessitate a certain objectivity. Into the character of the historian Wilson, the light shines which spiritual science can spread.

Only in principle I could show which direction science of history has to take if it is fertilised by spiritual science in the same sense as I tried to show it for natural sciences eight days ago. Only if you consider history in such a way, you will realise how the human being is associated with that dreamt stream of the historical development that stirs him up. Then, however, it will appear that that which becomes known Imaginatively by the symptomatic interpretation of history is internally related to the human being as a historical being. Then you will realise that not the reason, but the subconsciousness, the dreamlike emotional life is connected with the historical development. Imagination will teach what works in the mood and in the will impulses of the human beings, while they are in the stream of the historical development. Then something else will arise than the belief that history can teach this or that. If it were able to teach as one normally imagines, then one would be able to find a connection between history and this usual reason. However, it does not exist. The connection is there with that what works in the depths of the soul, in the subconsciousness. The human being cannot learn, indeed, for his usual reason from history, but from the true history if he develops it more and more by the view of the spirit in history, then the historical impulses settle down in the feeling of the human being. If he faces a fact, if he is called for action or for the right feeling towards a fact within the social life, then his feeling will lead him properly. Then not his reason, but his whole soul is taught by such an interpretation of history.

With it let me summarise this consideration briefly. Goethe suspected that history, if it is recognised truly, works in the mood, in the feeling that it works if enthusiasm originates in the right way if antipathies or sympathies originate for what should be done or be omitted in a social situation. Briefly, Goethe said out of a right notion of that which spiritual science has to bring to light: the best that we can have from history is the enthusiasm, which it excites. Certainly, we cannot feel the intellectual judgement but the enthusiasm as a fruit of history if we can recognise the real historical development.

[ 1 ] For our cognition, the concept of the tree is conditioned by the percept of the tree. When faced with a particular percept, I can select only one particular concept from the general system of concepts. The connection of concept and percept is determined by thinking, indirectly and objectively, at the level of the percept. This connection of the percept with its concept is recognized after the act of perceiving; but that they do belong together lies in the very nature of things.

[ 2 ] The process looks different when we examine knowledge, or rather the relation of man to the world which arises within knowledge. In the preceding chapters the attempt has been made to show that an unprejudiced observation of this relationship is able to throw light on its nature. A proper understanding of this observation leads to the insight that thinking can be directly discerned as a self-contained entity. Those who find it necessary for the explanation of thinking as such to invoke something else, such as physical brain processes or unconscious spiritual processes lying behind the conscious thinking which they observe, fail to recognize what an unprejudiced observation of thinking yields. When we observe our thinking, we live during this observation directly within a self-supporting, spiritual web of being. Indeed, we can even say that if we would grasp the essential nature of spirit in the form in which it presents itself most immediately to man, we need only look at the self-sustaining activity of thinking.

[ 3 ] When we are contemplating thinking itself, two things coincide which otherwise must always appear apart, namely, concept and percept. If we fail to see this, we shall be unable to regard the concepts which we have elaborated with respect to percepts as anything but shadowy copies of these percepts, and we shall take the percepts as presenting to us the true reality. We shall, further, build up for ourselves a metaphysical world after the pattern of the perceived world; we shall call this a world of atoms, a world of will, a world of unconscious spirit, or whatever, each according to his own kind of mental imagery. And we shall fail to notice that all the time we have been doing nothing but building up a metaphysical world hypothetically, after the pattern of our own world of percepts. But if we recognize what is present in thinking, we shall realize that in the percept we have only one part of the reality and that the other part which belongs to it, and which first allows the full reality to appear, is experienced by us in the permeation of the percept by thinking. We shall see in this element that appears in our consciousness as thinking, not a shadowy copy of some reality, but a self-sustaining spiritual essence. And of this we shall be able to say that it is brought into consciousness for us through intuition. Intuition is the conscious experience—in pure spirit—of a purely spiritual content. Only through an intuition can the essence of thinking be grasped.

[ 4 ] Only if, by means of unprejudiced observation, one has wrestled through to the recognition of this truth of the intuitive essence of thinking will one succeed in clearing the way for an insight into the psyche-physical organization of man. One will see that this organization can have no effect on the essential nature of thinking. At first sight this seems to be contradicted by patently obvious facts. For ordinary experience, human thinking makes its appearance only in connection with, and by means of, this organization. This form of its appearance comes so much to the fore that its real significance cannot be grasped unless we recognize that in the essence of thinking this organization plays no part whatever. Once we appreciate this, we can no longer fail to notice what a peculiar kind of relationship there is between the human organization and the thinking itself. For this organization contributes nothing to the essential nature of thinking, but recedes whenever the activity of thinking makes its appearance; it suspends its own activity, it yields ground; and on the ground thus left empty, the thinking appears. The essence which is active in thinking has a twofold function: first, it represses the activity of the human organization; secondly, it steps into its place. For even the former, the repression of the physical organization, is a consequence of the activity of thinking, and more particularly of that part of this activity which prepares the manifestation of thinking. From this one can see in what sense thinking finds its counterpart in the physical organization. When we see this, we can no longer misjudge the significance of this counterpart of the activity of thinking. When we walk over soft ground, our feet leave impressions in the soil. We shall not be tempted to say that these footprints have been formed from below by the forces of the ground. We shall not attribute to these forces any share in the production of the footprints. Just as little, if we observe the essential nature of thinking without prejudice, shall we attribute any share in that nature to the traces in the physical organism which arise through the fact that the thinking prepares its manifestation by means of the body.¹

[ 5 ] An important question, however, emerges here. If the human organization has no part in the essential nature of thinking, what is the significance of this organization within the whole nature of man? Now, what happens in this organization through the thinking has indeed nothing to do with the essence of thinking, but it has a great deal to do with the arising of the ego-consciousness out of this thinking. Thinking, in its own essential nature, certainly contains the real I or ego, but it does not contain the ego-consciousness. To see this we have but to observe thinking with an open mind. The “I” is to be found within the thinking; the “ego-consciousness” arises through the traces which the activity of thinking engraves upon our general consciousness, in the sense explained above. (The ego-consciousness thus arises through the bodily organization. However, this must not be taken to imply that the ego-consciousness, once it has arisen, remains dependent on the bodily organization. Once arisen, it is taken up into thinking and shares henceforth in thinking's spiritual being.)

[ 6 ] The “ego-consciousness” is built upon the human organization. Out of the latter flow our acts of will. Following the lines of the preceding argument, we can gain insight into the connections between thinking, conscious I, and act of will, only by observing first how an act of will issues from the human organization.²

[ 7 ] In any particular act of will we must take into account the motive and the driving force. The motive is a factor with the character of a concept or a mental picture; the driving force is the will-factor belonging to the human organization and directly conditioned by it. The conceptual factor, or motive, is the momentary determining factor of the will; the driving force is the permanent determining factor of the individual. A motive for the will may be a pure concept, or else a concept with a particular reference to a percept, that is, a mental picture. Both general concepts and individual ones (mental pictures) become motives of will by affecting the human individual and determining him to action in a particular direction. But one and the same concept, or one and the same mental picture, affects different individuals differently. They stimulate different men to different actions. An act of will is therefore not merely the outcome of the concept or the mental picture but also of the individual make-up of the person. Here we may well follow the example of Eduard von Hartmann and call this individual make-up the characterological disposition. The manner in which concept and mental picture affects the characterological disposition of a man gives to his life a definite moral or ethical stamp.

[ 8 ] The characterological disposition is formed by the more or less permanent content of our subjective life, that is, by the content of our mental pictures and feelings. Whether a mental picture which enters my mind at this moment stimulates me to an act of will or not, depends on how it relates itself to the content of all my other mental pictures and also to my idiosyncrasies of feeling. But after all, the general content of my mental pictures is itself conditioned by the sum total of those concepts which have, in the course of my individual life, come into contact with percepts, that is, have become mental pictures. This sum, again, depends on my greater or lesser capacity for intuition and on the range of my observations, that is, on the subjective and objective factors of experience, on my inner nature and situation in life. My characterological disposition is determined especially by my life of feeling. Whether I shall make a particular mental picture or concept into a motive of action or not, will depend on whether it gives me joy or pain.

These are the elements which we have to consider in an act of will. The immediately present mental picture or concept, which becomes the motive, determines the aim or the purpose of my will; my characterological disposition determines me to direct my activity towards this aim. The mental picture of taking a walk in the next half-hour determines the aim of my action. But this mental picture is raised to the level of a motive for my will only if it meets with a suitable characterological disposition, that is, if during my past life I have formed the mental pictures of the sense and purpose of taking a walk, of the value of health, and further, if the mental picture of taking a walk is accompanied in me by a feeling of pleasure.

[ 9 ] We must therefore distinguish (1) the possible subjective dispositions which are capable of turning certain mental pictures and concepts into motives, and (2) the possible mental pictures and concepts which are in a position to influence my characterological disposition so that an act of will results. For our moral life the former represent the driving force, and the latter, its aims.

[ 10 ] The driving force in the moral life can be discovered by finding out the elements of which individual life is composed.

[ 11 ] The first level of individual life is that of perceiving, more particularly perceiving through the senses. This is the region of our individual life in which perceiving translates itself directly into willing, without the intervention of either a feeling or a concept. The driving force here involved is simply called instinct. The satisfaction of our lower, purely animal needs (hunger, sexual intercourse, etc.) comes about in this way. The main characteristic of instinctive life is the immediacy with which the single percept releases the act of will. This kind of determination of the will, which belongs originally only to the life of the lower senses, may however become extended also to the percepts of the higher senses. We may react to the percept of a certain event in the external world without reflecting on what we do, without any special feeling connecting itself with the percept, as in fact happens in our conventional social behaviour. The driving force of such action is called tact or moral good taste. The more often such immediate reactions to a percept occur, the more the person concerned will prove himself able to act purely under the guidance of tact; that is, tact becomes his characterological disposition.

[ 12 ] The second level of human life is feeling. Definite feelings accompany the percepts of the external world. These feelings may become the driving force of an action. When I see a starving man, my pity for him may become the driving force of my action. Such feelings, for example, are shame, pride, sense of honour, humility, remorse, pity, revenge, gratitude, piety, loyalty, love, and duty.³

[ 13 ] The third level of life amounts to thinking and forming mental pictures. A mental picture or a concept may become the motive of an action through mere reflection. Mental pictures become motives because, in the course of life, we regularly connect certain aims of our will with percepts which recur again and again in more or less modified form. Hence with people not wholly devoid of experience it happens that the occurrence of certain percepts is always accompanied by the appearance in consciousness of mental pictures of actions that they themselves have carried out in a similar case or have seen others carry out. These mental pictures float before their minds as patterns which determine all subsequent decisions; they become parts of their characterological disposition. The driving force in the will, in this case, we can call practical experience. Practical experience merges gradually into purely tactful behaviour. This happens when definite typical pictures of actions have become so firmly connected in our minds with mental pictures of certain situations in life that, in any given instance, we skip over all deliberation based on experience and go straight from the percept to the act of will.

[ 14 ] The highest level of individual life is that of conceptual thinking without regard to any definite perceptual content. We determine the content of a concept through pure intuition from out of the ideal sphere. Such a concept contains, at first, no reference to any definite percepts. If we enter upon an act of will under the influence of a concept which refers to a percept, that is, under the influence of a mental picture, then it is this percept which determines our action indirectly by way of the conceptual thinking. But if we act under the influence of intuitions, the driving force of our action is pure thinking. As it is the custom in philosophy to call the faculty of pure thinking “reason”, we may well be justified in giving the name of practical reason to the moral driving force characteristic of this level of life. The dearest account of this driving force in the will has been given by Kreyenbuehl⁴. In my opinion his article on this subject is one of the most important contributions to present-day philosophy, more especially to Ethics. Kreyenbuehl calls the driving force we are here discussing, the practical a priori, that is, an impulse to action issuing directly from my intuition.

[ 15 ] It is clear that such an impulse can no longer be counted in the strictest sense as belonging to the characterological disposition. For what is here effective as the driving force is no longer something merely individual in me, but the ideal and hence universal content of my intuition. As soon as I see the justification for taking this content as the basis and starting point of an action, I enter upon the act of will irrespective of whether I have had the concept beforehand or whether it only enters my consciousness immediately before the action, that is, irrespective of whether it was already present as a disposition in me or not.

[ 16 ] Since a real act of will results only when a momentary impulse to action, in the form of a concept or mental picture, acts on the characterological disposition, such an impulse then becomes the motive of the will.

[ 17 ] The motives of moral conduct are mental pictures and concepts. There are Moral Philosophers who see a motive for moral behaviour also in the feelings; they assert, for instance, that the aim of moral action is to promote the greatest possible quantity of pleasure for the acting individual. Pleasure itself, however, cannot become a motive; only an imagined pleasure can. The mental picture of a future feeling, but not the feeling itself, can act on my characterological disposition. For the feeling itself does not yet exist in the moment of action; it has first to be produced by the action.

[ 18 ] The mental picture of one's own or another's welfare is, however, rightly regarded as a motive of the will. The principle of producing the greatest quantity of pleasure for oneself through one's action, that is, of attaining individual happiness, is called egoism. The attainment of this individual happiness is sought either by thinking ruthlessly only of one's own good and striving to attain it even at the cost of the happiness of other individuals (pure egoism), or by promoting the good of others, either because one anticipates a favourable influence on one's own person indirectly through the happiness of others, or because one fears to endanger one's own interest by injuring others (morality of prudence). The special content of the egoistical principles of morality will depend on the mental pictures which we form of what constitutes our own, or others', happiness. A man will determine the content of his egoistical striving in accordance with what he regards as the good things of life (luxury, hope of happiness, deliverance from various evils, and so on).

[ 19 ] The purely conceptual content of an action is to be regarded as yet another kind of motive. This content refers not to the particular action only, as with the mental picture of one's own pleasures, but to the derivation of an action from a system of moral principles. These moral principles, in the form of abstract concepts, may regulate the individual's moral life without his worrying himself about the origin of the concepts. In that case, we simply feel that submitting to a moral concept in the form of a commandment overshadowing our actions, is a moral necessity. The establishment of this necessity we leave to those who demand moral subjection from us, that is, to the moral authority that we acknowledge (the head of the family, the state, social custom, the authority of the church, divine revelation). It is a special kind of these moral principles when the commandment is made known to us not through an external authority but through our own inner life (moral autonomy). In this case we hear the voice to which we have to submit ourselves, in our own souls. This voice expresses itself as conscience.

[ 20 ] It is a moral advance when a man no longer simply accepts the commands of an outer or inner authority as the motive of his action, but tries to understand the reason why a particular maxim of behaviour should act as a motive in him. This is the advance from morality based on authority to action out of moral insight. At this level of morality a man will try to find out the requirements of the moral life and will let his actions be determined by the knowledge of them. Such requirements are

the greatest possible good of mankind purely for its own sake;

the progress of civilization, or the moral evolution of mankind towards ever greater perfection;

the realization of individual moral aims grasped by pure intuition.

[ 21 ] The greatest possible good of mankind will naturally be understood in different ways by different people. This maxim refers not to any particular mental picture of this “good” but to the fact that everyone who acknowledges this principle strives to do whatever, in his opinion, most promotes the good of mankind.

[ 22 ] The progress of civilization, for those to whom the blessings of civilization bring a feeling of pleasure, turns out to be a special case of the foregoing moral principle. Of course, they will have to take into the bargain the decline and destruction of a number of things that also contribute to the general good. It is also possible, however, that some people regard the progress of civilization as a moral necessity quite apart from the feeling of pleasure that it brings. For them, this becomes a special moral principle in addition to the previous one.

[ 23 ] The principle of the progress of civilization, like that of the general good, is based on a mental picture, that is, on the way we relate the content of our moral ideas to particular experiences (percepts). The highest conceivable moral principle, however, is one that from the start contains no such reference to particular experiences, but springs from the source of pure intuition and only later seeks any reference to percepts, that is, to life. Here the decision as to what is to be willed proceeds from an authority very different from that of the foregoing cases. If a man holds to the principle of the general good, he will, in all his actions, first ask what his ideals will contribute to this general good. If a man upholds the principle of the progress of civilization, he will act similarly. But there is a still higher way which does not start from one and the same particular moral aim in each case, but sees a certain value in all moral principles and always asks whether in the given case this or that principle is the more important. It may happen that in some circumstances a man considers the right aim to be the progress of civilization, in others the promotion of the general good, and in yet another the promotion of his own welfare, and in each case makes that the motive of his action. But if no other ground for decision claims more than second place, then conceptual intuition itself comes first and foremost into consideration. All other motives now give way, and the idea behind an action alone becomes its motive.

[ 24 ] Among the levels of characterological disposition, we have singled out as the highest the one that works as pure thinking or practical reason. Among the motives, we have just singled out conceptual intuition as the highest. On closer inspection it will at once be seen that at this level of morality driving force and motive coincide; that is, neither a predetermined characterological disposition nor the external authority of an accepted moral principle influences our conduct. The action is therefore neither a stereotyped one which merely follows certain rules, nor is it one which we automatically perform in response to an external impulse, but it is an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content.

[ 25 ] Such an action presupposes the capacity for moral intuitions. Whoever lacks the capacity to experience for himself the particular moral principle for each single situation, will never achieve truly individual willing.

[ 26 ] Kant's principle of morality—Act so that the basis of your action may be valid for all men—is the exact opposite of ours. His principle means death to all individual impulses of action. For me, the standard can never be the way all men would act, but rather what, for me, is to be done in each individual case.

[ 27 ] A superficial judgment might raise the following objection to these arguments: How can an action be individually made to fit the special case and the special situation, and yet at the same time be determined by intuition in a purely ideal way? This objection rests upon a confusion of the moral motive with the perceptible content of an action. The latter may be a motive, and actually is one in the case of the progress of civilization, or when we act from egoism, and so forth, but in an action based on pure moral intuition it is not the motive. Of course, my “I” takes notice of these perceptual contents, but it does not allow itself to be determined by them. The content is used only to construct a cognitive concept, but the corresponding moral concept is not derived by the “I” from the object. The cognitive concept of a given situation facing me is at the same time a moral concept only if I take the standpoint of a particular moral principle. If I were to base my conduct only on the general principle of the development of civilization, then my way through life would be tied down to a fixed route. From every occurrence which I perceive and which concerns me, there springs at the same time a moral duty: namely, to do my little bit towards seeing that this occurrence is made to serve the development of civilization. In addition to the concept which reveals to me the connections of events or objects according to the laws of nature, there is also a moral label attached to them which for me, as a moral person, gives ethical directions as to how I have to conduct myself. Such a moral label is justified on its own ground; at a higher level it coincides with the idea which reveals itself to me when I am faced with the concrete instance.

[ 28 ] Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In one, ideas just bubble up; another acquires them with much labour. The situations in which men live and which provide the scenes of their actions are no less varied. The conduct of a man will therefore depend on the manner in which his faculty of intuition works in a given situation. The sum of ideas which are effective in us, the concrete content of our intuitions, constitutes what is individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universality of the world of ideas. In so far as this intuitive content applies to action, it constitutes the moral content of the individual. To let this content express itself in life is both the highest moral driving force and the highest motive a man can have, who sees that in this content all other moral principles are in the end united. We may call this point of view ethical individualism.

[ 29 ] The decisive factor of an intuitively determined action in any concrete instance is the discovery of the corresponding purely individual intuition. At this level of morality one can only speak of general concepts of morality (standards, laws) in so far as these result from the generalization of the individual impulses. General standards always presuppose concrete facts from which they can be derived. But the facts have first to be created by human action.

[ 30 ] If we seek out the rules (conceptual principles) underlying the actions of individuals, peoples, and epochs, we obtain a system of ethics which is not so much a science of moral laws as a natural history of morality. It is only the laws obtained in this way that are related to human action as the laws of nature are related to a particular phenomenon. These laws, however, are by no means identical with the impulses on which we base our actions. If we want to understand how a man's action arises from his moral will, we must first study the relation of this will to the action. Above all, we must keep our eye on those actions in which this relation is the determining factor. If I, or someone else, reflect upon such an action afterwards, we can discover what moral principles come into question with regard to it. While I am performing the action I am influenced by a moral maxim in so far as it can live in me intuitively; it is bound up with my love for the objective that I want to realize through my action. I ask no man and no rule, “Shall I perform this action?”—but carry it out as soon as I have grasped the idea of it. This alone makes it my action. If a man acts only because he accepts certain moral standards, his action is the outcome of the principles which compose his moral code. He merely carries out orders. He is a superior automaton. Inject some stimulus to action into his mind, and at once the clockwork of his moral principles will set itself in motion and run its prescribed course, so as to result in an action which is Christian, or humane, or seemingly unselfish, or calculated to promote the progress of civilization. Only when I follow my love for my objective is it I myself who act. I act, at this level of morality, not because I acknowledge a lord over me, or an external authority, or a so-called inner voice; I acknowledge no external principle for my action, because I have found in myself the ground for my action, namely, my love of the action. I do not work out mentally whether my action is good or bad; I carry it out because I love it. My action will be “good” if my intuition, steeped in love, finds its right place within the intuitively experienceable world continuum; it will be “bad” if this is not the case. Again, I do not ask myself, “How would another man act in my position?”—but I act as I, this particular individuality, find I have occasion to do. No general usage, no common custom, no maxim applying to all men, no moral standard is my immediate guide, but my love for the deed. I feel no compulsion, neither the compulsion of nature which guides me by my instincts, nor the compulsion of the moral commandments, but I want simply to carry out what lies within me.

[ 31 ] Those who defend general moral standards might reply to these arguments that if everyone strives to live his own life and do what he pleases, there can be no distinction between a good deed and a crime; every corrupt impulse that lies within me has as good a claim to express itself as has the intention of serving the general good. What determines me as a moral being cannot be the mere fact of my having conceived the idea of an action, but whether I judge it to be good or evil. Only in the former case should I carry it out.

[ 32 ] My reply to this very obvious objection, which is nevertheless based on a misapprehension of my argument, is this: If we want to understand the nature of the human will, we must distinguish between the path which leads this will to a certain degree of development and the unique character which the will assumes as it approaches this goal. On the path towards this goal the standards play their rightful part. The goal consists of the realization of moral aims grasped by pure intuition. Man attains such aims to the extent that he is able to raise himself at all to the intuitive world of ideas. In any particular act of will such moral aims will generally have other elements mixed in with them, either as driving force or as motive. Nevertheless intuition may still be wholly or partly the determining factor in the human will. What one should do, that one does; one provides the stage upon which obligation becomes deed; one's own action is what one brings forth from oneself. Here the impulse can only be wholly individual. And, in truth, only an act of will that springs from intuition can be an individual one. To regard evil, the deed of a criminal, as an expression of the human individuality in the same sense as one regards the embodiment of pure intuition is only possible if blind instincts are reckoned as part of the human individuality. But the blind instinct that drives a man to crime does not spring from intuition, and does not belong to what is individual in him, but rather to what is most general in him, to what is equally present in all individuals and out of which a man works his way by means of what is individual in him. What is individual in me is not my organism with its instincts and its feelings but rather the unified world of ideas which lights up within this organism. My instincts, urges and passions establish no more than that I belong to the general species man; it is the fact that something of the idea world comes to expression in a particular way within these urges, passions and feelings that establishes my individuality. Through my instincts and cravings, I am the sort of man of whom there are twelve to the dozen; through the particular form of the idea by means of which I designate myself within the dozen as “I”, I am an individual. Only a being other than myself could distinguish me from others by the difference in my animal nature; through my thinking, that is, by actively grasping what expresses itself in my organism as idea, I distinguish myself from others. Therefore one cannot say of the action of a criminal that it proceeds from the idea within him. Indeed, the characteristic feature of criminal actions is precisely that they spring from the non-ideal elements in man.

[ 33 ] An action is felt to be free in so far as the reasons for it spring from the ideal part of my individual being; every other part of an action, irrespective of whether it is carried out under the compulsion of nature or under the obligation of a moral standard, is felt to be unfree.

[ 34 ] Man is free in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life. A moral deed is my deed only if it can be called a free one in this sense. We have here considered what conditions are required for an intentional action to be felt as a free one; how this purely ethically understood idea of freedom comes to realization in the being of man will be shown in what follows.

[ 35 ] Acting out of freedom does not exclude the moral laws; it includes them, but shows itself to be on a higher level than those actions which are merely dictated by such laws. Why should my action be of less service to the public good when I have done it out of love than when I have done it only because I consider serving the public good to be my duty? The mere concept of duty excludes freedom because it does not acknowledge the individual element but demands that this be subject to a general standard. Freedom of action is conceivable only from the standpoint of ethical individualism.

[ 36 ] But how is a social life possible for man if each one is only striving to assert his own individuality? This objection is characteristic of a false understanding of moralism. Such a moralist believes that a social community is possible only if all men are united by a communally fixed moral order. What this kind of moralist does not understand is just the unity of the world of ideas. He does not see that the world of ideas working in me is no other than the one working in my fellow man. Admittedly, this unity is but an outcome of practical experience. But in fact it cannot be anything else. For if it could be known in any other way than by observation, then in its own sphere universal standards rather than individual experience would be the rule. Individuality is possible only if every individual being knows of others through individual observation alone. I differ from my fellow man, not at all because we are living in two entirely different spiritual worlds, but because from the world of ideas common to us both we receive different intuitions. He wants to live out his intuitions, I mine. If we both really conceive out of the idea, and do not obey any external impulses (physical or spiritual), then we cannot but meet one another in like striving, in common intent. A moral misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible between men who are morally free. Only the morally unfree who follow their natural instincts or the accepted commands of duty come into conflict with their neighbours if these do not obey the same instincts and the same commands as themselves. To live in love towards our actions, and to let live in the understanding of the other person's will, is the fundamental maxim of free men. They know no other obligation than what their will puts itself in unison with intuitively; how they will direct their will in a particular case, their faculty for ideas will decide.

[ 37 ] Were the ability to get on with one another not a basic part of human nature, no external laws would be able to implant it in us. It is only because human individuals are one in spirit that they can live out their lives side by side. The free man lives in confidence that he and any other free man belong to one spiritual world, and that their intentions will harmonize. The free man does not demand agreement from his fellow man, but expects to find it because it is inherent in human nature. I am not here referring to the necessity for this or that external institution, but to the disposition, the attitude of soul, through which a man, aware of himself among his fellows, most clearly expresses the ideal of human dignity.

[ 38 ] There are many who will say that the concept of the free man which I have here developed is a chimera nowhere to be found in practice; we have to do with actual human beings, from whom we can only hope for morality if they obey some moral law, that is, if they regard their moral task as a duty and do not freely follow their inclinations and loves. I do not doubt this at all. Only a blind man could do so. But if this is to be the final conclusion, then away with all this hypocrisy about morality! Let us then simply say that human nature must be driven to its actions as long as it is not free. Whether his unfreedom is forced on him by physical means or by moral laws, whether man is unfree because he follows his unlimited sexual desire or because he is bound by the fetters of conventional morality, is quite immaterial from a certain point of view. Only let us not assert that such a man can rightly call his actions his own, seeing that he is driven to them by a force other than himself. But in the midst of all this framework of compulsion there arise men who establish themselves as free spirits in all the welter of customs, legal codes, religious observances, and so forth. They are free in so far as they obey only themselves, unfree in so far as they submit to control. Which of us can say that he is really free in all his actions? Yet in each of us there dwells a deeper being in which the free man finds expression.

[ 39 ] Our life is made up of free and unfree actions. We cannot, however, think out the concept of man completely without coming upon the free spirit as the purest expression of human nature. Indeed, we are men in the true sense only in so far as we are free.

[ 40 ] This is an ideal, many will say. Doubtless; but it is an ideal which is a real element in us working its way to the surface of our nature. It is no ideal just thought up or dreamed, but one which has life, and which announces itself clearly even in the least perfect form of its existence. If man were merely a natural creature, there would be no such thing as the search for ideals, that is, for ideas which for the moment are not effective but whose realization is required. With the things of the outer world, the idea is determined by the percept; we have done our share when we have recognized the connection between idea and percept. But with the human being it is not so. The sum total of his existence is not fully determined without his own self; his true concept as a moral being (free spirit) is not objectively united from the start with the percept-picture “man” needing only to be confirmed by knowledge afterwards. Man must unite his concept with the percept of man by his own activity. Concept and percept coincide in this case only if man himself makes them coincide. This he can do only if he has found the concept of the free spirit, that is, if he has found the concept of his own self. In the objective world a dividing line is drawn by our organization between percept and concept; knowledge overcomes this division. In our subjective nature this division is no less present; man overcomes it in the course of his development by bringing the concept of himself to expression in his outward existence. Hence not only man's intellectual but also his moral life leads to his twofold nature, perceiving (direct experience) and thinking. The intellectual life overcomes this two-fold nature by means of knowledge, the moral life overcomes it through the actual realization of the free spirit. Every existing thing has its inborn concept (the law of its being and doing), but in external objects this concept is indivisibly bound up with the percept, and separated from it only within our spiritual organization. In man concept and percept are, at first, actually separated, to be just as actually united by him.

One might object: At every moment of a man's life there is a definite concept corresponding to our percept of him just as with everything else. I can form for myself the concept of a particular type of man, and I may even find such a man given to me as a percept; if I now add to this the concept of a free spirit, then I have two concepts for the same object.

[ 41 ] Such an objection is one-sided. As object of perception I am subjected to continual change. As a child I was one thing, another as a youth, yet another as a man. Indeed, at every moment the percept-picture of myself is different from what it was the moment before. These changes may take place in such a way that it is always the same man (the type) who reveals himself in them, or that they represent the expression of a free spirit. To such changes my action, as object of perception, is subjected.

[ 42 ] The perceptual object “man” has in it the possibility of transforming itself, just as the plant seed contains the possibility of becoming a complete plant. The plant transforms itself because of the objective law inherent in it; the human being remains in his incomplete state unless he takes hold of the material for transformation within him and transforms himself through his own power. Nature makes of man merely a natural being; society makes of him a law-abiding being; only he himself can make of himself a free man. Nature releases man from her fetters at a definite stage in his development; society carries this development a stage further; he alone can give himself the final polish.

[ 43 ] The standpoint of free morality, then, does not declare the free spirit to be the only form in which a man can exist. It sees in the free spirit only the last stage of man's evolution. This is not to deny that conduct according to standards has its justification as one stage in evolution. Only we cannot acknowledge it as the absolute standpoint in morality. For the free spirit overcomes the standards in the sense that he does not just accept commandments as his motives but orders his action according to his own impulses (intuitions).

[ 44 ] When Kant says of duty: “Duty! Thou exalted and mighty name, thou that dost comprise nothing lovable, nothing ingratiating, but demandest submission,” thou that “settest up a law ... before which all inclinations are silent, even though they secretly work against it,”⁵ then out of the consciousness of the free spirit, man replies: “Freedom! Thou kindly and human name, thou that dost comprise all that is morally most lovable, all that my manhood most prizes, and that makest me the servant of nobody, thou that settest up no mere law, but awaitest what my moral love itself will recognize as law because in the face of every merely imposed law it feels itself unfree.”

[ 45 ] This is the contrast between a morality based on mere law and a morality based on inner freedom.

[ 46 ] The philistine, who sees the embodiment of morality in an external code, may see in the free spirit even a dangerous person. But that is only because his view is narrowed down to a limited period of time. If he were able to look beyond this, he would at once find that the free spirit just as seldom needs to go beyond the laws of his state as does the philistine himself, and certainly never needs to place himself in real opposition to them. For the laws of the state, one and all, just like all other objective laws of morality, have had their origin in the intuitions of free spirits. There is no rule enforced by family authority that was not at one time intuitively grasped and laid down as such by an ancestor; similarly the conventional laws of morality are first of all established by definite men, and the laws of the state always originate in the head of a statesman. These leading spirits have set up laws over other men, and the only person who feels unfree is the one who forgets this origin and either turns these laws into extra-human commandments, objective moral concepts of duty independent of man, or else turns them into the commanding voice within himself which he supposes, in a falsely mystical way, to be compelling him. On the other hand, the person who does not overlook this origin, but seeks man within it, will count such laws as belonging to the same world of ideas from which he, too, draws his moral intuitions. If he believes he has better intuitions, he will try to put them into the place of the existing ones; if he finds the existing ones justified, he will act in accordance with them as if they were his own.

[ 47 ] We must not coin the formula: Man exists only in order to realize a moral world order which is quite distinct from himself. Anyone who maintains that this is so, remains, in his knowledge of man, at the point where natural science stood when it believed that a bull has horns in order to butt. Scientists, happily, have thrown out the concept of purpose as a dead theory. Ethics finds it more difficult to get free of this concept. But just as horns do not exist for the sake of butting, but butting through the presence of horns, so man does not exist for the sake of morality, but morality through the presence of man. The free man acts morally because he has a moral idea; he does not act in order that morality may come into being. Human individuals, with the moral ideas belonging to their nature, are the prerequisites of a moral world order.

[ 48 ] The human individual is the source of all morality and the centre of earthly life. State and society exist only because they have arisen as a necessary consequence of the life of individuals. That state and society should in turn react upon individual life is no more difficult to comprehend than that the butting which is the result of the presence of horns reacts in turn upon the further development of the horns of the bull, which would become stunted through prolonged disuse. Similarly, the individual would become stunted if he led an isolated existence outside human society. Indeed, this is just why the social order arises, so that it may in turn react favourably upon the individual.

• 1. The way in which the above view has influenced psychology, physiology, etc., in various directions, has been set forth by the author in works published after this book. Here he is concerned only with characterizing the results of an unbiased observation of thinking itself.
• 2. The passage from the beginning of the chapter down to this point was added or rewritten for the 1918 edition.
• 3. A complete catalogue of the principles of morality (from the point of view of metaphysical realism) may be found in Eduard von Hartmann's Phaenomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins.
• 4. Philosophische Monatshefte, Vol. xviii, No. 3.
• 5. Critique of Practical Reason, chapter iii.

Today I would like to give a spiritual-scientific historical consideration that can be important to us, especially in view of the momentous events we are facing, the events that the whole of European humanity is facing. Next Wednesday, I will then touch on a more intimate matter of the spiritual life of the human being. If some of us may find what we are to consider today seemingly remote, it is only seemingly so and should not be remote, because spiritual science should fill our souls with the deepest attention for everything that can contribute to the understanding of our time. As I said, on Wednesday we will then return to a purely human spiritual-scientific matter.

Today I would like to start with one question. But do not be alarmed, and do not think that by placing this question at the beginning of our deliberations I am in the slightest degree seeking to revive old disputes in our movement. As you will see, it is a completely different matter, although I will start with a question that could easily be misunderstood at first. The question I would like to raise is: Why, especially during this time of war, does Mrs. Besant continue to defame our German movement in her English magazines? Why did she find it necessary, right in the first months of the war, to say that our German movement had only the intention of being a kind of agency for anti-English political aspirations in Germany? Why did she find it necessary to say that this German movement of ours had the intention of bringing about her own – Mrs. Besant's – dismissal as president of the Theosophical Society in order to establish herself in India and from there organize some kind of anti-English, pan-German movement against England? Why does Mrs. Besant continue to spread these slanderous accusations against our German movement during this war in such an ugly manner, and why will she probably continue to do so?

Within our spiritual movement, we need nothing more than to have a clear, insightful view of what is going on in the world. That which can so easily please those who often believe that they are standing firmly within our movement, a certain - forgive the harsh expression - mental somnolence in the face of world events, is a great disadvantage, especially within such a spiritual movement. We must strive to have the clearest possible view of the affairs of our external existence. For nothing could be easier than for all manner of charlatanry and fraud to attach themselves to such a movement within the development of humanity. And since, within the limits that we have often emphasized, a certain amount of trust is needed even among the small group of those who want to understand certain things here, it is also obvious that, seduced by a certain trustfulness, precisely personalities of our movement are, so to speak, clouded by those who do not want to tell them the truth, but only want to graft all kinds of things into their souls, in order to breed a spiritual bodyguard for all kinds of endeavors, which in the proper sense are not truly spiritual endeavors of humanity, so to speak, by the detour of theosophical or other spiritual beliefs.

We have often pointed out the position of the Russian people within the development of the fifth post-Atlantic cultural epoch, and since I have often discussed the relevant matters in this regard here in Stuttgart during this war period, I will not go back over them today, although you can read about them in individual cycles. Rather, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are certain fundamental characteristics of the Russian people that make this Russian people particularly suitable for entering into the development of the fifth post-Atlantic or even sixth post-Atlantic cultural development in the way often characterized.

First of all, we have a characteristic of the Russian people that could be called an especially extensive adaptability of the soul to anything of a spiritual nature that confronts the Russian person in any way, a certain adaptability of the soul. It is the case that the Russian person is less productive, less creative in his own soul than the Central or Western European person, that he is, as it were, dependent on receiving and on living through intensively what he has received, but not on shaping it independently out of his own resources. Thus you can see how the Russian people received the Byzantine religion and left it at the point it was at when they received it. And today one can still see from the ceremonies of the Russian Church how ancient oriental essence shines through these ceremonies. One can, I would like to say, look through the form of the Russian Church at ancient sacred oriental things and feel this ancient sacred oriental essence.

Compare this with what has occurred in the Occident, where, as you know, in a development of dogma and ceremony that has been repeatedly challenged, there has been a continuous reshaping, transformation, and thus a creative intervention in what was once adopted by the community that then became the Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism, and so on. This adaptability, this receptivity, is to some extent the first fundamental characteristic of the Russian people.

A second fundamental characteristic is a certain dislike on the part of the Russian people for what we call the permeation of life with intellectuality. The Russian person does not like to be constrained by many precisely defined laws in social life. He demands, as it were, a kind of arbitrary existence of the ego. That the intellect spans a network of legality and that the individual then strictly adheres to such forms of intellect in social life, that is what the Russian man, at least practically, does not want to understand, even if he sometimes goes into it theoretically. He asks more about what the ego wants at the moment, based on the inspiration of the moment.

A third characteristic of the Russian people is – Herder, in particular, pointed this out in a thorough manner; the Slavophiles then took up this Herderian view, which is a German view, and developed it to the point of a kind of megalomania – that the Russian people have retained what is generally found in the oriental character, a certain peacefulness. However strange it may sound, it is in the nature of the Russian people, because the Russian people did not make this war as such: it was instigated by those in power. He has a certain peaceableness. He has the deep belief that the way in which Western European religion develops leads to conflict and quarrel. It is not in the character of the Oriental man to wage war against his fellow men because of religious dogmas. It is even a little strange – it is indeed true, but it is true – that people now notice it so strongly in the Turks, who also have this oriental trait, that they do not become aggressive with regard to religious life itself.

As I said, it lies in the faith, in the consciousness of the Russian people. These three qualities, on the other hand, are particularly susceptible to abuse by those who seek to exploit them. It is very easy to use the adaptability of the Russian character, as the Slavophiles did and as the Pan-Slavists are now doing to a great extent, to persuade the Russian people that they are called upon to replace the decrepit, senile European culture, which is decaying and dying, with Russian life instead.

On the other hand, if the second quality I mentioned is misused, one can persuade the Russian people that the whole of Western and Central European culture has become decrepit because of its particular penchant for intellectualism, for a certain rationality, that this Western European culture is devoid of any truly true mystical quality.

And thirdly, if you want to abuse the third quality of the Russian people, which has been mentioned, the most peaceful quality can be perverted by organizing the otherwise peaceful masses and calling them to the bloodiest fight. Because really, the contradictions touch each other in the world, and especially such contradictions as are being discussed here. But what the Russian people have to mean in the development of European culture is not related to what Russian rulers are now making of this Russian people, but to the three qualities mentioned.

. And these three characteristics determine the Russian nature to enter into a certain connection with the Central European and Western European nature. Because the Russian national character is adaptable, it is called upon, first of all, to achieve what we have often spoken of, what it has to achieve in the sixth post-Atlantic cultural period, first of all not through creativity, but through existence. To achieve this, it must absorb what comes to it from the West. I have often spoken of it as a kind of spiritual marriage. Years, even decades before the outbreak of this war, I may say, a kind of marriage that is necessary between the Central European being and the Russian being in terms of spiritual development.

The fact that the Russian people have a certain aversion to intellectualism will make it possible to create certain social institutions with the Russian people that will only be possible if the aforementioned marriage really takes place.

And in a similar way, the Russian national character will have to relate to what can be given within Central Europe in general. Tomorrow, in the public lecture, we will again have to speak of such things that follow from the Central European nature and that must be incorporated as something great, powerful, and everlasting into the whole course of human development. But the Russian people will have to accept what is achieved by the Central European nature. It is not initially self-creative within this post-Atlantic period.

But now, in contrast to this, what can be characterized as the essence of Russian nationality, .the Central European nationality and the Western European nationality, that Western European nationality, which after the reign of Queen Elizabeth of England essentially became a British nationality, an Anglo-Saxon nationality. And among the many results of these momentous events, which of course it is not my profession to somehow color, it will most certainly be the case that the other Western European states, no matter how these events turn out, will gradually become vassals, dependent peoples of England. In particular, the French will experience the bitterest disappointments. But these are not the things that really matter. What matters to us today is to emphasize the great contrast that exists between the Central European character and the Western European, especially the British and Anglo-Saxon character.

There has never been – and this may go unnoticed today by those who do not want to think, who do not want to observe – a greater contrast in world-historical development than this contrast between Central European and Anglo-Saxon natures. Not as if the individual personality could not rise above it. That is not the point; the point is nationality. Of course, when such things are being characterized, it is never meant to imply that the individual Englishman cannot, of course, rise above the things being characterized. We should not think that we have somehow fallen into the errors of our belligerent opponents and that we must now thoroughly vilify the English character because it is different. Of course, it would be necessary to try to gather together all the possible building blocks that would actually be needed to fully understand the contrast I have been hinting at. But this contrast can become clear to us from the point of view of: on the one hand, if we look at the Central European nature, at the heart of which stands the German nature, in relation to the Russian nature of the East, and on the other hand, if we look at the British, French nature in its relationship to the Russian East. There we have one of the greatest contrasts in the development of mankind. I must, however, merely point out to you today some of the things that I will be discussing in tomorrow's public lecture. But I would like the small group of those who belong to the spiritual science movement to understand what will be said in more detail tomorrow more deeply than it can be understood at first, if one does not penetrate deeper into spiritual science.

You see, the Central European nature is one that is national in a completely different way than any other nationality in the whole development of mankind. Take all the Western European peoples: they are national, so to speak, out of the blood. The German is national out of the soul. The German is national in that he constantly strives to lift certain contents of the soul life out of the general soul life and to transplant them into his own soul. That is why we experience something so great within the German character, such as Goethe's works of art, Herder's historical reflection or the world-view efforts of Hegel, Schelling and Fichte.

Even if these things are still little known in wider circles today, they will become known. For, contrary to all opinions expressed about them, I must say that they can become popular, they can be presented in such a way that every child can understand them, despite the fact that this is not believed today. That will happen. Everything that is a genuine German world view grows out of the deepest soul essence of the German people. And a spiritual movement could never arise within the German soul that would be similar in character to the spiritual movements of the West, if it is to be fruitful. We must not overlook this difference, we must face it squarely. Within the German national soul, everything that is the content of spiritual science must stand in harmonious relationship to what the people as such produce. That is why I said last time I was here in Stuttgart: If you look at the world view of Schelling, Fichte and Hegel, it is as if the whole nation were meditating. One always feels placed in the folk, but in the soul of the folk when one speaks of the German folk. One cannot speak of German nationality in any other way than by taking into account the spiritual characteristics of this German nationality, that which must be striven for. And it is impossible within Germanness, as it is possible in England, for science to exist on the one hand and for this science to want to completely ignore faith on the other. That is not possible in the long term within the German nation. The German wants unity. He wants to have a spirituality that can stand fully on the ground of science, and he wants to have a science that knows how to justify itself before the spiritual life.

This contrast is most evident in the Goethean and Newtonian theories of colors. For more than thirty years I have been trying to bring out the Goethean theory of colors in contrast to the Newtonian one. While Goethe's theory of colors arises entirely from the deep interweaving of the soul with the world, Newton's theory of colors proceeds from a mechanical view of the world and strives for nothing else. And physics today is so anglicized that it does not even notice what is at stake in this field, that it naturally considers anyone who takes Goethe's theory of colors seriously to be a fool.

There is a striving towards spirituality within German national character. Therefore, within German national character, one is also obliged to reckon with what has been sought in ardent spiritual striving by the best of this nation, by those whom we have already mentioned and by those whom we will mention again tomorrow, precisely as a path to spiritual science. But then this German national character cannot but strive objectively, turned to the matter itself. This is something that the English or the French cannot understand. The Frenchman wants to have a beautiful word, to have everything shaped into a beautiful phrase, and then he is satisfied. The Englishman wants to ask where the use of knowledge or the like lies. But the fact that the knowledge we strive for is something that must grow out of the soul like a flower out of a plant, without which man does not feel like a whole human being, is something that neither the French — as Frenchmen, of course, the individual is not at issue — nor the Anglo-Saxons understand.

The task of the German soul is to accomplish what has been achieved since the time of the ancient Greeks for the fourth post-Atlantic cultural period, namely to shape the experience of the soul into a world of ideas. And one really does not need to be a nationalist in the narrow-minded sense, but rather a completely objective observer of the development of humanity, to emphasize this. And you know that I have not only emphasized this in the context of this war, but these considerations have been part of what I have been saying among us for years, for a decade and a half.

But the fact that this German essence is so, means that it is called upon, for psychological and objective reasons, to enter into the spiritual marriage with the Russian East. And the cultural task of the future will never be able to be fulfilled in any other way than by the Russian adaptability accepting what can come out of German national character. And all future cultural development is a question of this connection between Central Europe and Eastern Europe.

The situation is different for Western Europe. Western Europe has adopted what the fourth post-Atlantic cultural period has brought and developed it independently, but in the way I have often described: only through the three soul forces: sentient soul, intellectual soul, consciousness soul. What this fourth post-Atlantic cultural period essentially sends out is not productive. In particular, the British folk soul, the Anglo-Saxon folk soul, has the task of developing the consciousness soul, developing that which is primarily oriented towards usefulness in relation to the physical plane.

Hence all the phenomena that we see occurring within Western Europe, especially within the Anglo-Saxon peoples. But now this Anglo-Saxon people in particular instinctively feel that what is actually fruitful is the Central European, essentially the German influence of Central Europe. And those who lead the so-called occult movements of Western Europe, namely the Anglo-Saxon people, know what is at stake. Those who lead the occult movements in the Anglo-Saxon culture are initially filled with two trains of thought. The first train of thought is that they say to themselves: the Roman Catholic essence is gone; that essentially belongs to the fourth post-Atlantic period. The Anglo-Saxon essence must take the place of what was in the Roman cult. And every occultist of a certain kind, that is, every occultist who is steeped in his own nationality, and with the exception of a few, all of them in Anglo-Saxonism, knows — that is, he imagines that he has real knowledge — that the “Anglo-Saxon race”, as he says, must take the place of the Roman essence. This is taught in all occult schools. It is a fixed dogma.

And in the same way, people instinctively know that, to a certain extent, the recruits for the introduction to life of everything that culture must bring, the recruits who must absorb it passively through their adaptation, are Russian people.

These two things are very well known to the Anglo-Saxon occultists, that is, they see it that way, that is their conviction. Their conviction is, on the one hand, that Anglo-Saxonism has to replace the Roman essence; everything else, Protestantism, Calvinism and so on, are only appendages. Anglo-Saxonism must produce something in the world – as I said, I am now speaking of the occultists – that stands for the fifth post-Atlantic culture in the same way as the Roman Catholic essence stood for the second period of the fourth post-Atlantic culture, even as late as the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries.

And now every occultist on this side is convinced that, above all, the bridge must be created between what Anglo-Saxons ascribe to themselves and the Russian essence. To infuse into the Russian soul that which Anglo-Saxon occultism seeks to teach is the ideal that emerges from the second point I have mentioned for every Anglo-Saxon occultist: to use the Russian soul as a kind of wax into which is imprinted that which Anglo-Saxon occultism wants. This ideal is far more prevalent in the circles I am now talking about than anything that is the main thing for us here.

For us, the main thing is real knowledge, real striving for truth, and our honest fundamental conviction is that when we find the truth, this truth will give people what they need, and that this truth, when we seek it in the right way, will also fructify in the right way the coming cultural epochs, so that what must happen to the peoples of Europe will come to pass, if the truth is honestly sought in the right way. Nothing more is needed than the honest search for truth; that is the true principle of spiritual science.

But this is opposed by a principle such as I have just characterized, which puts a particular race at the helm, a particular race in power, in power above all in relation to the life of the soul. We are not speaking politically now, we are speaking of what is rooted in the depths as occult paths: to make the Anglo-Saxon soul powerful and to use the Eastern European nature, which is adaptable and receptive, and to infuse it with what one wants to infuse into it, so that a marriage can arise between Anglo-Saxon and Russian. The inner impulses of human development speak of a marriage of the German nature with Russian nature. The selfish will of Anglo-Saxon occultism speaks of the fact that Russian nature must be permeated with Anglo-Saxon nature in terms of occult development of the soul.

You must face these things squarely; they are extraordinarily important. I am mentioning them as they are taught more and more in all possible occult directions in the West, especially in the Anglo-Saxon occult schools. But that which basically only the consciousness soul has to cultivate cannot acquire real content. Real occultism, however, which does not unfold desires for power but seeks the truth, is completely in organic, vital connection with the German development and is completely anchored within the German development.

But what has happened, my dear friends? If the development since the Middle Ages had not been disturbed by Ahrimanic forces, if what has happened in Europe for spiritual science had developed organically, without Ahrimanic influences (we will talk about some very late events again tomorrow), then it would be easier to see today that everything the West has achieved in the way of spiritual science has emerged from the Germanic essence. But permeated by Anglo-Saxon influences, German spiritual science was carried in masks into Anglo-Saxon and also into French culture. Only the terminology, the naming of the individual facts, was adapted to the French or English language. But if you get to the bottom of it, all that is contained in French and English occultism is German spiritual scientific research in a masked form, Central European spiritual scientific research.

In a way that I will discuss in a moment, what was called the Theosophical Society contained nothing but facts with Indian or other names that were found within German spiritual science. And the aim of the Theosophical Society was to conceal these facts from the Germans as much as possible. For the Anglo-Saxon world aims to obliterate the truth of the Central European development in relation to spiritual science everywhere and to replace it with itself. Here it is the most eminent lust for power that springs from occultism. And it was a simple necessity that the peeling which has now really taken place since the turn of the century should take place, that what was originally German and what unfortunately our Germans only too gladly received with open arms from Englishness should be returned, that it should be restored in its original purity. A truth has been established. It had to be established. The fact that this truth has been established will never be forgiven by the English Theosophical Society of our German aspirations, as they have been from the beginning. This can only be veiled by slander.

But very systematically, very purposefully, all those who want to develop power within the occultist aspirations are proceeding. Therefore, it is so necessary not to be asleep in the face of these efforts, but to develop some clarity. Clarity is especially necessary in the face of significant phenomena. And clarity is particularly necessary, for example, in the face of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who was of course the decisive personality for the Theosophical Society.

What underlies clarity in this area can be linked to two facts: The first fact is that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a Russian woman who had grown out of her Russian background. The second fact is that she left behind a kind of secret science in English guise, that she gradually grew completely into what Anglo-Saxon occultism strives for, but in a roundabout way that was due to the great talent of this woman. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was, I might say, in a certain sense, a mediumistic personality, who could only develop such adaptability, including occult-spiritual qualities, out of her Russian nationality. What the Russian otherwise has as generally human qualities, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky had precisely in terms of occult qualities. And so it came about that in Western Europe she was first attracted by French occultism, then by a certain type of British occultism, which she found to be an appropriate infusion for her soul. She believed she had to give the world something that the Anglo-Saxon occultism, as it were, prefigured, revealing itself out of the Russian soul. Instead of the coming union of the Central European and Russian natures, the penetration of Russian nature — in Helena Petrovna Blavatsky as the representative of Russian nationality — with Anglo-Saxon power occultism was deliberately and consciously placed. Those who, as it were, wanted to hold the threads of life as it develops outwardly in the physical plan were not uninvolved in this. Many tragic things have happened to the poor personality of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, which I cannot go into today. Precisely because of her profound and comprehensive mediumship, into which all kinds of things could be poured, many, many things have happened. And it was a long way from the starting point, where attempts were first made to transmit Central European material directly to Blavatsky, which then appeared in an admittedly kaleidoscopic, almost unusable form in the “Veiled Isis”. But very soon, other personalities took hold of her, under very different influences, and in place of the one who was her leader and who wanted to guide her to Central European beings, later, in the mask of the original leader, the so-called later Koot-Hoomi individuality, which, however, according to the truly knowledgeable occultists, was nothing more than a person in the pay of the Russians who consciously wanted to forge together what could emerge from the psychic ability of Blavatsky and Anglo-Saxon occultism. One is dealing with the clash, I would say, of an original individuality – some call it master, you can call it what you want – and a later impostor, a swindler, who had assumed the mask of the first and had been given the task, on the part of Eastern Europe, which I have just hinted at.

Then the time began when Blavatsky was to join forces with occult France, where she wanted to quickly achieve certain goals and therefore presented an occultist lodge in Paris with such conditions that could not be met, so that she soon had to be expelled again because, under the influence of the individuals behind her, she always combined occult intentions with political power impulses. Then followed the American episode, which again had a political background. All these things were intended to present something to Europe that would convince Europe that a kind of new world religion for Europe could emerge from the union of spiritual Russian and Anglo-Saxon occultist lust for power. That was to be presented to Europe. And what had emerged from the German essence was to be overrun.

Oh my dear friends, I well remember – and it could be unpleasant for some how clearly such things stand before my soul – how Mrs. Besant held her very first meeting in Germany in Hamburg, and how I interpellated her within a small circle at the time, how she thinks about the development of occultism in the 19th century, and how she gave the answer in Hamburg at the time: At the turn of the 18th to the 19th century, something like occult striving asserted itself in Germany, but the Germans got stuck in pure abstractions, and it turned out that the great – as she expressed it, she always expressed herself grandly – that the great wave of spiritual life had been granted to the British people. Of course she said that in English, but it was even greater in English!

For Blavatsky, the time came when it became necessary for all those who were serious about spiritual science and who could not get involved in Anglo-Saxon lust for power to do something. And that is what later in occult circles was called Blavatsky's “occult imprisonment”. There was no other way of bringing it about. And the decision to impose this occult imprisonment, as it is called, upon Blavatsky was taken by a gathering of honest occultists, or at least the majority of them, in the last third of the nineteenth century.

Occult imprisonment consists of the fact that, through certain processes, it is possible to imprison a person's aspirations in a sphere from which he cannot see out, so that his aspirations are reflected back and he cannot cause certain damage that he would otherwise cause.

The process I am about to describe, this imposition of occult imprisonment, is not flawless; but, as I said, the people could not help themselves in any other way. Blavatsky was a strong psychic personality and could have a strong effect. That is why her writings have such an overwhelming and, on the other hand, misleading power.

Then there was what can be described as certain Indian occultists, who wanted to take a little revenge in this way because of the English stranglehold, taking possession of Blavatsky's personality, and that's where the Indian influence came in. I have discussed this in more detail elsewhere, but here I will only hint at it.

So the Indian influence came, and that is how that dubious occult science came into being, which was cultivated in the Theosophical Society for a long time and which had to be cleansed of that which was to appear in Central Europe as spiritual science. For that which is to arise in Central Europe as spiritual science must, in the sense I have indicated, be thoroughly honest, that is to say, it must strive for the truth as such and be convinced that the truth, flowing through our souls and through the development of humanity, will bring about the right thing within nations and also within the existence of human beings, the social order of human beings: pure, honest seeking of truth! And this pure, honest seeking of truth is, after all, still our main task.

I wish that this would be understood more precisely within our spiritual scientific movement here, then one would also forgive me certain additional conditions, which I must set, and would see that these conditions must be taken more precisely. How often do I admonish our friends, one should, so that one can remain pure with what is to be brought to the world as spiritual science, so that it cannot be adapted from any side, do not come to me with all kinds of other things that can be so easily combined with spiritual scientific endeavors. Of course, people are quite willing to do anything that human will can demand, and in a friendly way many things can happen, but in any case it must be understood why I repeatedly and repeatedly admonish people not to believe that I am even remotely involved in pharmacology, any more than I am involved in other, non-spiritual fields. It is necessary that our members should get into the habit of taking seriously what I say, namely, that in the main they should not come to me with medical matters. It is essential that these matters should be understood, because it is still necessary, at least for the time being, to keep the spiritual-scientific endeavour, as far as I am concerned, quite separate from other matters. There are enough medical personalities within our movement to whom our members can turn for help. Since I emphasize this again and again, it should be taken seriously, at least in principle, when I say: I do not want to get involved in any kind of healing; because in doing so, the world will only misunderstand what the spiritual scientific movement should do through me in the first instance, and that should not be misunderstood.

How little there actually was in Anglo-Saxonism of a proper understanding of the pure, objective striving for truth could be known by those who had once heard a remarkable lecture by Mrs. Besant on “Theosophy and Imperialism”. From this lecture one could intuitively feel much of what I had to say today based on the facts: Spiritual science should never be mixed with any kind of lust for power, with any kind of direct political aspiration, although it goes without saying that someone who is a good spiritual scientist can be the best politician. But that is not the point. Rather, spiritual science must not become what occultism is in Anglo-Saxon culture, which I have tried to characterize; spiritual science must not become something that has been striven for precisely through Blavatsky, and then in many respects also through Mrs. Besant, only with less talent and less gift than through Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. The endeavour was, after all, on the part of Anglo-Saxondom to found a kind of occult religion by means of the spiritual experiences of a personality such as Blavatsky was. This religion would have carried Anglo-Saxondom, by way of conquest over Germanism, directly into Russism. In the schools, where not in Blavatsky's way but in the Anglo-Saxon occult way of teaching the things I have already mentioned are taught, the war in which we are now engaged has been spoken of again and again as a necessary one. And again and again in such schools the outcome of this war is spoken of very suggestively in such a way that one says: This and that must happen because of this war. - It is not said out of a sense of prophecy, but because it is desired, because the aim is to gain as much influence as possible, to prepare people through all channels that can be reached at the time. Because when people are taught all kinds of occultism in masks, the aim is to prepare people for a certain direction. That is why I must ask – I must discuss these things because they are already being discussed publicly, and because someone who represents spiritual science as I do must make it clear how he stands on these things: Why did an occult personality known to occultists in Paris travel to Rome again and again immediately after the war between Germany, Russia, England and France broke out, and as late as October 1914? Why did this person play a role in Rome that later had an influence on the situation in Italy, a role similar to that played by certain people who belonged to the 'Grand Orient de France' or were connected with Anglo-Saxon freemasons, and which had a profound influence on the course of current events, much more than one might think?

But I must ask something else: why does the yearbook, which the same personality, who is used, one could also say abused, by certain currents of occultism, for all sorts of stuff – as I said, because it is already being discussed in the world, so I have to show on which side I stand in these matters? Why does the 1913 yearbook, published by this personality and which actually appeared in 1912, state: 'He who believes he rules Austria will not rule, but another, younger one will rule, who is not yet destined to rule'? Why is this in a yearbook of a medium that is part of a certain occult current? Why is the same thing repeated in the yearbook in 1914 – that is, before the year 1914 came, for 1914, but already published in 1913: The tragedy of the Habsburg house will be fulfilled faster than one might think. Why is this in these yearbooks? And even more: Why does a Parisian paper, which could be called 'Paris Midday' in German, already express the wish in 1913 that the Austrian 'heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand must be murdered? This paper corresponds approximately to what is in Berlin 'B. Z. am Mittag': 'Paris midi' is that, widely read. Why does the almanac state on one page what I have quoted: “He who thinks he rules will not rule, but a younger one will rule,” and on the other page the wish that this archduke be murdered? Why does the same paper, when the debate on the three-year term of office in France took place, cynically write: If mobilization should take place in France, Jaures will be the first to be assassinated'? Do you think that, my dear friends, is prophecy? I would just like to show you that I am not on the side of those who think this is prophecy, but that it all points to deep, dreadful undercurrents in the abuse of charlatanry, but downright dangerous to humanity, in the occult.

Today I wanted to tell you something that may not be uplifting, but it is all the more serious. I wanted to ask your soul whether a person does not really have to acquire a very clear view if they want to be involved in an occult current, and whether it might not be a bad thing if you wanted to oversleep the most important things. My dear friends, anyone who wants to study the connection of the Theosophical Society – as it has gradually become more and more – with such things, need only keep a sharp eye on the activities of such personalities as, for example, Mrs. Catherine Tingley. And it is also instructive that when something was to be introduced into what should be solely Anglo-Saxon, from a more Christian point of view, even through a strong medium, in the little book 'Light on the Path' by Mabel Collins, the slander started. For most of what has been said against the medium through which “Light on the Path” has been given to humanity is slander.

I wanted to speak to you today with some seriousness, so that out of this seriousness many of us may get an idea of how necessary it is to become aware of the Central European mission in relation to spiritual science, and that it is absolutely necessary for this Central European mission to become a world mission. Above all, this Central European mission must be a pure and honest striving for truth. But this pure and honest striving for truth was understood in a strange way, and the distortions of the truth were also understood in a strange way. You know that the relationship between the German spiritual movement, to which we belong, and the Theosophical Society was dissolved long before the war. All that I have hinted at was understood in a strange way. Just consider that Mrs. Besant, for example, managed to say that I had aspired to become president of the Theosophical Society in India in order to oust her from the presidential chair and to use pan-German currents in England-hostile fashion in favor of the German Reich by way of a detour through India! You will really believe that this is not true, that this is an objective untruth!

The following is in contrast to this: In 1909, a society was founded against the horrors of Mr. Leadbeater, and later also against the humbug of Alcyone, which was to include all countries of the world and was to be a counterweight to those misled by Mrs. Besant. And at that time I was invited from India to become the chairman, the president of this international society, and I not only refused, but in 1909 in Budapest, in front of witnesses, I told Mrs. Besant that I never want to be anything else within the spiritual movement of modern times than the one who leads this movement within the German national organism. I said this before witnesses in Budapest in 1909 to Mrs. Besant. Now she takes it so seriously with the truth that she writes in her English magazine that I had tried to go to India and so on, in order to displace her from there! One can no longer speak of objective untruthfulness, since it is, of course, a conscious lie. But it is necessary to work with such means when the issue is that one has to fight against the course of truth itself; and that is basically what Anglo-Saxon occultism is. Because the truth is this: what is connected to the essence of Central European beings is what, as spiritual science, has to permeate human culture. But this has to be veiled, covered, masked in some way from England. And more and more in the 20th century, Mrs. Besant has also become an instrument of this veiling.

There is a sufficient need to reflect on what should flow in our movement. The spiritual-earthly task is really there. We have no reason to do so without examining and testing, to give blind allegiance to one or the other. But that is not something that can be very tempting today: to want nothing more than the honest development of the truth. You know how attacks and also ridicule and scorn are raining down from all sides within and outside our society. But in addition to all this, there is something else: More and more of our spiritual-scientific movement is flowing out into this or that soul. Those who have an eye for it already feel what flows from our books or our public lectures into the soul of people. But when these people, who are sometimes quite willing to defend what they have allowed to flow into them, should unreservedly profess what our movement is trying to do in such earnest, namely to enter into the spiritual path of humanity, then peculiar phenomena come to light. Sometimes it is really the case that people are glad to grasp many a truth that has been produced on our soil, but that they take every honest, wholehearted approach to us as if, for example, they would burn their fingers by actually touching me. It is a very common phenomenon, more common than one might think! Among those who are honestly concerned, not with some personality or other, but with my own, honest spiritual scientific striving for truth, one can assume that they will also profess it unconditionally. Because, my dear friends, the seriousness is great, the seriousness is enormous.

The things I have said should not be spoken out of some national sentiment. Basically, I have only told you facts; they should characterize what is present as occult antagonisms in Europe and which, for those who want to see, can already explain much of the antagonisms of the physical plane.

And I would like to emphasize it again and again: we need seriousness in order to find the right direction in a serious time, so that what I have already emphasized here may come true, which lies in the words:

From the courage of the fighters,
From the blood of the battles,
From the suffering of the abandoned,
From the people's sacrificial deeds
Will grow spiritual fruit —
Guiding souls, spiritually aware
Their minds into the spiritual realm.

Recently, Ludwig Jacobowski ¹ with his “Loki” a narrative poem that depicts in symbolic acts the heavy, hot struggles that take place at the bottom of every human soul that does not merge into the hustle and bustle of everyday life, but leads a deeper life. Those who immerse themselves in this “novel of a god” will be captivated by the poet's deep insight into the workings of the soul and his powerful sense of everything that shakes, elevates and plunges the human heart into abysses.

Now Jacobowski has followed up this creation with his “New Poems”*. Through them we can look into the depths of his own soul, into the experiences of his inner life, into everything that has lifted him up to the high vantage point from which he surveys the world and its mysteries in “Loki”. The great, free worldview that we encounter in the novel is deeply rooted in the poet's nature. Two character traits are inherent in this nature, which, in their harmonious interaction, always determine the significant personality: a fine, receptive sense for all the individual things that confront us in life, and a mind that grasps the great connections between the details in their true significance. We owe the fresh, rich colors that shine out at us from Jacobowski's poems to his receptive senses; and it is through his mind that the poet always points out to us what “holds the world together at its core”. In the “Shining Days” we never miss the great view of the essence of the world that lies behind the eternal flow of appearances. Rather, these poems constantly direct our feelings and our imagination towards this essence. One always has the feeling that this poet draws from the eternal source from which the best content of life flows to us.

For those whose spirit is directed in such a way, life is not easy. For every step means a test for them. The world has many secrets to reveal to them. But nature does not give anything away voluntarily. It wrings everything from us in a hard struggle. It paves the way to every goal with suffering and deprivation. But the essence to which it ultimately always leads us is that which satisfies the heart and mind. The mists of existence dissolve; and the sun of life smiles upon us. The true artist shows us this sun. Because it is the sun that, as a spiritual bond, causes the connection of things. All genuine art is therefore “cheerful”. And a sunny cheerfulness, a cheerfulness born out of the difficult struggle of life: these are the things that flow from Jacobowski's poems to us.

Oh, our shining days
Shine like eternal stars.
As a consolation for future lamentation
They glow from a golden distance.

Don't cry because they're gone!
Smile because they have been!
And even if the days are gloomy,
our stars will redeem them!

Jacobowski introduces the collection with this poem, as if with an artistic gospel, and he ends it with the confession:

Sinking arms,
folded hands,
Around me the warm,
land illuminated;
Eyelashes closed
In the flattering light,
flowing around
The brown face.

Stand in the sun
that I fade away...
Wistfulness becomes bliss,
And bliss becomes woe!
If only I had grace
And kindness and pleasure,
To bathe in the glow
The darkest breast! ...

Shining days,
Now you sink slowly!
Alas, without complaint
I look after you.
Secret glow,
That so surrounds me,
Shines forever
The blooming world!

The liberating keynote that resounds throughout the book is expressed in these verses. However powerful the individual experiences may be that inspire the poet, his mind always pushes him towards the heights of existence, towards those bright regions for which the transience of everyday life is only a metaphor. Just as every individual experience becomes a symbol of the eternal ideas of world events for the philosopher, so for the true lyricist every individual feeling, every particular mood becomes a symbol of the entire fate of the soul. And Jacobowski is a true lyricist in this highest sense. See how in the following verses ($. 56) a single feeling comes to life in a universal one.

Brown twigs protrude from a white vase
And drag heavily on the densely filled lilac.
Bright green leaves push through
through the brown branches. The wind gently brushes the blossoms,
A scent runs up and down in shivers.
The whole room drinks itself full of lilac,
And even the soul feels the blossoms softly.

Once I was so happy in my heart
suck sweets from lilac stems. —
Oh, I do it again and make children's eyes
And feel the youth in the sap of the blossom!

This diversion of the individual experience into the general is a fundamental trait of Jacobowski's personality. It works in him like a natural process of life in the human organism. He does not seek depth anywhere, he does not strive beyond the individual. This lives in his soul in an immediate way, as the individual plant appears before us as a representative of its entire species. One need only compare his poetry with that of Richard Dehmel to grasp the immediacy of his universal feelings. In Dehmel's work, the path from the individual experience to the great world connections always leads through the idea, through abstraction. In Jacobowski's work, this is not necessary. For he feels universally. He does not need the world of imagination to rise to the primal facts of the soul; every experience of the soul has for him the character of the eternally significant.

This trait in Jacobowski is inextricably linked to another, without which greatness in the human soul is not possible. This is the feeling for the great, simple lines in the world. Everything great in the world is simple; and if someone does not feel the simple greatness of the simple, but seeks the significant in the strange, in the so-called secrets of existence, this only proves that he has lost the sense of the great that meets us at every moment of life. The sins of some modern poets, who seek salvation in random, remote moods because they lack a sense of the simple, the “simple-minded”, are far removed from Jacobowski. Just as in a folk song, an everyday event can trigger a gigantic strength of feeling, so in Jacobowski's work a simple event becomes great because he transports it into the sphere of his mind. It is the simplest thing in the world; and at the same time it is one of the deepest experiences that can happen to a person, as is shown in the poem “The Old Woman” (p. 207):

The old woman

I

I have an old woman,
She lives right next to heaven,
For it is exactly ninety steps,
And children on it, a real muddle.

In her little room, clean and bright
The loud echo of the streets resounds. And slowly night falls in
Darkening on the masses of houses.

The full moon climbs over the roof,
the stars shine in a circle,
The wall clock ticks only slowly...
We sit there motionless and silent.

II

What do I have in common with the old woman?
I don't know exactly.
It can't be her coffee,
she puts too much milk in it,
I only love her baked apples,
She cooks them for me in the oven."
What do I have in common with the old woman?
That makes a narrow grave far away. There she laid her hopes,
A slim, blonde maiden. She went through life quietly,
And thought of one and that was me. And no one else realized
That she was the sweetness of my life. When I feel life is confused and rough,
Then I climb up to the old woman.
For her modest little chamber
Holds my soul's blossom within.
And when I come to her, I feel pain. And only when I leave her!

The following lines will describe the outstanding place that Jacobowski occupies among contemporary poets and present the character of his lyrical creations in detail.

II

Looking back on the “Shining Days” as a whole, after enjoying the individual poems, a unified, self-contained work of art stands before the soul. All the lyrical creations form a stylish harmony. The circle of human soul life passes before us. The feelings that are aroused in us by the sublimity and perfection of the whole world, the relationship of the soul to the world, human nature in various forms, the joys and sorrows of love, the pain and happiness of knowledge, the social conditions and their repercussions on the human mind, the mysterious paths of fate: all these elements of the life organism find expression. Nothing is alien to the personality that lives itself out in this book; it is at home on the heights and in the depths of existence. And one has the feeling that in this personality every feeling is given the right measure, the right degree. None pushes itself forward at the expense of the others. A harmonious universality, radiating from the central interests of life, is Jacobowski's essence. And his feelings are driven by these interests in life with a warmth and strength that have a personal and immediate effect in the most beautiful sense of the word. What moves all of humanity becomes, in a truly lyrical way, a matter of its own for this poet. We do not need to put ourselves in the place of a single individual in order to understand his creations; he guides us to our own inner selves. He expresses in his own way what moves us all. He has the magic wand to strike poetic sparks from life everywhere, and therefore does not need to look for peculiarities. Sentimentalism is as foreign to him as delicate sensitivity is his own; he is not a dreamer, but a powerful grabber. A rare confidence in his spiritual direction, a sure, firm feeling of the fruitfulness of his striving speaks from his poems. There is something pithy and delicate at the same time in his nature; he is like a tree that is exposed to strong storms, but is firmly rooted in the ground. He knows that he can abandon himself to life, to the everyday, because he finds treasures everywhere, even on the most trodden paths.

Compare Jacobowski with contemporary poets of note. How many believe that they will only find what is valuable if they search for the shells and extract rare, precious pearls from them. Jacobowski is not looking for shiny pearls; the seed that he reaches for, the common flower at the edge of the meadow, is enough for him. If one wants to name contemporary poets who, after having delighted us with his “Shining Days”, now stand with him in the front row, then only two names will come to mind: Detlev von Liliencron and Otto Erich Hartleben. The differences between the three poets are, however, great. And it is difficult for us to assess them when they are still in the prime of their lives, still stirring up new feelings in us every day. We can only give a provisional and very subjective judgment. Otto Erich Hartleben, the lyricist, seems to me like Goethe's description of the artist in “Winckelmann”. With his admirable taste and his cult of beauty, he communicates something to us that flows over us like ancient art. In this respect, he stands so much alone that we would rather isolate him than compare him. Detlev von Liliencron is the lyrical master of detail. His eye sees every thing in the light of the eternal. But his mind knows nothing of this eternity; that is why he tells us nothing about it. With Liliencron, it is as if we had to hear a second voice if we are to understand the coherence of his images. We must have a kind of second sight with this poet: then we will see what he gives us in the light of the eternally meaningful. Jacobowski has this second sight himself. And with it he achieves something that only poets achieve who create from a worldview, and what I must regard as the hallmark of the true poet: that the philosopher must call him a “brother poet” and at the same time that the simplest mind finds itself in him. The simplest nature and the highest spirit that can be drawn from this nature are one and the same.

Jacobowski's poetry will pass the highest test there is for a poet: to be equally appealing to the man who goes to work in the morning and can only use the festive moments on Sundays to let the serene realm of art work its magic on him, and to the true philosopher who is on familiar terms with the eternal riddles of existence. Like the philosopher, Jacobowski is a world thinker. See how he translates the great idea of Indian wisdom, that everything in the world is only an illusion and therefore need not touch us, into a very individual feeling:

“It's nothing! Just walk past the world!”

This strange word does not set my heart free.
How gladly would I pass by the world,
But, alas, the world does not pass me by!

For even if I stand in hiding like children,
fearfully turned away from the dance of the days, —
They drag me out of the corner by force,
And each one presses pain into my hand.

In a poem like this, the highest wisdom seems like the most charming naivety; the three most monumental forms of the soul reveal their innermost relationship: the childlike, the artistic and the philosophical.

Because Jacobowski unites these three forms in the most original way, I believe that as a poet he surpasses his contemporary Dehmel. He is a complete poet; Dehmel is half poet and half thinker. And two such halves make as little of a whole as a half lens and a half bean. In Dehmel's work, you will look in vain for a poem as simple as the following, which could almost serve as a motto for many of the greatest philosophical creations:

Soul, tell me, what are you struggling for?
“I am of the earth, but I long to be of heaven!"
Soul, you only achieve night and death?
“A morning red glows over nights!"

In a beautiful psychological study in “Pan” (1898, 3rd [issue, 4th year]), the brilliant Lou Andreas-Salome hit the nail on the head when she said: “In our time, many, and not the worst, turn away from the whole outer life and even despise it as a mere occasion for personal activity and self-realization, because they feel themselves hemmed in and robbed of their individual existence by the entire cultural conditions in which we live. [...] There is a search and longing for solitude in the most advanced people, in all those who carry something within themselves that cannot be born on the market, in all those who carry hope and future within themselves and secretly fear that these could be desecrated. They know full well that the great works that stride across the earth with brazen steps of victory and ringing music, century after century, arise from full contact with the full breadth and depth of real life, but until then – they also know this – many other, quieter works must precede them in white robes, with shy buds in their hair, and testify that there are human souls that are festively dressed and willing and ready for a new beauty in their lives.” On the other hand, it is safe to say that in the future, people with white robes and shy buds in their hair will be interesting symptoms of the end of the nineteenth century, people who will be studied for their peculiarity, but that the real signature of this period will be the spirits with healthy senses, with developed blossoms in their hair, who love fresh colors and not the pale, sickly white. We count Jacobowski among them.

Our healthy thinking has given rise to Darwinism and all its consequences in the second half of the century; on the paths along which this healthy thinking and healthy feeling walks, we also meet poets like Jacobowski. Alienated from the world, lost in aesthetic and philosophic-mystical quirks, we encounter poets with white robes and shy buds in their hair. Artificial poetic forms are of little value, as are bizarre, ingenious ideas. Both, however, always arise in times of powerful spiritual struggle. However, they never appear in the case of strong, original, independent minds, but rather in the case of weak, dependent minds that cannot produce original content from their souls, that have to extract everything from themselves with pliers and pumps, but that would still like to participate. Such minds are not equal to the demands and tasks of the time. They do not know any simple, straightforward answers to the questions that are buzzing around us. That is why they seek the abstruse, the sophisticated. The profound connoisseur of the workings of nature, Galileo, spoke the wise words that the true is not hard and difficult, but simple and easy, and that in all its works nature uses the closest, simplest and easiest means. Only the mind that knows how to use the simplest and easiest means, just like nature, truly lives in harmony with nature. Jacobowski appears as such a mind among the host of contemporary poets. Dehmels' artificial forms and artificial feelings seem like a departure from natural simplicity.

III

What a mistake it is for individual contemporaries to seek the salvation of poetry in formlessness and to believe that the “old” forms have been used up is best shown by contrasting the creations of these enthusiasts of formlessness with poems such as those of Jacobowski. The philosopher Simmel has written an interesting essay about a follower of formlessness, Paul Ernst. According to Simmel, this formlessness represents progress in that the artist no longer seeks the higher, the divine in art through artificialization, through the manipulation of immediate natural phenomena, but rather sees a divine significance in every experience that takes place before our senses, a significance that deserves to be captured in this immediacy. On the basis of such views, poetry that is nothing more than prose divided into verses is considered “modern” today. Those who hold such views live in the mistaken belief that the “old” forms are something that the artist arbitrarily adds to the phenomena of nature from his subjective essence. He does not realize what Goethe repeatedly explained in the most illuminating way, that the external course of events is only one side of natural existence, the surface, and that for those who look deeper, higher laws of form are expressed in nature itself, which they recreate in their artistic forms. There is a “higher nature” in nature. What Goethe has the Lord say to the angels in “Faust”: “But you, the true sons of the gods, rejoice in the living, rich beauty! That which is becoming, which eternally works and lives, embrace with the love of gentle boundaries, and what floats in a wavering appearance, fasten with lasting thoughts,” expresses the artist's mission. Only the “shaky appearance” presents itself in formlessness; the eternal becoming is full of form; it is inwardly, through its essence, bound to form. The rejection of form is nothing more than an expression of the inability to see the “higher nature” in nature, to find the subjective, stylish expression for its innermost harmony. In the face of all such aberrations of the time, Jacobowski, out of an inner necessity of his artistic sensibility, takes the safe path of the artist. One can see what he achieves with the proven “old” forms in a poem like “The Four Robbers”, which forms the conclusion of “Shining Days”. In this legend, simple simplicity is combined with symbolic allusions to the deep connections of world events and with a noble, closed form. What I said at the beginning of this essay about Jacobowski's poetry, that this poet draws from the eternal source from which the best content of life comes, is the reason why he stands out as such a pleasing, refreshing poet from other fellow poets. These others, however, only know derived sources. They are driven by a purpose in life that is unable to fulfill them. At best, they see branches and shoots, but they are unable to penetrate to the fertile, constructive elements of the life organism. Only those who direct their gaze to these fertile beings will find life's higher justification. When it is so often said that spiritual greatness leads to loneliness, one must reply that the proud, necessary loneliness that arises from the feeling of the eternal in the world has nothing to do with the accidental loneliness that arises from someone withdrawing into some isolated corner of existence. If he sees nothing in this corner but “what lives in a fluctuating appearance”, then his report cannot captivate us, even though he speaks of things that are hidden from the everyday eye. The cultural content of the world is not enriched by adding isolated phenomena to the old stock, but by leading the eternal becoming to a new stage of development. The way in which an artist who is capable of such things relates to life phenomena that appear new and “modern” in his time is evident in the part of “Leuchtende Tage” entitled “Großstadt” (Big City). Here, a spirit speaks of the social life of our day that does not see it in the perspective of the moment, but rather in the perspective that arises from the contemplation of the great laws of the world. The singers of social passions and conflicts often see only a few steps ahead. The light that falls on contemporary phenomena when they are placed in the context of a world view is what gives our feelings about these phenomena the right nuance. Modern big-city life, for example, is given such a nuance in Jacobowski's poem “Summer Evening”:

Summer evening. —
The air is soft and warm;
a distant scent from a garden,
The wide expanses of the sky are still pale,
here and there pale traces of stars;
On the street, the crack of whips and noise,
boys who are infatuated with young girls;
Children play with hoops in front of the doors,
coachmen knock their pipes;
knights on steeds, who are thinking of love,
honestly endeavor to win the favor of the ladies on bicycles, ...
And all the soft, warm air,
And from gardens a stray scent.

The poet experiences a “modern” situation; he portrays it in the context of the whole world. We do not see the city scene in isolation, but in such a way that the rest of the world plays into it. In this sense, “The Soldier, Scenes from the Big City” is a truly modern creation, in which the fate of a person transplanted from the countryside to the big city is described. Moving images pass before our soul, and from them we see the suffering of a man who is caught in the snares of eternal, gigantic fate, with the part of unreason that is in the world, and crushed. A poem like this teaches us how much a person's attitude, such as Jacobowski's, can deepen their feelings about modern life:

The mother once carried vegetables,
And when the cherry harvest came,
Then dear Liese stole for me,
as much as her little apron could hold.
How we feasted in the fields and meadows!

Mother sits in front of her baskets;
Now she is old, but happy in her mind,
So she boasts to her neighbor:
“My girl can't go wrong,
For she knows how to earn
And still puts something aside for later!"

I gave her a present yesterday
And recognized her face at once.
I stood in silence in the crowd,
until her Rembrandt feathers faded
In the street bustle slowly faded.

I couldn't move from the spot,
Her gaze burned into me.

IV

Jacobowski's ability to see the deeper connections of existence in the individual experience makes it possible for him to also poetically shape what reveals itself to us in life as chance, as blind necessity. In such poetic creation, the senseless approximation then appears as the expression of a meaningful guidance in world events. The kind of poetry that arises from such a view is usually called symbolist. A versatile nature like Jacobowski's will always push towards the symbolic representation of certain experiences. The serious play of the imagination will seek eternal laws even where they do not impose themselves in reality. But it is precisely this universality that prevents symbolism from being exaggerated in a one-sided way. For the harmonious personality always feels more or less what Goethe felt when he saw the Greek works of art in Italy: that the true artist proceeds according to the same laws as nature itself when creating its creatures. When the imagination of such a poet works symbolically, it does not do so in the obtrusive way in which many contemporary symbolists would like to force their subjective and arbitrary ideas on us as revelations, but with that spiritual chastity that allows nature itself to speak in the symbol, without distorting or contorting the inner truth of its expressions. In this beautiful sense, Jacobowski's “Frau Sorge” is a symbolizing poem:

A couple walks through the evening light,
he is a blacksmith's apprentice, she is a seamstress.

"Rosel, when we both pull a cart,
It's twice the joy and half the effort!"

And she leans wearily against her beloved;
A tear now and then runs down her cheek.

"Rosel, stop crying for your daily bread;
If it was enough for one, it's enough for two!"

He took her in his arms, asked no more questions,
caressed her warm, glowing face...

Gradually the light faded and they walked far

A woman sat down in the same place,

Looked with a gray gaze, raised her withered hand,

Threatened with the crutch, murmured and vanished...

The couple strode into the city,
Mrs. Worry was already sitting in the middle of her little room.

Jacobowski's imagination has a similar symbolic effect on the phenomena of nature. This is also evident in his prose stories. It appears so enchanting in his “Loki”. The spiritual in him grows out of the natural, as it were; it reflects its soul-stirring power back onto nature and receives from it a firm basis in reality. In the “Shining Days”, this trait is particularly evident in the section “Sun”. I will quote the poem “Shining”:

Just now, when the sun is shining,
my darling is walking across the field;
A glow passes over the field,
Catches itself, as if it were meant for her,
shining in her blonde hair.

Just now, when my sweetheart is running
over the blooming field,
Where her laughter falls down,
the stalks glisten like dewdrops,
The flowers glisten in the grass.

Just now, when the golden trace
Brightly glows in my eyes,
I see only blessings, only love, only happiness,
I see only a single glow
over the blossoming world.

And the poem “Maienblüten” seems to me like a bond that nature and the soul form in the imagination – in the best sense of a symbolist inspiration of nature:

Bear it silently when from the branches,
From the overfilled branches,
flowers blow into the pious hair,
And gently bend over,
So in thirst, lean over,
lips to lips
. See, a sweet and wondrous tremor
runs through the rows of leaves,
All the blossoms that they scatter,
they scatter blessings on you and me.

If we let the various currents of modern poetry pass us by, we are sure to encounter many a magnificent blossom. But we see only too often that beauty in the individual must be paid for with one-sidedness. It is harmonious universality that makes Jacobowski significant. He knows no poetic dogma; he knows life, and his interests end where life ends.

• 1. Not«Leuchtende Tage». New poems (1896-1898) by Ludwig Jacobowski. J. C. C. Bruns Verlag, Minden in Westf.

A common prejudice is expressed in the maxim: Human evolution moves forward in regular succession, the unfolding of historical events makes no leaps. This is connected with another prejudice; for we are also told that Nature makes no leaps. This is repeated over and over again; but it is untrue both for Nature and for History. We never see Nature making mighty progress without leaps. Her progress is not gradual; on the contrary, small processes are followed by important results, and the most important of all result from leaps. Many cases could be enumerated in which Nature advances in such a way, that we can observe a transition of forms into their exact opposite.

In History this is particularly important, because there we have two significant occurences, which gradually prepared, but then ebbed away, only to make their eventual advance in a forward leap:

1. The founding of the free cities at the beginning of the Middle Ages.
2. The great inventions and discoveries at the end of the Middle Ages.

History moves very quickly forward at the change from the 11th to the 12th century. New forms of society evolve from old ones. From the fact that many men left their homes, to settle in the cities, sprang up—throughout Germany, France, England, Scotland, and as far as Russia and Italy—cities with new conditions of life, new organisations, laws and constitutions. At the end of the Middle Ages we find the great discoveries, the voyages to India, America, etc., and the world-wide invention of printing. All this shows us what a radical change has been affected through the birth of the new spirit of Science—through Copernicus.

Two incisions were made by this; and if we are to study the Middle Ages thoughtfully, these two occurances must be place in the right light. They appear as leaps, but such an event is gradually prepared, until with the force of an avalanche it breaks forth, and rushes forward in a flood. If we pursue them step by step, it will become clear that these two events had been prepared in the life of the Germani. We shall see through what circumstances it was that such great power was given to the Franks, such influence over the configuration of European relationships. For this purpose we must understand the character of that race, the necessary metamorphosis of industrial relationships, and the powerful penetration of Christianity in the 4th century. These two things indicate the alteration in the life of the Germani. They condition the evolution of the Middle Ages. It would be useless to follow all the wanderings of the Germani, to see how Odoacer dethroned the last West Roman Emperor, how the Goths were driven out of Italy by the Emperor Justinian, how the Longobards seized possession of Northern Italy—we see the same circumstances enacted over and over again.

In the southern regions, where the Gemani found political and industrial conditions already firmly established, the idiosyncrasies of their own tribes disappeared; they lost all significance. We hear nothing more of the Goths, Gepidae, etc., they have vanished, even to their names. In contrast to this, the Franks had arrived at free, not yet fixed, condition, where serious appropriation was as yet non-existent, and through this political configuration, the Franks became the ruling race.

Now we must see how these developed in the empire of the Franks, that which we call the Merovingian kingdom. It was actually nothing but many small kingdoms, formed in the most natural way. The Merovingians remained as victors, after they had overcome the others who were originally their equals. All these kingdoms had been formed in the following way: some little tribe wandered in, subjugated the inhabitants and divided the land in such a way that all the members received small or large properties. Thus all dominion was based on land ownership. The most powerful received the largest domain. For the tilling of these properties, a great number of people were employed, some taken from the inhabitants, but part were prisoners of war, made into workers. Simply through this difference between the ownership of less of more land, were power relationships developed. The largest landowner was the king. His power was based on his property—that is the characteristic trait. Out of these powerful relationships, the relationships of rights were formed, and it is interesting to observe how this came about. Certainly we find among the Germanic tribes, laws founded on customs evolved in ancient times, before we have any knowledge of them. Among the smaller tribes all the people assembled to administer justice; later, the members of the tribe only came together on March 1st, to take counsel about their concerns. But now the great landowner was not responsible to the others for what he did on his own property. True, we find a conservative clinging to the old prescriptive laws among the different tribes. We find them preserved for long periods among the Saxons, Thuringians and Frisians, also among the Cheruscans, whose tribe kept them longer than has been generally believed. It was different where large landowning had developed, because the proprietor, absolute in his own domain, became also irresponsible. This irresponsibility gave rise to a new legal position, in which the jurisdiction of power, the authority of the police, was exercised. If another man committed an offence, he was called to account for it; if the irresponsible one did it, the same offence was looked upon as lawful. What was illegal among those without power, was legal among the powerful. They were able to change might into right.

Now, in this way the Franks could farther extend their power, and, especially in the northeast, could conquer great territories. At a time when war followed war, the less powerful were dependent on the protection of the mightier. Thus arose the fief and vassal system, which called forth a selection of powerful men. Then an arrangement for transferring certain rights by means of contracts sprang up.

The great landed property, the king's estate, required special legal conditions, which could be transferred to others by the king or the owner. Together with the land, the jurisdiction and the police authority would be transferred. King's law and the law of the small vassal came into being. As the result of this innovation we see the development of a powerful official class, not on a basis of stipend, but of land owning. Such justiciaries were the highest judges. In the beginning, when they still had to take into consideration the rights of powerful tribes, they were bound to respect ancient laws. Gradually, however, their position became that of an absolute judicature, so that, in course of time, side by side with the kingdom, there was formed in France a kind of official aristocracy which grew to be a rival of the kingship.

Thus in the 6th century, a rivalry developed between the sovereign and the new nobility, and this attained the greatest significance.

The original governing race, which sprang from the Merovingians, the large land owners, was succeeded by the Carlovingians who had originally belonged to the official aristocracy. They had been mayors of the palace to the ruling race, which had been overthrown by the rivalry of the aristocratic officials. Essentially, therefore, it was the possession of large property that was the basis of power relations; and the strongest moral current of the church, had to initiate its rule in this roundabout way through the large land owner.

It was the characteristic feature of the Frankish Church that, to begin with, it represented nothing but a number of large land owners; we see the rise of bishoprics and abbacies, and of vassals who placed themselves under the protection of the Church, in order to receive fiefs from it. Thus, side by side with the large, worldly land owners, clerical proprietors also arose. This is the reason why we see so little depth, and why the spiritual element which we find in Christianity is essentially due to foreign influence. It was not the Frankish race, but men of the British Isles who succeeded in creating those mighty currents which then flowed out eastwards. In the British Isles, many learned men and pious monks were deeply engaged in work. Real work was being done, as we may see, in particular, by the resumption of Platonism and its alliance with Christianity. We see mysticism, dogmatism, but also enthusiasm and pathos, issuing from here. From here come the first missionaries: Columba, Gallus and Winfried-Boniface, the converter of the Germans. And because these first missionaries had nothing in their mind but the spiritual side of Christianity they were not inclined to conform to the conditions of the Frankish tribes. Theirs was the healing virtue, and they found, especially through Boniface, their chief influence exercised among the East Germani. For this reason, Rome acquired an increasing influence at this time in the empire of the Franks. Two heterogenous elements combined together: the rugged force of the Germani and the spiritual strength of Christianity. They fitted in to each other in such a way that it seems wonderful how these tribes submitted to Christianity, and how Christianity itself modified its nature, to adapt itself to the Germani. These missionaries worked differently from the Frankish kings, who spread Christianity by force of arms. It was not forced into their souls as something alien; their places of worship and sacred customs were preserved; their practices and personalities so respected that old institutions were made use of to diffuse the new content. It is interesting to notice how what is old becomes the garment, what is new becomes the soul. From the Saxon tribe we possess an account of the Life of Jesus: all the details concerning the figure of Jesus were clothed in Germanic dress. Jesus appears as a German duke; his intercourse with the disciples resembles a tribal assembly. This is how the life of Jesus is presented in Heiland.

Ancient heroes were transformed into saints; ancient festivals and ritual customs became Christian. Much of what appears today as exclusively Christian was transferred at that time from heathen customs. In the Frankish empire, on the contrary, we see in ecclesiastical Christianity a means of consolidating power; a Frankish code of law begins with an invocation to “Christ, Who loves the Franks above all other peoples.” In the days when the British missionaries represented the moral influence of Christianity, the influence of the Roman Church also increased considerably. The Frankish kings sought alliance with the papacy. The Longobards had seized possession of Italy, and harassed the bishop of Rome, in particular. They were Aryan Christians. That was why the Roman bishop turned first to the Franks for help, at the same time tendering his influence to the Franks. So the Frankish king became the protector of the pope; and the pope anointed the king. Hence the Frankish kings derived their exalted position, their dignity, from this consecration by the pope. It was an enhancement of what the Franks saw in Christianity. All this took place in the west, in the 7th centure. This alliance between the papacy and the Frankish authority, formed a gradual preparation for the subsequent rule of Charlemagne. Thus we see the accomplishment of important spiritual and social changes. This alone, however, would not have led to an event which proved to be of the greatest importance, a material revolution: the founding of cities. For something was lacking in the Frankish Christian culture, although it had efficiency, intellect and depth.

That which we call Science, purely external Science, did not exist for them. We have followed a merely material and moral movement. What Science there was among them had remained at the same level as at their first contact with Christianity. And just as the Frankish tribes took no interest in the improvement of their simple agriculture, and never thought of developing it economically, similarly the Church only sought to build up its moral influence. Primitive tillage offered no special difficulties, such as, in Egypt, have led to the evolution of physics, geometry and technical science. Everything here was simpler, more primitive; thus the financial trading, which was already in use, gave place again to barter.

So European culture needed a new stimulus, and cannot be understood without taking this stimulus into account. Out of Asia, form the far East, whence Christianity once came, came now this new culture, from the Arabs. The religion founded there by Mahomet is, in its content, simpler than Christianity. The spiritual content of Mohammedanism is, essentially, based on simple monotheistic ideas confined to a divine fundamental Being, whose nature and form is not closely investigated, but to whose will men surrender, because they have faith. Hence this religion produces proud confidence in this will, a confidence which leads to fatalism, to a complete self-surrender. This is how it became possible for these tribes to extend Arabian rule, in a few generations, over Syria, Mesopotamia and North Africa, as far as to the realm of the Visigoths in Spain, so that, as early as the turn of the 7th to the 8th century, Moorish rulers were established there, and implanted their own culture in place of that of the Visigoths.

Thus something quite new, of an entirely different nature, flowed into European culture. The spirit of Arabism culture was not filled with dogma concerning angels and demons, etc., but precisely with that which was lacking in the Christian Germanic tribes namely, with external science. Here we find all such sciences—medicine, chemistry, mathematical thinking—well developed. The practical spirit brought over from Asia to Spain found employment now in seafaring, etc. It was brought over at a moment when an unscientific spirit had established its kingdom there The Moorish cities became centers of serious scientific work; we see here a culture which cannot fail to be admired by all who know it. Humboldt says of it: “This depth, this intensity, this exactitude of knowledge is unexampled in the history of culture.” The Moorish intellectuals had width of outlook and depth of thought; and not only did they, like the Germani, embrace Greek science, they developed it farther. Aristotle also contiuned to live among them, but with the Arabs, it was the true Aristotle who was honoured, with a wide outlook, as the father of Science. It is interesting to see how the Alexandrine culture, started in Greece, continued its existence here, and with this we tough upon one of the most remarkable currents in the human mind. The Arabs laid the foundations of Objective Science. From them, this flowed, in the first place, into the Anglo-Saxon monasteries in England and Ireland, where the old energetic Celtic blood now dwelt. It is strange to see what active intercourse had been introduced between them and Spain, and how, where profundity of mind and capacity to think were present, Science revived through the medium of the Arabs.

And it is a remarkable phenomenon that the Arabs who, to begin with, took possession of the whole of Spain, were soon outwardly conquered by the Franks under Charles Martel a the Battle of Poiters in 732. By this victory the physical strength of the Franks overcame the physical strength of the Moors. But the spiritual strength of the Arabs remained invincible; and just as, once, Greek culture rose triumphant in Rome, so Arab culture conquered the West, in opposition to the victorious Germani. Now, when the science which was needed to extend the horizon of trade and world intercourse, when city culture, arose, we see that it was Arab influence which made themselves felt here. Quite new elements flowing in sought to adapt themselves to the old.

We see expressed by Walther von der Vogelweide the perplexity which may assail anyone who follows, with an open mind, the conflicting currents of the Middle Ages. The poet saw how the Germanic tribes were striving for power, and how an opposing current was flowing from Christianity. That which flowed through the Middle Ages was transmuted by Walther von der Vogelweide into feeling, in the following sorrowful description:

No answer came into my mind
How men might come by these three things,
So that no man need to perish.
Two are honour and worldly goods;
These often do each other harm
The third, the chiefest of them all,
Is simply pleasing God. I longed to have them in one shrine
Alas, that that can never be!
For worldly goods and honour
Dwell not, within one human heart,
Together with the grace of God.
Hindrances are everywhere,
Faithlessness sets endless snares,
Haughty force lays all men low.
Thus Peace and Right are done to death.
Never will the Three find refuge
Till these two are healed and well.

We shall see shortly how difficult it was for the man of the Middle Ages to combine these three things in their heart, and how these three gave rise to the great struggles which rent that age asunder

If you take what was presented to you yesterday and study it in greater depth, you will find that today’s interpretation of the world cannot lead to a real understanding of the human being. And if you go into further detail in your study of what could be only briefly described here and relate it to specific problems of life, you will find confirmation of all that was postulated in yesterday’s lecture.

Now, strangely, exponents of the modern worldview seem unaware of what it means that they cannot reach the specifically human sphere. Nor are they willing to admit that, in this sense, their interpretation of the universe is incomplete. This fact alone is more than enough to justify all the efforts made by spiritual scientific research. We can understand this all the more clearly by observing characteristic examples. When quoting Herbert Spencer, I did not intend to prove anything but only wanted to illustrate modern thinking. Spencer had already formulated his most important and fundamental ideas before Darwinism spread. So-called Darwinism aptly demonstrates how scientific, intellectualistic thinking approaches questions and problems that result from a deep-seated longing in the human soul.

Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, published in 1859, certainly represents a landmark in modern spiritual life. His method of observation and the way he draws conclusions are exemplary for a modern conceptual discipline. One can truly say that Darwin observed the data offered to his sense perceptions with utmost exactitude; that he searched for the underlying laws in a very masterly way; and he considering everything that such observations could bring to his powers of comprehension. Never did he allow himself to be deflected, not to the slightest degree, by his own subjectivity. He developed the habit of learning from the outer world in a way commensurate with the human intellect.

Observing life in this way, Darwin found links between the simplest, least developed organisms and the highest organism on earth—humankind itself. He contemplated the entire range of living organisms in a strictly natural scientific way, but what he observed was external and not part of the essential nature of human beings. Neither the true human being nor human spiritual aspirations were the object of his enquiry. However, when Darwin finally had to face an impasse, his reaction was characteristic; after having formulated his excellent conclusions, he asked himself, Why would it have pleased the Divine Creator any less to begin creation with a small number of relatively undeveloped and primitive organic forms, which would be allowed to develop gradually, than to miraculously conjure fully developed forms right at the beginning of the world?

But what does such a response imply? It shows that those who have made the intellectual and naturalistic outlook their own, apply it only as far as a certain inner sensing will allow and then readily accept these newly discovered boundaries without pondering too much over whether it might be possible to transcend them. In fact, they are even prepared to fall back on traditional religious concepts. In a subsequent book, The Descent of Man, Darwin did not fundamentally modify his views. Apart from being typical of the time, Darwin’s attitude reveals certain national features, characteristic of Anglo American attitudes and differing from those of Central Europe. If we look at modern life with open eyes, we can learn a great deal about such national traits.

In Germany, Darwinism was initially received with open enthusiasm, which nevertheless spread to two opposite directions. There was, first of all, Ernst Haeckel, who with youthful ardor took up Darwin’s methods of observation, which are valid only in nonhuman domains. But, according to his Germanic disposition, he was not prepared to accept given boundaries with Darwin’s natural grace. Haeckel did not capitulate to traditional religious ideas by speaking of an Almighty who had created some imperfect archetypes. Using Darwin’s excellent methods (relevant only for the non-human realm) as a basis for a new religion, Ernst Haeckel included both God and the human being in his considerations, thus deliberately crossing the boundary accepted by Darwin.

Du Bois-Reymond took up Darwinism in another way. According to his views, naturalistic intellectual thinking can be applied only to the non-human realm. He thus remained within its limits. But he did not stop there, unquestioning and guided by his feelings; he made this stopping point itself into a theory. Right there, where Darwin’s observations trail off into vagueness, Du Bois-Reymond postulated an alternative, stating that either there are limits or there are no limits. And he found two such limits.

The first limit occurs when we turn our gaze out into the world, and we are confronted with matter. The second is when we turn our gaze inward, toward experiences of our consciousness and find these also finally impenetrable. He thus concluded that we have no way of reaching the supra-sensory, and made this into a theory: one would have to rise to the level of “supernaturalism,” the realm where religion may hold sway, but science has nothing to do with what belongs to this religious sphere. In this way, Du Bois-Reymond leaves everyone free to supplement, according to personal needs, everything confirmed by natural science with either mystical or traditionally accepted forms of religious beliefs. But he insists that such supernatural beliefs could never be the subject of scientific scrutiny.

A characteristic difference between the people of Central Europe and those of the West is that the latter lean naturally toward the practical side of life. Consequently, they are quite prepared to allow their thoughts to trail off into what cannot be defined, as happens in practical life. Among Central Europeans, on the other hand, there is a tendency to put up with impracticalities, as long as the train of thought remains theoretically consistent, until an either/or condition has been reached. And this we see particularly clearly when fundamental issues about ultimate questions are at stake.

But there is still a third book by Darwin that deals with the expression of feeling. To those who occupy themselves with problems of the soul, this work seems to be far more important than his Origin of the Species and Descent of Man. Such people can derive great satisfaction from this book—so full of fine observations of the human expression of emotions—by allowing it to work in them. It shows that those who have disciplined themselves to observe in a natural scientific way can also attain faculties well suited for research into the soul and spiritual sphere of the human being. It goes without saying that Darwin advanced along this road only as far as his instinct would allow him to go. Nevertheless, the excellence of his observations shows that a training in natural scientific observation can also lead to an ability to go into the supra-sensory realm. This fact lies behind the hope of anthroposophic work, which, in any task that it undertakes, chooses not to depart by a hair’s breadth from the disciplined training of the natural scientific way of thinking. But, at the same time, anthroposophy wishes to demonstrate how the natural scientific method can be developed, thus transcending the practical limits established by Darwin, crossed boldly by Haeckel’s naturalism, and stated as a theory by Du Bois-Reymond. It endeavors to show how the supra-sensory world can be reached so that real knowledge of the human being can finally be attained.

The first step toward such higher knowledge does not take us directly into the world of education, which will be our central theme during the coming days. Instead, we will try to build a bridge from our ordinary conceptual and emotional life to suprasensory cognition. This can be achieved if—using ordinary cognition—we learn to apprehend the basic nature of our sense-bound interpretation of the world.

To do this, first I would like you to assume two hypotheses. Imagine that, from childhood on, the world of matter had been transparent and clear to our understanding. Imagine that the material world around us was not impermeable to our sight, but that with ordinary sensory observation and thinking we could fully penetrate and comprehend its nature. If this were the situation, we would be able to comprehend the material aspect of the mineral kingdom. We would also be able to understand the physical aspect of human nature; the human body would become completely transparent to our sight.

If such a hypothesis were reality, however, you would have to eliminate something from your mind that real life needs for its existence; you would have remove from your thinking all that we mean when we speak of love. For what is the basis of love, whether it is love for another person, for humankind in general, or for spiritual beings? Our love depends on meeting the other with forces that are completely different from those that illuminate our thinking. If transparent or abstract thoughts were to light up as soon as we met another being, then even the very first seeds of love would be destroyed immediately. We simply would be unable to engender love. You need only to remember how in ordinary life love ceases when the light of abstract thought takes over. You need only to realize how correct we are to speak of abstract thoughts as cold, how all inner warmth ceases when we approach the thinking realm. Warmth, revealing itself through love, could not come into being if we were to meet outer material life only with the intellect; love would be extinguished from our world.

Now imagine that there is nothing to prevent you from looking into your own inner structure; that, when looking inward, you could perceive the forces and weaving substances within you just as clearly as you see colors and hear tones in the outer world. If this were to happen, you would have the possibility of continuously experiencing your own inner being. However, in this case, too, you would have to eliminate something from your mind that human beings need to exist in the world as it is. What is it that lights up within when you turn your sight inward? You see remembered imagery of what you have experienced in the outer world. In fact, when looking inward, you do not see your inner being at all. You see only the reflection, or memory, of what you have experienced in the world.

On the one hand, if you consider that, without this faculty of memory, personal life would be impossible, and, on the other, consider that to perceive your own inner life you would have to eliminate your memory, then you realize the necessity of the built-in limits in our human organization. The possibility of clearly perceiving the essence of outer matter would presuppose a person devoid of love. The possibility of perpetually perceiving one’s own inner organization would presuppose a human being devoid of memory. Thus, these two hypotheses help us to realize the necessity of the two limits placed on ordinary human life and consciousness. They exist for the development of love and because human beings need personal memories for an inner life. But, if there is a path beyond these boundaries into the suprasensory world, an obvious question arise. Can we walk this path without damaging our personal life, on the one hand, and shunning a social life with others, on the other?

Anthroposophy has the courage to say that, with the ordinary established naturalistic approach, it is impossible to attain suprasensory knowledge. At the same time, however, it must ask, Is there any way that, when applied with the strict discipline of natural science, will enable us to enter suprasensory worlds? We cannot accept the notion that crossing the threshold into the supernatural world marks the limit of scientific investigation. It is the goal of anthroposophy to open a path into the suprasensory, using means equally as exact as those used by ordinary science to penetrate the sensory realm. In this way, anthroposophy merely continues along the path of modern science. Anthroposophy does not intend to rebel against present achievements, but it endeavors to bring something that is needed today and something contemporary life cannot provide from its own resources.

If we look at Darwin’s attitude as I have presented it, we might be prompted to say, If science can deal only with what is perceptible to the senses, then we have to fall back on religious beliefs to approach the suprasensory, and we simply have to accept the situation as inevitable. Such a response, however, cannot solve the fundamental, urgent human problems of our time.

In this context, I would like to speak about two characteristics of contemporary life, because, apart from supplementing what has been said, they also illuminate educational matters. They may help to illustrate how modern intellectual thinking—which is striving for absolute lucidity—is nevertheless prone to drift into the dark unconscious and instinctive domains.

If you observe people’s attitudes toward the world in past ages, you will find that ancient religion was never seen as mere faith—this happened only in later times—but that religions were based on direct experience and insight into spirit worlds. Knowledge thus gained was considered to be as real as the results of our modern natural scientific research. Only in subsequent ages was knowledge confined to what is sense perceptible, and suprasensory knowledge was, consequently, relegated to the religious realm. And so, the illusion came about that anything pertaining to metaphysical existence had to be a matter of faith. Yet, as long as religions rested on suprasensory knowledge, this knowledge bestowed great power, affecting even physical human nature. Modern civilization cannot generate this kind of moral strength for people today. When religion becomes only a matter of faith, it loses power, and it can no longer work down into our physical constitution. Although this is felt instinctively, its importance is unrecognized. This instinctive feeling and the search for revitalizing forces have found an outlet that has become a distinctive feature of our civilization; it is a part of all that we call sports.

Religion has lost the power of strengthening the human physical constitution. Therefore an instinctive urge has arisen in people to gain access to a source of strength through outward, Education Based on Knowledge of the Human Being 39 physical means only. As life tends toward polarity, we find that people instinctively want to substitute the loss of invigoration, previously drawn from his religious experiences, by cultivating sports. I have no wish to harangue against sports. Neither do I wish to belittle their positive aspects. In fact, I feel confident that these activities will eventually develop in a healthy way. Nevertheless, it must be said that sports will assume a completely different position in human life in the future, whereas today it is a substitute for religious experience. Such a statement may well seem paradoxical, but truth, today, is paradoxical, because modern civilization has drifted into so many crosscurrents.

A second characteristic of our intellectual and naturalistic civilization is that, instead of embracing life fully, it tends to lead to contradictions that destroy the soul. Thinking is driven along until it becomes entangled in chaotic webs of thought and contradictions, and the thinker remains unaware of the confusion created. For example, a young child in a certain sense will go through the various stages than humankind has passed through, from the days of primitive humanity up to our present civilization, and this fills certain naturalistic intellectuals with admiration. They observe the somewhat turned-up nostrils of a young child and the position of the eyes, which lie further apart than in later life. They observe the formation of the forehead with its characteristic curvature and also the shape of the mouth. All these features remind people of those found in primitive tribes, and so they see young children as “little savages.” Yet, at the same time, sentiments such as those expressed by Rousseau are trying to rise to the surface—sentiments that completely contradict what has just been said. When contemplating educational aims, some people prefer to “return to nature,” both from a physical and a moral aspect. But, being under the influence of an intellectual atmosphere, they soon aim at arranging educational ideas according to the principles of logic, for intellectuality will always lead to logic in thinking. Observing many illogical features in education today, they want to base it on principles of logic, which, in their eyes, are entirely compatible with a child’s natural development. Logic, however, does not meet the needs of children at all. One close look at primitive races will make one quickly realize that members of such tribes hardly apply logical thinking to their ways of life.

And so some reformers are under the illusion that they are returning to nature by introducing a logical attitude in educating the young, who are supposed to be little savages, an attitude that is completely alien to a child. In this way, adherents of Rousseau’s message find themselves caught in a strange contradiction with an intellectualistic attitude; striving toward harmony with nature does not fit with an intellectualistic outlook. And, as far as the education of the will is concerned, the intellectualistic thinker is completely out of touch with reality. According to this way of thinking, a child should above all be taught what is useful in life. For example, such people never tire of pointing out the impracticability of our modern mode of dress, which does not satisfy the demands of utility. They advocate a return to more natural ways, saying that we should concentrate on the utilitarian aspects of life. The education of girls is especially subjected to sharp criticism by such reformers.

So now they are faced with a paradox; did primitive human beings—the stage young children supposedly recapitulate—live a life of utility? Certainly not. According to archeologists, they developed neither logical thinking nor utilitarian living. Their essential needs were satisfied through the help of inborn instincts. But what captivated the interest of primitive people? Adornment. They did not wear clothing for practical reasons, but through a longing for self-adornment. Whatever the members of such tribes chose to wear—or not to wear, in order to display the patterns on their skin—was not intended for utility, but as an expression of a yearning for beauty as they understood it. Similar traits can be found in the young child.

Those who perceive these contradictions and imperfections in modern life will be ready to look for their causes. They will increasingly recognize how lopsided and limited the generally accepted intellectualistic, naturalistic way of thinking is, which does not see the human being as a whole at all. Usually only our waking state is considered, whereas in reality the hours spent in sleep are just as much part of human life as those of daytime consciousness. You may object by saying that natural science has closely examined the human sleeping state as well, and indeed there exist many interesting theories about the nature of sleep and of dreams. But these premises were made by people while awake, not by investigators who were able to enter the domains of sleep. If people who are interested in education think in rational and logical ways and in terms of what is practical and useful in life, and if, on the other hand, they feel pulled in the direction of Rousseau’s call to nature, they will become victims of strange contradictions. What they really do is pass on to children all that seems of value to themselves as adults. They try to graft onto the child something that is alien to the child’s nature. Children really do seek for beauty—though not in the ways suggested by Rousseau—which for them expresses neither goodness nor utility, but simply exists for its own sake.

In the waking state, human beings not only have consciousness but also experience an inner life and actively participate in life. During sleep, on the other hand, people loses their ordinary consciousness, and consequently they examine sleep while awake. A proper study of this phenomenon, however, requires more than abstract theories. Entering sleep in full consciousness is essential for understanding it.

By experiencing both wonder and astonishment when studying the phenomena of sleep, a serious and unbiased investigator is not likely to advance in ways that, for example, Greek philosophy considered important. According to an ancient Greek adage, every philosophy—as a path toward cognition—begins with wonder. But this indicates only the beginning of the search for insight. One must move on. One must progress from wonder to knowledge.

However, the first step toward suprasensory knowledge must be taken not with the expectation of being able to enter the spiritual world directly, but with the intent of building a bridge from the ordinary sensory world to suprasensory knowledge. One way of achieving this is to apply the discipline we use to observe the phenomena of the sensory world to the phenomena we encounter from the realms of sleep and dreams. Modern people have certainly learned to observe accurately, but in this case it is not simply a matter of observing accurately. To gain insight, one must be able to direct observations toward specific areas.

I would like to give you an example of how this can be done when studying dream phenomena, which infiltrate our waking life in strange and mysterious ways.

Occasionally one still encounters people who have remained aware of the essential difference between waking and sleeping, but their awareness has become only a dim and vague feeling. Nevertheless, they are aware that an awake person is an altogether different from one who is asleep. Therefore, someone tells them that sleep is a waste of time and sleepers are idle and lazy, these simple minds will say that, as long as we sleep, we are free from sin. Thus, they try to say that people, whom they consider sinful while awake, are innocent while asleep. A good instinctive wisdom is hidden in this somewhat naive attitude. But to reach clarity, we need to train our own observation. I would like to give you an example.

Surely there are some here—perhaps every one of you—who have had dreams reminiscent of what might have happened to you in daily life. For example, you may have dreamed that you were taken to a river and that you had to get across somehow. So you searched for a boat, which, after a great deal of trouble, you managed to get hold of. Then you had to work hard to row across. In your dream you might have felt the physical exertion of plying the oars, until at last you managed to get across, just as you might have in ordinary life. There are many such kinds of dreams. Their contents are definite reminiscences of our physical, sensory lives. But there are also other kinds of dreams that do not echo waking life. For instance, someone again may dream that it is necessary to get across a river. Wondering how this urge could possibly be fulfilled, the dreamer is suddenly able to spread wings and—presto!—simply fly across and land safely on the opposite bank. This sort of dream is certainly not a memory of something that could happen in waking life, because, to my knowledge, this is hardly the way ordinary mortals transport themselves across a river in real life. Here we have something that simply does not exist in physical life.

Now, if we accurately observe the relationship between sleep and being awake, we discover something very interesting; we find that dreams in which we experience the toil and exhaustion of waking life, which reflect waking life, cause us to awake tired. On waking, our limbs feel heavy and tiredness seems to drag on throughout the day. In other words, if strains and pains of a life of drudgery reappear in our dreams, we awake weakened rather than refreshed. But now observe the effects of the other kind of dream; if you managed to fly—weightless and with hearty enthusiasm, with wings you do not possess in ordinary life—once you have flown across your river, you awake bright and breezy, and your limbs feel light. We need to observe how these differing dreams affect the waking life with the same accuracy we use to make observations in mathematics or physics. We know quite well that we would not get very far in these two subjects without it. Yet dreams do not generally become the object of exact observations and, consequently, no satisfactory results are achieved in this field. And such a situation hardly encourages people to strive for greater powers of insight into these somewhat obscure areas of life.

This is not just a case of presenting isolated glimpses of something that seems to confirm previous indications. The more we ponder over the relevant facts, the more the reciprocal links between sleep and waking life become evident. For example, there are dreams in which you may see some very tasty food that you then enjoy with a hearty appetite. You will find that usually, after having thus eaten in your dreams, you wake up without much appetite. You may not even eat during the following day, as though there were something wrong with your digestion. On the other hand, if in your dream you had the experience of speaking to an angel, and if you entered fully into a dialogue, you will awake with a keen edge to your appetite, which may persist during the whole day. Needless to say, partaking of food in one’s dream represents a memory from waking life, for in the spiritual world one neither eats nor drinks. Surely you will accept this without further proof. Therefore, enjoying food in a dream is a reminiscence of physical life, whereas speaking to an angel—an event unlikely to occur to people these days—cannot be seen as an echo of daily life.

Such an observation alone could show even an abstract thinker that something unknown happens to us in sleep—something that nevertheless plays into our daily lives. It is wrong to surmise that it is impossible to gain exact and clear concepts in this realm. Is it not a clear discovery that dreams echoing earthly reality—the kind so popular among naturalistic poets, ever eager to imitate earthly life, never ready to enter the suprasensory realms—have an unhealthy effect on our waking lives? If impressions from ordinary life reappear in dreams, these dreams have an injurious effect upon our health. On the other hand, if unrealistic dream images appear—the kind scornfully dismissed as mystical rubbish by an intellectualistic philistine—they make us feel bright and fresh upon awaking in the morning. It is certainly possible to observe the strange interplay and the reciprocal effects between dreaming and sleeping.

And so we can say that something independent of the human physical condition must be happening during sleep, the effects of which we can observe in the person’s physical organism. Dreams cause astonishment and wonder to ordinary consciousness, because they elude us in our waking state. The more you try to collect such examples, the more you will find a real connection between the human sleeping and waking state.

You only need to look closely at dreams to see that they are different from our experiences during waking life. When awake, we are able to link or separate mental images at will, but we cannot do this when dreaming. Dream images are woven as objective appearances beyond the influence of our will. In dreams, the activities of the soul become passive, numb, and immobile.

If we study dreams from yet another aspect, we find that they can reveal other secret sides of human existence. Observe, for instance, your judgment of people with whom you may have a certain relationship. You might find that you keep your full inner feelings of sympathy or antipathy from arising to consciousness, and that your judgment of people is colored by various facts, such as their titles or positions in social life. However, when you dream about such a person, something unexpected may happen; you may find yourself giving someone a good beating. Such behavior, so completely at odds with your attitude in waking life, allows you to glimpse the more hidden regions of your sympathies and antipathies, some of which you would never dare admit, even to yourself, but which the dream conjures up in your soul. Subconscious images are placed before the dreaming soul. They are relatively easy to watch, but if you deeply investigate someone’s inexplicable moods of ill temper or euphoria that seem unrelated to outer circumstances, you find that they, too, were caused by dreams, completely forgotten by those concerned. Experiences in sleep and the revelations of dreams work into the unconscious and may lead to seemingly inexplicable moods. Unless we consider this other side of life, the hidden domain of our sleep life, by making exact investigations, we cannot understand human life in its wholeness.

All these reciprocal effects, however, happen without human participation. Yet it is possible to lift what happens subconsciously and involuntarily into a state of clear consciousness equal to that of someone engaged in mathematics or other scientific investigations. When achieving this, one’s powers of observation are enhanced beyond the indeterminate relationship between waking and sleeping to the fully conscious states of imagination, inspiration, and intuition.

Only through these three capacities is it possible to attain true knowledge of the human being. What life vaguely hints at through the phenomenon of sleep can be developed in full consciousness by applying methods given by anthroposophy, which strive toward a real knowledge of the universe and the human being.