Foundation Course
Spiritual Discernment, Religious Feeling, Sacramental Action
GA 343
27 September 1921 p.m., Dornach
III. Theoretical Thinking and Living in the Spirit
[ 1 ] Emil Bock: I would like to open the hour of our discussion with my immediate task in asking Dr Steiner to give answers regarding the letter of Dr Rittelmeyer. This letter has indeed grown out of various wishes for guidelines regarding possible answers to those who made these objections.
[ 2 ] Rudolf Steiner: If we have to start with it, please permit me to make a few points. I ask you however, to link your remarks to those comments I will be making, because obviously some of you here can approach what Dr Rittelmeyer has formulated, from another point of view.
[ 3 ] Firstly, I think there is a feeling for many today that some kind of impact is needed in religious life, that religious life needs a kind of renewal in the most diverse areas. Dr Rittelmeyer has formulated the experience which he indicates is present with those familiar with it and I have to admit, something similar has at times confronted me. Already in relation to his first point presented here, one expects unified thoughts, a soul-powerful feeling—and this is summarised in the words "one thing is necessary"—while one finds in Anthroposophy a sum, even perhaps a very large sum of declarations regarding the world content and so for a person, who knows no sure approach, has to say: it appears to me through this experience that in many respects it has already been there for such a long time and has now contributed a lot to the fact that we in our current western civilisation have entered into a dead end.
[ 4 ] Just think how vague, how uncertain an experience would be to presume it could perhaps be more succinctly formulated in order to solve the problem. One could even make references to this in our domain. In our domain another kind of domain has arisen out of Anthroposophic foundations where something similar has happened as what is meant with this point, if I understand it correctly. This is in the domain of social thinking. Something like a unified thought has come about, I could say, in the domain of the Threefold social organism. Firstly, I only want to make characteristic comparisons. I must confess this example doesn't show anything significant when it appears publicly in such a short formulation. In life such short formulations don't prove to be really effective; having a decisive importance. I always encounter an objection for instance when someone says: You want to tell me something about the human organism, and instead of giving me a uniform idea, you present an entire physiology.—One must try and understand how the doubt-free comfortable thoughts of modern time have contributed largely to our unhappiness and inner and outer relationships, and what we are suffering from is based on the vague manner of our desire to understand everything in a summary. One has to say to oneself: precisely because such ideas arise, proves that something must change when things happen, which many expect in a vague way. In particular, when it is then said, instead of such "uniform ideas." instead of "mighty soul feelings," a number of exercises are given, some of them could be of a moral nature—and others—they are called "occult" in the letter, which makes an unusual, thoughtful impression on others—yes, it must even be said: What can one then actually expect?—One can expect that there will simply be a debate about what current humanity is missing. I'm speaking firstly in this way, how in the anthroposophical domain it is by all means necessary; we will soon address the particular religious questions given in the letter itself.
[ 5 ] You see, the moral exercises, which are mentioned here as familiar, are such that according to their wording, they certainly would be known if they were moral instructions. Firstly, according to the anthroposophic context, this is not what they are. In an anthroposophic context they are indications for the attainment of higher knowledge. It is certainly presented in such a way that it must be clear: they are indication for the attainment of a higher, supersensible knowledge. One must after all admit: If I would say a person necessarily longs for the attainment of supersensible knowledge, as opposed to if I say, that a kind of tranquillity in relation to "exulting to the skies, grieving to death" provides humanity with a moral stand, there is certainly a more radical difference between them. By me expressing something like the demand for serenity, I'm expressing something which could perhaps be quite well known, and which could initially sound like an obvious moral instruction, but which is not a discussion based on the demand for serenity. Is it said in my book 'Knowledge of the higher Worlds and its attainment' that for the purpose of morality, for the purpose of obtaining moral support it is necessary to develop serenity? No! Something quite different is said. It is said that an exercise needs to be done, it is said that this exercise needs to be repeated, in this way the exercise should be done in a certain rhythm in such a way that one could describe it as done in tranquillity. To repeat a certain exercise is quite different to a moral action. Above all you need to consider what is given in my book Knowledge of the higher Worlds and its attainment.
You see, it is actually the most natural thing that one person can say to another: you need to make an effort to search for the truth. That is a self-evident fact. Here the important thing is that within the rhythmic sequence of thoughts, thoughts are rendered to the truth, in relation of human beings to the truth. This exercise, this making-oneself-conscious-in-the-present within such a content, this repeated rhythmic making-oneself-conscious-in-the-present is what is involved. It is about applying quite a particular mood for spiritual knowledge. I want to explain this attitude to you in more detail. I will deviate from the strict formulation of the letter but maybe this will make some things much clearer.
[ 6 ] Let's see, take for example a professor, lecturer or some scholar who gives lectures. Very often it happens that he prepares his lecture, then memorises it and then delivers it. This is indeed not possible if one really allows spiritual science to live within it. If you lived within spiritual science, this would be unworthy of you. Preparation can only be that a certain inner accumulation regarding the subject matter comes about. As a result of this inner assembly you do indeed step—even though you have a been connecting with the subject matter a thousand times—each time again with a new approach regarding the subject matter, so that you gradually grasp it clearly and speak out of the direct observation of it once again. You see, when you learn about something, for example a chapter in geography—good, you learn it, you have it, and then you retain in your thoughts. This doesn't happen in spiritual science at all if it is to be alive. Whoever wants to be a spiritual scientist in reality, must just again and again allow the most elementary things to draw through the soul. What I have written for example in my book Theosophy doesn't have a conclusive meaning. What it contains, I had to repeatedly allow to be drawn through my soul for it to have meaning. It can't be said: The book Theosophy is there, I know its contents.—It would, on the basis of spiritual science, be the same if one would say: I don't believe that there is a person who could say: I have eaten for 8 days so now I don't need to repeat it.—Every day we sit down to eat and do the same thing. Why? Because it is Life, it is not something which can be merely stored in thought form. The life in spiritual science is Life, and it declines if it is not ever and again lived through. This is what needs to be considered.
[ 7 ] If you have through spiritual science approached life you would have become acquainted with the possibility for instance, that you can help those who have passed through the gate of death, by giving them a kind of meditative content based on the spiritual world which they have entered through the gate of death. This doesn't mean that one, for example, reads something to them once and now recon: now they understand it—no, it involves repeating it ever and again, this living-yourself-into the content, each time, as something new. This is far too seldom respected. People are used to observe everything as theory. Spiritual science is no theory, it is Life; but if one treats it by thinking one can learn it, like you learn about other things, then you make it into a theory. Obviously one can make it into a theory but then if you take it up this way, it is only a theory. Every serious spiritual scientist knows that one must live in it; the exercises are not exhausted by knowing their contents.
[ 8 ] These are things which have disappeared from Western consciousness. What this Western consciousness is, shows also in other things. People have come to me who say: There's something awful about the Buddha speeches, they contain mere repetitions; one should surely produce a publication with only the contents of the speeches and leave out the repetitions.—Yet, no one really understands the Buddha-speeches who can make such a statement because the essence of the Buddha speeches depend upon following the rhythmic sequence in very small slots, always repeating the same one. This is an oriental method which does not coincide with our work here and in order to clarify this, I will make some comments.
[ 9 ] Continuing with the letter, there is further mentioned about the exercises, that some are strange and questionable. Yes, we must look at the kind of judgement or the basis upon which this assessment is made today. If one speaks about the desire present today for something new, then one must acquaint oneself with why such a desire exists; and what exists must really be characterised. I could, in order to make myself clear, perhaps bring to mind the book of Oswald Spengler The Decline of the West. Spengler followed up with a small brochure entitled Pessimism? I will quote a sentence from Pessimism. He says: It is not important to recognise truth, but to make facts matter.—Now a discussion follows regarding this statement, regarding what he understands as "truth" and as "facts". In one place he says: "Truths are the greats of thought ... what stands in a dissertation is truth, that a candidate fails his dissertation is a fact."—Now one must imagine that with such a sentence something must somehow be said, but it is complete nonsense. Yet people read over something like this, they take it all in, which says something, and they don't notice anything strange and consider it as something outlandish. One can't possibly have a discussion about such a statement, it is total nonsense. Something like this is not even discussed when it is such nonsense; you don't even notice it. It can't fail that in a time in which such a judgment prevails, many strange and questionable things are found. However, we can imagine where we have actually arrived—in any case in another connection than meant by Spengler. We graduate today, so to say without a fuss, up to the highest levels of our study; here in our knowledge itself there are actually no disasters or turning points. You could say that a disaster happens when a student fails, but not knowledge itself. This involvement of the whole person, so that you are able to live with a problem in such an inner way as you have any other outer experience, is something which is rarely found. When you have written a book or if you are a private tutor you may feel very satisfied, but you don't experience disasters or turning points because of the material. This is something which has, one could say, spread over the entire scientific life.
[ 10 ] It is necessary that we come to live within the spirit once again, that the spirit becomes a reality in whose processes we participate. This is no contradiction against tranquility. Precisely though cultivating tranquility you acquire the right way to participate more strongly and concretely towards what happens objectively; finally, it is no contradiction against tranquility when one observes all the horror of a volcanic eruption or some similar events this way.
[ 11 ] I would like to say that in our modern time there is hardly any receptivity necessary for the particular way to spiritual science, simply the entire way of thinking, the quite different way of experiencing truth, is first necessary. You see, when someone says: Yes, we don't need thinking, we don't need intellectualism, we need feelings!—it is because he doesn't get the feeling that he's being moved inwardly; what should be given is what is lacking.
[ 12 ] You see, is it really enough today, to adhere to ancient religious rules? When one gives a single lecture—and I speak from experience—when one gives a single lecture, let's say, from certain details regarding the social question, then there are many listeners who could say or write: Sure, this is all possible but in this lecture the name of Christ is not mentioned even once.—Yes, my dear friends, there is still a divine commandment which says: You should not pronounce the name of God in vain—and there is the commandment: You should not continuously say, God, God. It can be something very Christian, no not continuously say the name of Christ; perhaps it is even Christian for this reason, because the name of Christ is not misused. It is not through the use of Christ's name in every third line that something becomes Christian.
[ 13 ] All these things should stop in the old thinking's comfortable way. Those who don't drop this comfortable thinking—they would also have the vague feeling that something must change—they can't be informed about the demands of the time because everything which exists in the demands of the time is something which they are unable to experience; they can't, because they are merely taught that these demands must be experienced basically as they have always been, and not commit to actually moving to solutions which must be investigated to really meet the demands of the time. Often the enormous difference between theoretical thought and immersed-in-spirit-living, is not considered. However, already during the first step into spiritual science there must be a living-within-the-spirit. I'm not saying you need to be clairvoyant or something of the kind, but that there needs to be a living-in-spirit; there must be another form of experience of truth, of content, than what one is accustomed to these days.
[ 14 ] Another objection which Dr Rittelmeyer expressed took me quite by surprise, I must admit, but this is the way it's going to happen. The objection is that people feel insulted when, instead of something being pointed out as within them, they are made aware of what individuals perhaps know, what individuals have seen. People feel, they expressed it as "their human kingdoms having been stolen", they had felt great and now they must feel small.—Yes, I must admit, this objection surprised me because I don't really understand its content. Isn't it true, what is said consequently in the letter, that people expect something to happen from above, but now they feel thrown back on to themselves, on to exercises they need to do, on to efforts needed to understand something.—I initially feel an extraordinary contradiction between both these allegations. Secondly, I must add this: my whole life I have been—and it has been already quite long—extremely glad if a truth appears somewhere, and I actually find it disturbing when someone rejects the truth, because it has not grown out of their own soil. This is quite an egotistical subjective judgment, but we are stuck in such egotistical subjective judgments, and as a result we need a renewal of thinking in our current time, because it exists.
[ 15 ] Here we have a bunch of judgements which indicates how necessary it is that a shift takes place. If these judgemental directions, which have been created by our time, continue to exist, then we will get nowhere. It is already necessary to say, even though it may sound rough, it is above all necessary to mention that the objectors must think about their objections, to what a degree they should not be making them, in order for the entry of the renewal not to be disturbed by the most ancient judgments. This is what has to be said above all things.
[ 16 ] Another objection which is of course often made is that Anthroposophy appears in the form of a science and the inference is made that the realm of belief and the realm of knowledge must metamorphose. Actually, the objection depends, when it is made, on the inexact understanding of the context in Anthroposophy. In Anthroposophy the claim is never made that a belief must be transformed into knowledge or something similar, but in Anthroposophy this first positive element appears: it is shown that through knowledge not only can one have something in the sensory world of appearance, but also in the spiritual world. The question can at least be: Are the methods which are applied directed to the real, safe and equivalent?—This can then be examined and re-examined. When the issue is expressed in a way of objecting to imagination, objecting to inspiration and so on, then there is nothing to be discussed. However, no judgment can be made when one says: I feel uncomfortable if something is to be known about it.—It isn't important if something is unpleasant, but it is important that a certain method regarding the super-sensory can be known, just as in the sensory world something can be known. What can be known can't be judged in a way so that one can say the objects of faith were based on the free recognition of inner truths because Anthroposophy is a knowledge forced through "hallucination and proof."—Anthroposophy is just a science and is established as a science, it can't get involved with such an objection because it is a science. One could have the same objection against mathematics; one could say it would be detestable if mathematical truths were actual truths. Such an objection can't actually be made, because it is basically pointless.
[ 17 ] An objection which I have heard with the most diverse nuances, is this, that something is expected, which could be something shocking, which you accept and get away with by listening to such things as "Christ is the ruler of the sun" or the issue about the "Two Jesus children." which are equally indifferent to you.
My dear friends, I must admit I don't really understand how these things can be indifferent, when they are understood. The unbelievably important question of the present day is: How can the realm of morality be founded in the realm of natural necessities? We live today on the one side within a scientifically acknowledged realm of natural necessities and one allows that within this realm of necessities, hypotheses are made which are not supported by direct observation. One takes for instance the example of the development of the earth according to geology and so on, spanning only a certain time in history and then according to these impressions arrive at the origin of the earth as coming out of the ancient mists, or like the modified hypotheses in the sense of the Kant-Laplace theories which are no more valid these days; then out of this comes the imagining of the earth's origin and out of the second main statement of the mechanical heat theory, the theory of entropy, the imagining how everything is heading for death through heat (Wärmetod). Who constructs this hypothesis regarding the earth's origin and evolution must say to himself—because according to the scientific point of view on which it is based, it can't be assumed otherwise—that this ancient mist was there as the sovereign entity with laws of aerodynamics and laws of aerostatics, and out of this the laws of hydrodynamics and hydrostatics were created, and then luckily such conditions arose through which connections were created as we find in the simplest cells, the amoebas, and then all that turned into complicated organisms, also humans, and in humans moral ideals rose through which human worth could be felt.
[ 18 ] What would we be as humans if we hadn't had our moral ideals, and if through these moral ideals we didn't, through the acceptance of a divine world order in the entire global context, become ennobled? It is useless to just let it go; to say we will separate the realm of the certainty of faith which we have in moral ideals, from what we have as the natural order. Such a separation can only happen with those who aren't really inwardly serious about what they see presented in the natural order.
[ 19 ] My dear friends, I once became acquainted with someone who at the time was involved with the great problem of death in the world, explored from Haeckel's point of view. With an earnest attitude, an inner enthusiasm to understand such a point of view, he approached this view which is quite honestly based on the foundation of science. What did he have to say about moral-religious ideals? He said: "Those are religious foam bubbles rising in human life, it is something people put in front of themselves, it is something on which the human race lives, from which they take their dignity; but one day the great graveyard of the heat death will arrive, and then all outer forms of organisms, everything which appeared as moral-religious foam bubbles will be buried, and in the world's space a sloop will be circling in some curve that can be said to be something which people once created according to mechanistic or dynamic laws, these people allowed bubbles to rise and from this the people derived their worth; and all of that has turned out to be a cosmic cemetery."
[ 20 ] You see, out of this person's honesty, because he couldn't unhook himself from it, he returned to the blissful womb of the Catholic Church for some years. This is only one example out of many.
[ 21 ] This abyss has opened up between the moral-religious world order and the scientific-mechanic world order. There are only a few people capable of enough sensitivity, who doesn't tolerate the entire world view regarding the earth's origin or demise according to science. For example, Herman Grimm said a rotting and decaying carcass bone would be an appetizing piece compared to what the Kant-Laplace theory made of the earth.—What Herman Grimm added is true, future generations of scholars will be able to make astute treatises to explain the nonsense which the Kant-Laplace theory introduced into people's heads, to their detriment.
[ 22 ] My dear friends, if with your deepest insight you want to look at what such a point of view has caused for the doom of the human soul, starting in the lowest classes in school, then in order to do what needs to be done today, you must search much deeper than is normally done. You can't get stuck half way and say: We must withdraw religious content from the general view of the world, we must have our own religious certainty and beside it, science may exist.—For then, at most, man's moral-religious view of the world will help him return to the bosom of the blessed Roman Catholic Church to numb himself if he still comes under such an anesthetic.
[ 23 ] In the course of evolution, we have reached the point where we no longer know that the spiritual lives in all-natural laws, that for example what happens within man himself, where there is actually a hearth within him, is accomplished outside in nature. My dear friends, the people from the 19th century quite correctly were strongly affected by for example what Julius Robert Mayer expressed as a law of conservation of energy and of matter. (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft.) It has really come to the fore that the law of the conservation of power and of matter in the 19th century dominates our physics today. However, this is valid for outer nature only and there only within certain boundaries which become more limited as time goes by; but in terms of time it doesn't apply to human beings. It is simply true that within man there is a hearth where all material things which he takes into himself, is transformed into nothing, where matter is destroyed, matter is dissolved. By letting our pure thoughts be assimilated by our etheric body and letting these thoughts work on our physical body through the etheric, matter is destroyed in our physical body. (During the next explanation drawings were made on the blackboard. The originals are no longer available.)
I'm sketching diagrammatically, it is intensively spread over the entire human being, I draw it in such a way as if it is only a part. This place in a person where matter becomes destroyed is at the same time the place where matter is created again, when morality, when religious perceptions glows through us. What is created here simply by our perceptions through moral and religious ideals, this is like a seed for future worlds. If the material world perishes, when the material world has been destroyed in the heat death then this earth will be transformed into another world body, and this body of a world will be made from the moral ideals created into material forms. Because our science is not capable of penetrating deeply enough into matter, it is not capable of grasping the thought that matter itself is an abstraction. We may speak about the thermal death of the earth, but at the same time we have to speak of what is cast off from plants, in wilting and drying out, and about the seed surviving into the next year; even as we can speak in relation to the heat death, we can speak about the seed which remains to us and survives the world death.
[ 24 ] There is a sphere where scientific truths end; mere scientific truths in the sense of today, where moral ideals end being bubbles of foam, when the earth will expire in the heat death. There is an accessible region for man, where moral ideals are received when physical matter is destroyed, a sphere where the Word becomes a natural scientific truth: "Heaven and Earth will pass away but My words will not pass away!"—There is a sphere where the Bible becomes science; and before this—it needs to be acknowledged in the background of today's aspirations—no healing can occur, before we have the opportunity to advance to a science, not a one-sided science like today, nor one which is a one-sided abstract spiritual science.
[ 25 ] Today the term "spiritual science" is applied only to the science of ideas. For Anthroposophy spiritual science is not only what can be grasped on the other side of materiality, but it is something whose processes penetrate matter.
[ 26 ] With results of this research it is then possible, certainly by applying diligent spiritual scientific methods, to consider everything regarding the relationship between the sun and Christ. These things must be considered in the right light. With a certain authority we have during the course of the last three centuries come to see something regarding the stars, sun and moon, which can be calculated. What has brought us misfortune is that we only calculate. We need to once again observe that by looking at the arithmetic of the world's structure, we are in fact investigating a corpse. We need to learn to investigate the spirit of the cosmic whole. Everything depends on this. We won't find the spirit, if we allow matter to violate us in such a way that it presents itself in the universe as something which can only be calculated, or at most be judged according to basic mechanical laws. For this reason, it can already be said that it depends entirely on the individual human being who says: "For me it is not important that the Christ is the ruler of the sun".—This sentence must be understood in the correct way: "For me it is a matter of indifference".
[ 27 ] My dear friends, I've heard a few people say they are indifferent to what the Christ has to do with the sun, but they were not indifferent when their taxes increase by fifty percent. Yet it is more necessary for the overall salvation of mankind that Christ and the sun are seen to be related than the rising tax of fifty percent is.
[ 28 ] How we think in detail about the two Jesus children may be discussed again. However, what would one say to an objection which claims we should practice something that, yes, I don't know what it is, and then the issue about the two Jesus children is put on the table, which leaves us indifferent. I open the Gospel and read a great deal which is presented there, similar to the issue about the two Jesus children mentioned in Anthroposophy. Then again, you don't say: We want religion, but we are quite indifferent whether Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary or something similar, every single Gospel truth leaves us completely indifferent.—I don't know to what else you don't care about. One doesn't want to enter into something which is of no interest to you, but an objection is not the same, it is definitely not.
[ 29 ] Now I would still like to enter into point eight which I've written down for myself, because time is marching on. It is said that a certain progress is expected in people's internalizing; yet through the way culture has been created, people have come to hate culture, they don't want to hear anything more about culture, and now (with Anthroposophy) something arrives which doesn't only speak about internalization, but even what strives to have an effect on architecture and the art of movement.
[ 30 ] Yes, my dear friends, if you take life seriously you won't want anything other than what appears in Anthroposophy, what appears to you as spiritual foundations penetrating everything in outer life. I'm still talking about Anthroposophy; we will still touch on what religion has to say about it. That's just the trouble, we are no longer in the position to bring what we experience in the spiritual into our outer life, and finally this happens just in those areas where it is the most noticeable. Just imagine you had said to a Greek that he couldn't express his spiritual experiences in outer life. Just as the Greek thought about his Apollo, as he thought about Zeus, he created his Zeus temple accordingly, his colonnaded temple. We no longer create, we imitate what is old; we don't have the possibility of taking those areas relating to the spirit and also create an external physiognomy of life. The only thing we can create is a department store. The department store is the grandiose creation of the materialistic spirit of the present day. However, if we wanted a home for the spirit and turn to a builder, then he would build it in a Romantic, Gothic or some or other style, and we would have no feeling, when we stand there within the walls, of anything being expressed of what we had inwardly lived through spiritually.
[ 31 ] You see, when the thought was created—not through me but through others—to build a house for Anthroposophy, not for an instant would an idea exist to approach a builder and let him erect a Renaissance or Baroque building and then to move in there, but the idea could come about in the following way. In this building this and that would be spoken about and the forms which would be visible all around should say exactly the same as what is being spoken within it. If this is not only theoretical but life, if the forms are creative, then they are presented—as living—in the world. It is impossible to measure what is created here as a matter of course in comparison with the dishonest cultural activity of the times which has brought us into all this trouble.
[ 32 ] This is what I wanted to present primarily, my dear friends. There are too many questions to deal with in one stroke; I will continue with them tomorrow. I've limited myself today by entering into what has been raised against Anthroposophy in general. I will however expand on what in particular will be raised against the service which Anthroposophy will bring towards religious renewal. I would like to stress the following: if somehow an idea develops that it equally represents an existing religious confession, or a creed, which one thinks to justify only through Anthroposophy as its basis, then you do Anthroposophy a wrong because it has never claimed to be a religious education nor is it a religion or wants to establish a religion. This Anthroposophy will not do. Anthroposophy follows impulses to knowledge, goals to knowledge; and whoever says that Anthroposophy is not a religion because it doesn't have the characteristics of religion—say something which Anthroposophy must say about itself from the outset. You can't accuse someone of being something he doesn't even want to be! The objections which are actually made from a religious side, appear to me as if, let's say, someone is active in a field and is accused of not doing what he could in another field.
The objections raised by Dr Rittelmeyer, as far as I have taken into account, certainly involve the relationship people have to Anthroposophy. For this reason, I approached it from this side and will enter into it from the religious side, tomorrow.
Dritter Vortrag
[ 1 ] Emil Bock: Ich möchte unsere Diskussionsstunde eröffnen und möchte sogleich meinen Auftrag ausrichten, indem ich Herrn Dr. Steiner bitte, auf den Brief von Dr. Rittelmeyer vor uns zu antworten. Dieser Brief ist wohl aus dem vielfachen Wunsche herausgewachsen, Richtlinien zu bekommen für die Antworten gegenüber denen, die eben diese Einwände machen.
[ 2 ] Rudolf Steiner: Wenn wir damit beginnen sollen, will ich zunächst mir gestatten, einiges über die einzelnen Punkte zu sagen. Ich bitte Sie aber, dann selber ihre Bemerkungen auch wiederum an die Bemerkungen, die ich mache, anzuknüpfen, weil ja natürlich das eine oder das andere von Ihnen hier auch in anderer Richtung gemeint sein könnte, als es von Dr. Rittelmeyer formuliert ist.
[ 3 ] Da finde ich zunächst den Gedanken, daß ja heute vielfach das Gefühl besteht, es müsse eine Art von Einschlag in das religiöse Leben kommen, es bedürfe das religiöse Leben in den verschiedensten Punkten einer Art Erneuerung. Dr.Rittelmeyer hat ja diese Empfindung, die, wie er meint, bei vielen vorhanden ist, so formuliert, wie es Ihnen bekannt ist, und ich muß gestehen, es ist mir ja etwas Ähnliches zuweilen auch entgegengetreten. Aber gerade mit Bezug auf den ersten Punkt, der hier angeführt worden ist, man erwarte einen einheitlichen Gedanken, ein seelenmächtiges Gefühl — was dann zusammengefaßt wird in die Worte «Eins ist not» — und man finde in der Anthroposophie eine Summe, vielleicht sogar eine sehr große Summe von Erklärungen über Welteninhalte und dergleichen, zu denen man zunächst keinen Zugang wisse, muß ich sagen: Es scheint mir in einer solchen Empfindung gerade dasjenige zu liegen, was in vieler Beziehung so seit langer Zeit schon da war, und was gerade viel dazu beigetragen hat, daß wir in der abendländischen Zivilisation in der neuesten Zeit in eine Art von Sackgasse hineingeraten sind.
[ 4 ] Bedenken wir nur einmal, wie vage, wie unbestimmt eine Empfindung wäre, welche geradezu erwartete, daß vielleicht irgend etwas in kurzer Weise formuliert würde, was erlösend sein sollte. Man könnte ja sogar auf unserem Gebiete auf Anlagen hierzu hinweisen. Es ist auf unserem Gebiete, auf einem Gebiete, das in anderer Art aus dem anthroposophischen Grundstreben hervorgeht, etwas dergleichen ja sogar geschehen, wie es, wenn ich recht verstehe, hier in diesem Punkte gemeint ist. Das ist auf dem Gebiete des sozialen Denkens. Da ist es zu so etwas, wie, ich möchte sagen, einer Art von einheitlichem Gedanken gekommen: das ist der Gedanke der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Ich will jetzt zunächst nur vergleichend charakterisieren. Ich muß gestehen, daß gerade dieses Beispiel nicht zeigt, daß es irgend etwas Erhebliches ist, wenn ein so Kurzformuliertes vor die Öffentlichkeit tritt. Denn im Leben erzeugt ein solch Kurzformuliertes doch nicht dasjenige, was eine wirklich einschneidende Bedeutung haben kann. Mir kommt solch ein Einwand immer vor, wie wenn einer sagt: Du willst mir etwas sagen über den menschlichen Organismus, und statt mir einen einheitlichen Gedanken zu geben, reichst du mir eine ganze Physiologie. - Man muß versuchen zu verstehen, wie gerade aus dem zweifellos vorhandenen bequemen Denken der neueren Zeit ein großer Teil unseres Unglückes in äußerer und innerer Beziehung entstanden ist, und wie dasjenige, worunter wir leiden, gerade darauf beruht, daß man in unbestimmter Weise Begierden hat nach irgend etwas, was sich kurz fassen läßt. Und man wird sich sagen müssen: Gerade, daß ein solcher Gedanke auftaucht, beweist, daß eben manches anders werden muß, wenn die Dinge eintreten sollen, die viele in unbestimmter Weise erwarten. Und insbesondere, wenn dann gesagt wird, statt eines solchen «einheitlichen Gedankens», statt eines «seelenmächtigen Gefühls» werde eine Anzahl von Übungen gegeben, von denen einzelne ja moralischer Natur seien — die seien bekannt -, und andere - sie werden hier in dem Brief «okkulte» genannt, die auf manche einen absonderlichen, bedenklichen Eindruck machen -, ja, so muß eben gesagt werden: Was kann man denn eigentlich erwarten? — Man kann erwarten, daß auftrete einfach eine Auseinandersetzung darüber, was der gegenwärtigen Menschheit fehlt. Ich rede jetzt zunächst so, wie es auf anthroposophischem Gebiet durchaus notwendig ist; wir werden schon auf das Spezielle der religiösen Frage durch den Brief selber kommen.
[ 5 ] Sehen Sie, die moralischen Übungen, die hier als bekannt bezeichnet werden, das sind solche, die ja gewiß ihrem Wortlaut nach bekannt wären, wenn sie moralische Anweisungen wären. Aber zunächst, im anthroposophischen Zusammenhang, sind sie das ja nicht. Im anthroposophischen Zusammenhang sind sie Anweisungen zur Erlangung einer höheren Erkennntnis. Und sie sind durchaus so vorgebracht, daß es klar sein muß: sie sind Anweisungen zur Erlangung einer höheren, einer übersinnlichen Erkenntnis. Man muß doch sagen: Ob ich das sage, was notwendig ist, wenn der Mensch eine übersinnliche Erkenntnis erlangen möchte, oder ob ich zum Beispiel sage, eine gewisse Gelassenheit gegenüber dem «himmelhoch jauchzend,.zu Tode betrübt» ist etwas, was dem Menschen einen moralischen Halt gibt, das ist durchaus ein großer, durchgreifender Unterschied. Indem ich eine Sache so ausspreche wie die Forderung der Gelassenheit, spreche ich etwas aus, was ja vielleicht ganz gut bekannt sein mag und was auch zunächst so etwas wie eine moralische Anweisung selbstverständlich klingt, aber das ist ja alles gar nicht in Diskussion gestellt auf dem Boden, auf dem die Forderung der Gelassenheit auftritt [in meinem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?»]. Wird denn da gesagt, es sei für den Menschen zwecks des Moralischen, zwecks des Bekommens eines moralischen Haltes notwendig, Gelassenheit zu entwickeln? Nein! Es wird etwas ganz anderes gesagt. Es wird gesagt, daß eine Übung gemacht werden soll; es wird gesagt, daß diese Übung wiederholt gemacht werden soll, daß also in einem gewissen Rhythmus eine ganz bestimmte Übung gemacht werden soll, welche dann so charakterisiert wird, daß man sie als «Gelassenheit» bezeichnen kann. Wiederholt eine bestimmte Übung machen, das ist etwas anderes als ein moralisches Tun. Also das müssen Sie vor allen Dingen ins Auge fassen bei alle dem, worum es sich handelt in meinem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?». Sehen Sie, es ist eigentlich das Selbstverständlichste, was man einem Menschen sagen kann: Du sollst dich bemühen, die Wahrheit zu erforschen. Es ist eine Selbstverständlichkeit. Aber hier handelt es sich nicht darum, sondern hier handelt es sich darum, daß man in rhythmischer Folge sich dem Gedanken an die Wahrheit hingibt, an die Beziehung des Menschen zur Wahrheit. Und diese Übung, dieses Sich-im-Bewußtsein-gegenwärtig-Machen eines solchen Inhaltes, dieses wiederholte rhythmische Sich-im-Bewußtsein-gegenwärtigMachen, das ist dasjenige, um was es sich handelt. Es handelt sich darum, daß eine ganz bestimmte Gesinnung für die Geist-Erkenntnis angewendet werden muß. Ich will Ihnen diese Gesinnung etwas genauer noch präzisieren. Ich weiche dabei ab von der strengen Formulierung des Briefes, aber vielleicht wird dadurch manches viel klarer werden.
[ 6 ] Sehen Sie, nehmen Sie einen heutigen Professor oder einen Dozenten oder einen sonstigen Gelehrten, der Vorträge hält. Schr häufig geschieht das so, daß er sich einen Vortrag ausarbeitet, dann hat er ihn im Gedächtnis, und dann spricht er. Ja, das kann man nicht, wenn man wirklich in der Geisteswissenschaft darinnen lebt. Das würde einen, wenn man in der Geisteswissenschaft darinnen lebt, zu einem unwahrhaftigen Menschen machen. Die Vorbereitung kann da lediglich darin bestehen, daß eine gewisse innere Sammlung über den Gegenstand eintritt. Durch diese innere Sammlung tritt man in der Tat- auch wenn man schon tausendmal mit dem Gegenstand in Verbindung war — jedesmal wiederum neu an den Gegenstand heran, so daß man ihn gewissermaßen im Geiste greifbar vor sich hat und aus der unmittelbaren Anschauung heraus jedesmal unmittelbar spricht. Sehen Sie, wenn man etwas lernt, sagen wir Geographie, irgendein Kapitel — schön, man lernt’s, man hat’s, und dann behält man es gedächtnismäßig. Das gibt es aber gar nicht in der Geisteswissenschaft, wenn sie lebendig werden soll. Derjenige, der Geisteswissenschaftler in Wirklichkeit sein will, der muß gerade immer wieder und wiederum die elementarsten Dinge durch seine Seele ziehen lassen. Daß ich zum Beispiel mein Buch «Theosophie» geschrieben habe, das hat für mich selbst nicht eine abgeschlossene Bedeutung. Dasjenige, was darin steht, muß ich immer wieder und wiederum durch meine Seele ziehen lassen, wenn es Bedeutung haben soll. Es geht nicht, zu sagen: Die «Theosophie» ist da, ich habe ihren Inhalt nun inne. — Das würde auf dem Boden der Geisteswissenschaft ganz dasselbe sein, wie wenn einer sagen würde — ich glaube aber nicht, daß es einen Menschen gibt, der das sagt -: Ich habe vor acht Tagen gegessen, und ich brauche nicht jeden Tag immer dasselbe zu wiederholen. - Wir setzen uns jeden Tag wieder hin und tun jeden Tag dasselbe. Warum? Weil das Leben ist, weil das nicht etwas ist, was bloß gedächtnismäßig aufbewahrt werden kann. Das Leben der Geisteswissenschaft ist Leben, und es ist abgetan, wenn man es nicht immer wieder und wiederum erlebt. Das ist dasjenige, was dabei beachtet werden muß.
[ 7 ] Sie werden, wenn Sie an das durch die Geisteswissenschaft gegebene Leben herantreten, wohl auch vernommen haben, daß es zum Beispiel wirklich möglich ist, denjenigen Menschen, die durch die Pforte des Todes gegangen sind, dadurch zu helfen, daß man sich in einer Art meditativen Weise irgendeinem Inhalt hingibt, der sich auf die geistige Welt bezieht, in welcher ja dann diese durch die Pforte des Todes gegangenen Menschen sind. Da handelt es sich nicht darum, daß man ihnen etwas, sagen wir, einmal vorliest und dann darauf rechnet: nun haben sie es. - Sondern das immer fortdauernde Wiederholen ist es, dieses Sich-Zusammenleben mit dem Inhalt, immer von neuem; das wird viel zu wenig beachtet. Die Leute sind heute gewöhnt, alles als Theorien zu betrachten. Geisteswissenschaft ist keine Theorie, sie ist Leben; aber wenn man sie so behandelt, daß man meint, man lernt sie so, wie man andere Dinge lernt, dadurch macht man sie erst zur Theorie. Natürlich kann man sie zur Theorie machen, aber sie wird nur durch diejenigen, die sie so aufnehmen, zur Theorie. Jeder ernste Geistesforscher weiß, daß man in ihr leben muß; die Übungen sind nicht erschöpft dadurch, daß man ihren Inhalt kennt.
[ 8 ] Das sind Dinge, die aus dem abendländischen Bewußtsein verschwunden sind. Wie das abendländische Bewußtsein ist, zeigt sich aber noch in anderen Dingen. Zu mir sind Leute gekommen, die sagten: Es ist etwas Fürchterliches mit den Buddha-Reden, da sind ja lauter Wiederholungen drinnen, und man sollte doch eine Ausgabe machen, wo nur der Inhalt der Reden drin ist und die Wiederholungen weglassen. — Aber niemand versteht die Buddha-Reden wirklich, der eine solche Forderung stellt, denn darauf beruht ja das Wesentliche der Buddha-Reden, daß man in rhythmischer Folge, mit ganz kleinen Einschiebseln, immer dasselbe wiederholt. Nun ist das eine orientalische Methode, die mit dem, was hier zu wirken und zu arbeiten ist, nicht zusammenfällt, aber um so etwas zu erklären, muß ich eben darauf aufmerksam machen.
[ 9 ] Weiter wird in dem Brief über die Übungen gesagt, manche seien absonderlich und bedenklich. Ja, da muß man ins Auge fassen, aus was für Urteils- oder Beurteilungsuntergründen heute ein solches Urteil gefaßt wird. Wenn man davon redet, daß heute eine Sehnsucht vorhanden ist nach etwas Neuem, dann muß man sich ja auch damit bekanntmachen, wodurch eine solche Sehnsucht vorhanden ist; da muß man schon wirklich dasjenige charakterisieren, was vorhanden ist. Ich darf, um mich deutlich zu machen, vielleicht erinnern an das Buch von Oswald Spengler «Der Untergang des Abendlandes». Spengler hat nun eine kleine Broschüre folgen lassen: «Pessimismus?». Ich will einen Satz aus diesem Spenglerschen «Pessimismus» herausgreifen; er sagt, es käme ihm nicht darauf an, Wahrheiten zu erkennen, sondern Tatsachen geltend zu machen. — Und nun folgen Auseinandersetzungen darüber, was er unter «Wahrheit» versteht und was unter «Tatsachen». Da sagt er an einer Stelle: Wahrheiten sind Größen des Denkens. ... Was in einer Dissertation steht, sind Wahrheiten; daß ein Kandidat mit der Dissertation durchfällt, ist eine Tatsache. - Nun soll man sich vorstellen, daß mit einem solchen Satz überhaupt etwas gesagt sein soll; er ist ein völliger Unsinn. Aber die Leute lesen über so etwas hinweg, sie nehmen es als etwas hin, was etwas sagen soll, und man merkt daran nichts Absonderliches und hält dann etwas anderes für absonderlich. Über einen solchen Satz kann man überhaupt nicht diskutieren, er ist ein absoluter Unsinn. Aber es wird heute nicht einmal diskutiert, wenn jemand einen solchen Unsinn sagt; es fällt gar nicht auf. So kann es ja nicht ausbleiben, daß eine Zeit, in der ein solcher Urteilsduktus herrscht, manches absonderlich und bedenklich findet. Aber man stelle sich einmal vor, wohin wir — allerdings in anderer Beziehung, als Spengler meint — eigentlich gekommen sind. Wir absolvieren heute sozusagen ohne Aufregung bis zu den höchsten Stufen hinauf unser Studium, da gibt es in der Erkenntnis selbst nicht eigentlich Katastrophen oder Peripetien. Man könnte sagen, Katastrophen gibt es höchstens dann, wenn ein Student durchfällt, aber nicht an der Erkenntnis selber. Dieses Inanspruchnehmen des ganzen Menschen, so daß man in der Lage ist, ein Problem mit einem solchen inneren Hingenommensein zu erleben, wie man vielleicht irgendein äußeres Ereignis erlebt, das ist etwas, was es kaum gibt. Man fühlt sich, wenn man ein Buch geschrieben hat oder wenn man Privatdozent ist, sehr befriedigt, aber man macht keine Katastrophen oder Peripetien durch wegen des Stoffes selbst. Das ist etwas, was sich, ich möchte sagen, über das ganze wissenschaftliche Leben ausgedehnt hat.
[ 10 ] Was aber notwendig ist, das ist, daß wir dazu kommen, im Geiste wiederum zu leben, daß der Geist eine Wirklichkeit wird, dessen Prozesse wir mitmachen. Das ist kein Widerspruch etwa gegen die Gelassenheit. Gerade wenn man Gelassenheit hat, wird man das, was objektiv vorgeht und zu stärkerer oder konkreterer Anteilnahme führt, in der richtigen Weise miterleben können; und schließlich ist es kein Widerspruch gegen die Gelassenheit, wenn man die ganze Entsetzlichkeit eines Vulkanausbruches oder ähnlicher Ereignisse wahrnimmt.
[ 11 ] So möchte ich sagen: Es muß eben in die heutige Zeit, in der man gar keine Empfänglichkeit hat für die besondere Art, die zur Geisteswissenschaft notwendig ist, einfach die ganze Art des Denkens, die ganz andere Art, die Wahrheit zu erleben, eigentlich erst hineingeworfen werden. Sehen Sie, wenn jemand sagt: Ja, wir brauchen nicht das Denken, wir brauchen nicht den Intellektualismus, wir brauchen das Gefühl! -, so liegt das ja daran, daß er nicht das Gefühl bekommt, daß er innerlich bewegt wird; dasjenige, was gegeben werden soll, ist ja das, [was ihm fehlt].
[ 12 ] Sehen Sie, ist man denn wirklich heute weit genug, um gewisse ururalte Religionsregeln einzuhalten? Wenn man heute eine einzige Rede hält — und ich rede aus Erfahrung -—, wenn man heute eine einzige Rede hält, die sagen wir, von gewissen Einzelheiten der sozialen Frage handelt, da gibt es zahlreiche Zuhörer, die sagen oder schreiben dann: Ja, das mag alles sein, aber in diesem Vortrag kam nicht ein einziges Mal der Name Christus vor. — Ja, meine lieben Freunde, es gibt doch ein göttliches Gebot, das heißt: Du sollst den Namen deines Herrn nicht eitel aussprechen —, und es gibt ein Gebot: Du sollst nicht fortwährend Herr, Herr sagen. —- Es kann etwas sehr christlich sein, ohne daß der Name des Christus fortwährend ausgesprochen wird; ja, vielleicht ist es eben deshalb christlich, weil der Name Christus nicht mißbraucht wird. Nicht dadurch wird etwas christlich, daß der Name Christus nach jeder dritten Zeile gebraucht wird.
[ 13 ] Allen diesen Dingen gegenüber sollte die alte Bequemlichkeit des Denkens aufhören. Denn derjenige, der nicht diese Bequemlichkeit des Denkens ablegt —- mag er auch das unbestimmte Gefühl haben, daß irgend etwas anders werden muß -, der kann sich doch an der Zeitforderung nicht beteiligen, weil er die ganze volle Tiefe desjenigen, was als Zeitforderung dasteht, gar nicht zu empfinden in der Lage ist; er kann es nicht, weil er sich bloß einbildet, daß er sie empfindet und im Grunde genommen doch alles so haben möchte, wie es schon ist, und nicht eigentlich sich dazu bekennt, tatsächlich zu Lösungen überzugehen, die versucht werden müssen, um nun wirklich den Forderungen der Zeit zu genügen. Das wird eben oftmals nicht bedacht, welch ein gewaltiger Unterschied ist zwischen dem theoretischen Denken und dem Im-Geiste-Leben. Aber schon der erste Schritt in die Geisteswissenschaft hinein muß ein ImGeiste-Leben sein. Ich sage nicht, es muß ein Hellsehen oder dergleichen sein, sondern ein Im-Geiste-Leben; das muß eine andere Form des Erlebens der Wahrheiten, der Inhalte haben, als man sie gewöhnt ist, heute zu haben.
[ 14 ] Ein weiterer Einwand hat mich, muß ich sagen, eigentlich außerordentlich überrascht, aber da ihn Dr.Rittelmeyer ausgeprochen hat, so wird er ja eben schon vorkommen. Das ist der Einwand, daß die Menschen sich beleidigt fühlen darüber, daß sie, statt auf etwas gewiesen zu werden, das in ihnen selbst liegt, darauf gewiesen werden, was vielleicht einzelne wissen, was einzelne geschaut haben. Die Menschen fühlten sich, so wird gesagt, «ihres Menschenkönigtums beraubt», sie fühlen sich groß und sollten sich klein fühlen. — Ja, ich muß gestehen, dieser Einwand hat mich aus dem Grunde überrascht, weil ich eigentlich gar nicht recht sehe, was er für einen Inhalt hat. Denn, nicht wahr, es wird gleich darauffolgend [in dem Briefe] gesagt, ja, die Menschen erwarteten, es käme etwas, was sie von oben ergreife, aber nun fühlten sie sich auf sich selbst zurückgeworfen, auf Übungen, die sie machen sollten, auf Anstrengungen, um etwas zu begreifen. — Ich fühle erstens einen außerordentlichen Widerspruch zwischen diesen beiden Behauptungen. Zweitens muß ich dazu sagen: Mir ging es mein ganzes Leben hindurch so — und das ist jetzt schon ziemlich lang —, daß ich außerordentlich froh war, wenn mir eine Wahrheit von irgendeiner Seite zukam, und ich fand es eigentlich immer entsetzlich, wenn jemand eine Wahrheit deshalb abwies, weil sie nicht auf seinem eigenen Grund und Boden gewachsen war. Das ist ja eine ganz egoistisch-subjektive Beurteilung, aber in solchen egoistischen, subjektiven Beurteilungen stecken wir darinnen, und deshalb brauchen wir eine Erneuerung [des Denkens in] der [heutigen] Zeit, weil das vorhanden ist.
[ 15 ] So haben wir hier ein Bündel von Beurteilungen, die gerade zeigen, wie notwendig es ist, daß ein Wandel eintritt. Denn wenn diese Urteilsrichtungen weiter bestehen, die gerade die Not unserer Zeit hervorgerufen haben, dann kommen wir nicht weiter. Daher ist es schon notwendig, daß man sagt, wenn es auch grob klingen mag: In bezug auf diese Einwände ist vor allen Dingen das zu sagen, daß die Einwendenden darüber nachdenken sollten, inwiefern sie sie nicht machen sollten, damit sie nicht das Hereinkommen des Neuen gerade durch ihre ururältesten Vorurteile stören. — Das ist dasjenige, was da vor allen Dingen gesagt werden muß.
[ 16 ] Ein weiterer Einwand, der ja natürlich viel gemacht wird, ist der, daß Anthroposophie in Form einer Wissenschaft auftritt, und daran wird dann die Folgerung geknüpft, daß das Reich des Glaubens in ein Reich des Wissens verwandelt werden solle. Eigentlich beruht der Einwand, wenn er gemacht wird, auf einer ungenauen Erfassung desjenigen, was in der Anthroposophie auftritt. In der Anthroposophie tritt gar nicht die Forderung auf, man solle irgend etwas, was man geglaubt hat, in ein Wissen verwandeln oder dergleichen, sondern in der Anthroposophie tritt zunächst ein Positives auf: Es wird gezeigt, daß man durch das Wissen nicht nur etwas haben kann über die äußere sinnliche Erscheinungswelt, sondern auch über die geistige Welt. Die Frage kann höchstens sein; Führen die Methoden, die dabei angewendet werden, zu Realem, Sicherem und dergleichen? — Darüber kann es dann Prüfung über Prüfung geben. Wenn die Sache sich so stellen würde, daß gesagt würde, gegen Imagination habe man dies einzuwenden, gegen Inspiration das einzuwenden und so weiter, nun, darüber läßt sich in ganz sachlicher Weise diskutieren. Aber es ist gar kein Urteil da, wenn man sagt: Mir ist es unangenehm, wenn darüber irgend etwas gewußt werden kann. — Es kommt nicht darauf an, ob es einem unangenehm ist, es kommt darauf an, daß durch gewisse Methoden über das Übersinnliche etwas gewußt werden kann, so wie über das Sinnliche etwas gewußt werden kann. Und das, was gewußt werden kann, das kann gar nicht so beurteilt werden, daß man sagt, die Gegenstände des Glaubens beruhten auf einem freien Anerkennen von inneren Wahrheiten, während Anthroposophie ein Wissen durch «Sinnenschein und Beweise» erzwingen wolle. — Anthroposophie ist eben eine Wissenschaft und begründet sich als eine Wissenschaft, sie kann es gar nicht zu tun haben mit einem solchen Einwand, indem sie eine Wissenschaft ist. Man könnte ja dasselbe gegen die Mathematik sagen; man könnte sagen, es sei einem zuwider, daß die mathematischen Wahrheiten eben ein Wahres sind. Man kann solch einen Einwand eben eigentlich nicht machen, weil er im Grunde genommen gegenstandslos ist.
[ 17 ] Ein Einwand, den auch ich in den verschiedensten Nuancen gehört habe, ist der, daß man etwas erwartet, was einen vielleicht erschüttert, was einen hinnimmt, und daß man dann von solchen Dingen höre wie «Christus sei der Regent der Sonne» oder die Sache von den «zwei Jesusknaben», die einem eigentlich gleichgülug sind. — Meine lieben Freunde, da muß ich nun gestehen, ich kann nicht recht begreifen, wie einem diese Dinge gleichgültig sein können, wenn man sie versteht. Denn das ist ja die große, die ungeheure Frage der Gegenwart: Wie gründet sich das Reich des Moralischen in dem Reich der Naturnotwendigkeiten? Wir leben heute auf der einen Seite in dem wissenschaftlich anerkannten Reich der Naturnotwendigkeiten, und man gestattet sich, innerhalb dieses Reiches der Naturnotwendigkeiten Hypothesen auch über dasjenige zu machen, was der unmittelbaren Beobachtung nicht unterliegt. Man sieht zum Beispiel die Entwickelung der Erde nur durch eine gewisse Spanne der Geschichte, der Geologie und so weiter und macht sich danach Vorstellungen über das Herkommen der Erde aus einem Urnebel heraus, oder so wie es die modifizierten Hypothesen im Sinne der Kant-Laplaceschen Theorie annehmen, die ja heute nicht mehr gilt; man hat daraus die Vorstellung vom Anfang der Erdenentwickelung gewonnen und aus dem zweiten Hauptsatz der mechanischen Wärmetheorie, dem Satz von der Entropie, die Vorstellung, wie alles dem Wärmetod entgegengeht. Wer diese Hypothesen über den Anfang und das Ende der Erdenentwickelung konstruiert, der muß sich sagen — denn das ist nach der Wissenschaftsgesinnung, die da zugrundeliegt, einfach nicht anders anzunehmen -, daß der Urnebel da war als ein souveränes Gebilde mit den Gesetzen der Aerodynamik und den Gesetzen der Aerostatik, und aus denselben haben sich die Gesetze der Hydrodynamik und der Hydrostatik gebildet, und dann sind einmal jene glücklichen Umstände eingetreten, durch welche sich ein solcher Zusammenhang gebildet hat, wie er uns in der einfachsten Zelle, der Amöbe, zutage tritt, und dann ist alles dasjenige geworden, was kompliziertere Organismen sind, auch der Mensch, und im Menschen sind dann moralische Ideale aufgetaucht, durch die er seine eigentliche Menschenwürde fühlt.
[ 18 ] Was wären wir als Menschen vor uns selbst, wenn wir nicht unsere moralischen Ideale hätten, und wenn wir nicht durch diese moralischen Ideale, durch die Aufnahme in eine göttliche Weltenordnung, in einen ganzen Weltenzusammenhang, geadelt würden? Es nützt nichts, sich darüber einfach hinwegzutäuschen und zu sagen: Wir trennen das Reich der Glaubensgewißheit, das wir mit den moralischen Idealen haben, von dem, was wir haben als Naturordnung. Zu einer solchen Abtrennung kann nur der geführt werden, der nicht wirklich innerlich ernst sich das vor Augen stellt, was in der Naturordnung vor uns hingestellt ist.
[ 19 ] Meine lieben Freunde, ich habe einmal eine Persönlichkeit kennengelernt, die hat sich in der Zeit, als ich sie kennengelernt habe, zunächst mit dem großen Problem des Todes in der Welt befaßt und ist dann übergegangen zu einer Weltanschauung wie sie der Haeckelismus darstellt, um mit ernstester Gesinnung, mit innerstem Enthusiasmus eine solche Weltanschauung zu ergreifen, die eben ganz ehrlich auf dem Boden der Naturwissenschaft steht. Was hat diese Persönlichkeit damals über die moralisch-religiösen Ideale gesagt? Sie hat gesagt: Das sind religiöse Schaumblasen, die auftauchen im menschlichen Erleben, das ist etwas, was sich der Mensch vormacht, und das ist dasjenige, wovon das Menschengeschlecht lebt, von dem das Menschengeschlecht seine Würde hernimmt; aber einmal wird kommen der große Friedhof des Wärmetodes, dann wird mit den äußeren Formen der Organismen auch alles das begraben sein, was als moralisch-religiöses Schaumgebilde aufgetaucht ist, und im Weltenraum wird eine Schaluppe kreisen in irgendeiner Kurve, von der man wird sagen können: da haben sich einmal aus mechanischen oder dynamischen Gesetzen Menschen gebildet, diese Menschen haben Schaumblasen aufsteigen gehabt und davon haben diese Menschen ihre Würde hergeleitet; und das alles ist ein kosmischer Friedhof geworden. —
[ 20 ] Sehen Sie, diese Persönlichkeit war ehrlich, und aus ihrer Ehrlichkeit heraus ist sie, weil sie es nicht aushalten konnte, vor einigen Jahren in den seligmachenden Schoß der römisch-katholischen Kirche zurückgekehrt. Das ist ein Beispiel, das ich Ihnen leicht durch zahlreiche andere vermehren könnte.
[ 21 ] Das ist der Abgrund, der sich aufgetan hat zwischen moralischreligiöser Weltordnung und naturwissenschaftlich-mechanischer Weltordnung. Nur einige Leute von genügend Gefühl sind da, die halten es nicht aus mit ihrer ganzen Weltauffassung gegenüber dem, was die Naturwissenschaft über Erdenanfang und Erdenende sagt. So sagt zum Beispiel Herman Grimm, ein Aasknochen, der verfault und verwest, wäre ein appetitliches Stück im Vergleich zu dem, was die Kant-Laplacesche Theorie aus der Erde gemacht hat. —- Wahr ist, was Herman Grimm hinzugefügt hat, daß künftige Gelehrtengenerationen scharfsinnige Abhandlungen werden machen können, um den Blödsinn zu erklären, den die Kant-Laplacesche Theorie in die Köpfe der Menschen zu ihrem Unheil hineingebracht hat.
[ 22 ] Meine lieben Freunde, wer in seiner vollen Tiefe einsieht, was mit einer solchen Anschauung angerichtet wird, von der untersten Schulklasse an, zum Unheil der menschlichen Seelenverfassung, der muß allerdings dasjenige, was heute getan werden muß, viel tiefer suchen, als man es gewöhnlich sucht. Der darf nicht bei einer Halbheit steckenbleiben und sagen: Wir müssen eben aussondern von dem Allgemeinen der Weltanschauung dasjenige, was Glaubensinhalt sein muß, wir müssen eine eigene Glaubensgewißheit haben, und daneben mag die Naturwissenschaft ihr Dasein haben. - Denn dann hilft dem Menschen für seine moralisch-religiöse Weltauffassung höchstens noch, daß er in den Schoß der seligmachenden römisch-katholischen Kirche zurückkehrt, um sich zu betäuben, wenn er noch zu einer solchen Betäubung kommt.
[ 23 ] Wir haben es eben im Laufe der Entwickelung dahin gebracht, daß wir nicht mehr wissen, daß in allen Naturordnungen auch Geistiges lebt, daß zum Beispiel tatsächlich im Menschen selber drinnen ein Herd ist, wo sich dasjenige vollendet, was draußen in der Natur geschieht. Meine lieben Freunde, die Menschen des 19. Jahrhunderts hat mit Recht das stark berührt, was zum Beispiel von Julius Robert Mayer ausgesprochen worden ist als das Gesetz von der Erhaltung der Kraft und des Stoffes. So recht zur Geltung gekommen ist das Gesetz von der Erhaltung der Kraft und des Stoffes im 19. Jahrhundert, und es beherrscht heute unsere Physik. Aber es gilt nur für die äußere Natur und auch da nur innerhalb gewisser Grenzen, die der Zeit nach beschränkt sind; es gilt aber selbst in bezug auf die Zeit nicht für den Menschen. Für den Menschen ist einfach wahr, daß in ihm ein Herd ist, wo alles Materielle, das er zu sich nimmt, ins Nichts verwandelt wird, wo Materie vernichtet, wo Materie aufgelöst wird. Indem wir unsere reinen Gedanken unserem Ätherleib einverleiben und diese Gedanken durch unseren Ätherleib auf unseren physischen Leib wirken, wird Materie in unserem physischen Leib vernichtet. Wir haben in uns einen Ort, an dem Materie vernichtet wird. (Während der folgenden Ausführungen wird an die Tafel gezeichnet. Die Original-Tafelzeichnung liegt nicht mehr vor.) Ich zeichne schematisch, es ist intensiv über den ganzen Menschen ausgebreitet, ich zeichne es so, als wenn es ein Teil wäre. Dieser Ort, wo Materie vernichtet wird, dieses Stück des Menschen, wo Materie vernichtet wird, das ist zu gleicher Zeit der Ort, wo Materie wieder entsteht, wenn moralisch, wenn religiös Empfundenes uns durchglüht. Und dasjenige, was hier entsteht, einfach dadurch, daß wir religiöse, moralische Ideale erleben, das wirkt so wie ein Keim für künftige Welten. Wenn die materielle Welt von jetzt zugrundegegangen sein wird, wenn die materielle Welt von jetzt dem Wärmetod verfallen sein wird, dann wird diese Erde sich verwandeln in einen anderen Weltenkörper, und dieser Weltenkörper wird aus demjenigen bestehen, was sich als eine aus den moralischen Idealen entstandene neue Materialität bildet. Weil unsere Naturwissenschaft nicht imstande ist, tief genug in das Materielle hineinzudringen, ist sie auch nicht imstande, den Gedanken zu erfassen, daß das Materielle selber nur eine Abstraktion ist. Wir können zwar vom Wärmetode [der Erde] sprechen, aber zugleich müssen wir von dem Wärmetod so sprechen wie bei der Pflanze von dem, was von der Pflanze abfällt im Verwelken und Verdorren, und von dem, was als Keim bleibt für das nächste Jahr; ebenso können wir [in bezug auf den Wärmetod der Erde] davon sprechen, daß die Keime uns bleiben, [die den Erdentod überdauern].
[ 24 ] Es gibt ein Territorium, wo die naturwissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten aufhören, bloß naturwissenschaftliche Wahrheiten im heutigen Sinne zu sein, wo moralische Ideale aufhören, Schaumblasen zu sein, wenn die Erde dem Wärmetod verfallen wird. Es gibt ein Gebiet, das man erreichen kann, wo die moralischen Ideale sich erhalten werden, wenn die physische Materialität vernichtet wird, wo das Wort eine naturwissenschaftliche Wahrheit wird: Himmel und Erde werden vergehen, aber meine Worte werden nicht vergehen! — Es gibt ein Territorium, wo die Bibel Naturwissenschaft wird; und eher — das muß man in den Untergründen des heutigen Zeitstrebens erkennen — kann keine Heilung eintreten, bevor wir nicht die Möglichkeit haben, zu einer Wissenschaft vorzudringen, die weder einseitige heutige Naturwissenschaft, noch einseitige abstrakte Geisteswissenschaft ist.
[ 25 ] Heute nennt man vielfach dasjenige «Geisteswissenschaft», was nur Ideenwissenschaft ist. Für die Anthroposophie ist Geisteswissenschaft nicht nur etwas, was dasjenige jenseits von der Materie erfaßt, sondern etwas, das in seinem Wirken in das Materielle eingreift.
[ 26 ] Von diesen Forschungsergebnissen ausgehend, ergibt sich dann, durchaus durch streng geisteswissenschaftliche Methoden, alles das, was gesagt werden muß über den Zusammenhang der Sonne mit dem Christus. Man muß diese Dinge im rechten Lichte sehen. Wir sind mit einer gewissen Berechtigung im Laufe der letzten drei Jahrhunderte dazu gekommen, in den Sternen, in Sonne und Mond etwas zu sehen, worüber man rechnet. Was uns Unheil gebracht hat, ist, daß wir nur rechnen. Wir müssen wieder dazu kommen einzusehen, daß das Rechnen über das Weltengebäude so ist, wie wenn wir am Menschen bloß den Leichnam untersuchen würden. Wir müssen wiederum den Geist des Weltenalls untersuchen lernen. Daran hängt alles. Denn wir finden den Geist nicht, wenn uns die Materie so, ich möchte sagen, vergewaltigt, daß sie sich uns im Universum so zeigt, daß wir sie nur berechnen oder höchstens nach den Grundsätzen der Mechanik beurteilen können. Deshalb muß schon gesagt werden, es liegt durchaus an dem einzelnen Menschen, wenn er sagt: Mir ist es nicht wichtig, daß der Christus der Regent der Sonne ist. - Man muß den Satz in der richtigen Weise auffassen: Mir ist es gleichgültig.
[ 27 ] Nun, meine lieben Freunde, ich habe manche Menschen gehört, die sagten, es sei ihnen gleichgültig, daß der Christus mit der Sonne zu tun hat, denen es aber nicht gleichgültig war, wenn ihre Steuern um 50 Prozent erhöht wurden. Und dennoch ist es für das Gesamtheil der Menschen notwendiger, daß der Christus mit der Sonne zusammenhängt, als daß die Steuern um 50 Prozent erhöht werden.
[ 28 ] Wie wir im einzelnen denken über die beiden Jesusknaben, darüber läßt sich wieder diskutieren. Aber was soll man zu einem Einwand sagen, der sagt, wir sollen irgend etwas üben, das, ja ich weiß schon nicht von was handelt, und dann wird uns die Sache von den zwei Jesusknaben aufgetischt, die uns gleichgültig läßt. Ich schlage das Evangelium auf und lese sehr vieles, was in ganz ähnlicher Weise dasteht wie die Sache von den zwei Jesusknaben, über die in der Anthroposophie gesprochen wird. Da wiederum sagt man nicht: Wir wollen Religion, uns ist es ganz gleichgültig, ob Jesus der Sohn des Josef und der Maria war oder dergleichen, uns ist jede einzelne Evangelienwahrheit ganz gleichgültig. — Ich weiß nicht, was einem noch alles gleichgültig ist. Man braucht sich ja nicht darauf einzulassen, was einen nicht interessiert, aber ein Einwand ist das doch nicht, ganz gewiß nicht.
[ 29 ] Nun möchte ich noch, weil die Zeit schon vorgeschritten ist, auf den achten Punkt eingehen, den ich mir aufgeschrieben habe. Da wird ja gesagt, man erwarte einen gewissen Fortschritt in der Verinnerlichung des Menschen; durch dasjenige, wie Kultur gemacht worden ist, sei den Menschen schon die Kultur etwas Verhaßtes geworden, sie wollen gar nichts mehr hören von Kultur; und nun komme [mit der Anthroposophie] wieder etwas, was nicht nur von Verinnerlichung spricht, sondern was sogar in Architektur und in Bewegungskunst sich auswirken will.
[ 30 ] Ja, meine lieben Freunde, wer es mit dem Leben ernst nimmt, kann doch nichts anderes wollen, als daß dasjenige, was als Anthroposophie auftritt, dasjenige, was er als die geistige Weltengrundlage ansieht, daß das eindringen soll in alles äußere Leben. Ich rede noch immer von Anthroposophie, wir werden dann auch dasjenige zu berühren haben, was in bezug auf das Religiöse zu sagen ist. Das ist ja gerade das Unheil, daß wir nicht mehr in der Lage sind, in das äußere Leben wirklich das hineinzutragen, was wir im Geiste erleben, und das kommt schließlich auf diesen Gebieten heraus, wo das besonders bemerkbar ist. Denken Sie, wenn man einem Griechen gesagt hätte, das, was er geistig erlebt, solle sich nicht im Äußeren ausleben. So wie der Grieche über seinen Apollo dachte, so wie er dachte über Zeus, so hat er seine Zeustempel, seine Säulentempel hingestellt. Nur wir schaffen nichts, wir machen es den Alten nach, wir haben keine Möglichkeit, auf den Gebieten, die dem Geiste entsprechen, wirklich auch eine äußere Lebensphysiognomie zu schaffen. Das einzige, was wir schaffen können, ist ein Warenhaus. Das Warenhaus ist eine grandiose Schöpfung für den materialistischen Geist der Gegenwart. Aber wenn wir irgend etwas haben wollen, ein Haus des Geistes, und wir wenden uns an einen Baumeister, dann wird er es im romanischen, im gotischen oder in irgendeinem alten Stil erbauen, und dann haben wir kein Gefühl dafür, daß wir da innerhalb von Wandungen stehen, die gar nicht dasselbe ausdrücken, was wir innerlich geistig erleben.
[ 31 ] Sehen Sie, als der Gedanke entstanden ist — nicht durch mich, sondern durch andere —, der Anthroposophie ein Haus zu erbauen, da konnte keinen Augenblick der Gedanke dasein, man geht zu einem Baumeister und läßt sich einen Renaissance- oder Barockbau aufführen und haust dann da drinnen, sondern da konnte nur der Gedanke dastehen: In diesem Bau wird das und jenes gesprochen, und die Formen, die ringsum sichtbar sind, müssen ganz genau dasselbe sagen wie dasjenige, was darin gesprochen wird. Wenn das nicht nur Theorie ist, sondern Leben ist, wenn die Formen schöpferisch sind, dann stellen sie sich lebendig in die Welt. Man kann gar nicht abmessen dasjenige, was hier als Selbstverständliches mitentsteht gegenüber dem verlogenen Kulturtreiben der Zeit, das uns in die Not gebracht hat.
[ 32 ] Das ist zunächst das, was ich vorbringen möchte, meine lieben Freunde. Die Fragen sind zuviele, um sie auf einen Anhub zu bewältigen, ich werde also morgen weiter darüber sprechen, Ich habe mich heute zunächst darauf beschränkt, auf das einzugehen, was gegen die Anthroposophie im allgemeinen eingewendet wird. Ich werde mich aber noch darüber verbreiten müssen, was nun gerade gegen den Dienst, den Anthroposophie der religiösen Erneuerung leisten soll, im besonderen vorgebracht worden ist. Denn ich möchte immer betonen: Wenn etwa gar der Gedanke auftaucht, daß man irgendein schon bestehendes Religionsbekenntnis gleichsam vertritt, oder ein Bekenntnis, das man etwa erst glaubt zu begründen mit der Anthroposophie, dann tut man der Anthroposophie ganz unrecht, weil sie niemals behauptet hat, religionsbildend aufzutreten oder selber eine Religion zu sein oder eine Religion begründen zu wollen. Das tut sie als Anthroposophie nicht. Anthroposophie verfolgt Erkenntniszwecke, Erkenntnisziele; und wer sagt, Anthroposophie ist keine Religion, denn sie hat alle die Eigenschaften nicht, die eine Religion hat —, der sagt etwas, was die Anthroposophie selbst von vornherein von sich sagen muß. Aber man muß doch jemandem nicht vorwerfen, daß er etwas nicht ist, was er gar nicht sein will! Die Einwände, die gerade von religiöser Seite gemacht werden, die kommen mir so vor, wie, sagen wir, wenn man jemandem, der auf einem Gebiete tüchtig ist, darüber Vorwürfe macht, daß er auf einem anderen Gebiete nicht das leistet, was er auch leisten könnte. Aber die Einwände, die Dr. Rittelmeyer verzeichnet hat, sind ja, soweit ich sie berücksichtigt habe, durchaus solche, die sich gewissermaßen auf das Verhältnis des Menschen zur Anthroposophie selbst beziehen. Deshalb habe ich sie zunächst von dieser Seite her behandelt und werde morgen auf die religiöse Seite eingehen.
Third lecture
[ 1 ] Emil Bock: I would like to open our discussion hour and would like to carry out my assignment immediately by asking Dr. Steiner to respond to Dr. Rittelmeyer's letter. This letter has probably arisen from the multiple requests to receive guidelines for responses to those who make these objections.
[ 2 ] Rudolf Steiner: If we are to begin with this, I would first like to say a few words about the individual points. But I would ask you to then link your comments to the comments I make, because of course one or the other of them could also be meant by you in a different direction than Dr. Rittelmeyer has formulated it.
[3] First of all, I find the idea that there is a widespread feeling today that some kind of impact must be made on religious life, that religious life needs some kind of renewal in a wide variety of areas. Dr. Rittelmeyer has formulated this sentiment, which, as he believes, is present in many, as you know, and I must confess that I have also encountered something similar from time to time. But just with regard to the first point that has been made here, one expects a unified thought, a feeling with soul power — which is then summarized in the words “One is need” — and one finds in anthroposophy a sum, perhaps even a very large sum, of explanations of world contents and the like, to which one initially has no access, I must say: It seems to me that in such a feeling lies precisely that which has been there in many respects for a long time, and which has contributed greatly to the fact that we in Western civilization in recent times have ended up in a kind of cul-de-sac.
[ 4 ] Let us just consider how vague and indeterminate a feeling would be if we were to expect something to be formulated in a short time that would be liberating. In our field, we could even point to predispositions for this. In our field, in a field that arises in a different way from the basic anthroposophical endeavour, something like this has actually happened, as it is meant here in this point, if I understand it correctly. This is in the field of social thinking. There has been something like, I would say, a kind of unified thought: the thought of the threefold social organism. I will now begin with a comparative characterization. I must admit that this example in particular does not show that it is something significant when something so briefly formulated is presented to the public. For in life, such a short formulation does not produce that which can have a truly far-reaching significance. Such an objection always seems to me like saying: You want to tell me something about the human organism, and instead of giving me a unified idea, you give me a whole physiology. One must try to understand how, precisely out of the comfortable thinking of recent times, a large part of our unhappiness in external and internal relationships has arisen, and how what we suffer from is based precisely on the fact that we have desires for something or other in an indefinite way, to put it briefly. And one will have to say to oneself: the very fact that such a thought arises proves that many things must change if the things that many expect in an indefinite way are to come to pass. And especially when it is said that instead of such a “unified thought”, instead of a “soul-empowering feeling”, a number of exercises are given, some of which are of a moral nature – these are well known – and others – they are called “occult” here in the letter, which make a strange, questionable impression on some people – yes, so it must be said: What can one actually expect? One can expect a straightforward discussion of what is wrong with contemporary humanity. I am now speaking in a way that is absolutely necessary in the anthroposophical field; we will come to the specifics of the religious question through the letter itself.
[ 5 ] You see, the moral exercises that are referred to here as being known are those that would certainly be known in terms of their wording if they were moral instructions. But in the first place, in the anthroposophical context, they are not. In the anthroposophical context, they are instructions for attaining higher knowledge. And they are presented in such a way that it must be clear: they are instructions for attaining higher, supersensible knowledge. One must say: whether I say what is necessary if a person wants to attain supersensible knowledge, or whether, for example, I say that a certain composure in the face of “heavenly-high elation, deathly sorrow” is something that gives a person a moral foothold, that is a very great, fundamental difference. When I express something in this way, as in the demand for composure, I am expressing something that may be quite well known and that initially sounds something like a moral instruction, of course, but that is not at all put up for discussion on the ground on which the demand for composure appears [in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds”]. Is it said there that it is necessary for man, for the sake of morality, for the sake of gaining a moral hold, to develop composure? No! Something quite different is said. It is said that an exercise should be done; it is said that this exercise should be done repeatedly, that a certain exercise should be done in a certain rhythm, which can then be characterized as “composure”. Doing a certain exercise repeatedly is different from a moral deed. So you must bear this in mind above all in all that is dealt with in my book 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. You see, it is actually the most natural thing one can say to a person: You should endeavor to search for the truth. It is a matter of course. But here it is not a matter of that, but here it is a matter of the fact that one devotes oneself in rhythmic succession to the thought of the truth, to the relationship of man to the truth. And this exercise, this making-oneself-present-in-consciousness of such content, this repeated rhythmic making-oneself-present-in-consciousness, that is what it is about. The point is that a very specific attitude must be applied to spiritual knowledge. I will explain this attitude to you in more detail. I will deviate from the strict formulation of the letter, but perhaps this will make some things much clearer.
[ 6 ] Take a modern professor or lecturer or other scholar who gives lectures. It often happens that he prepares a lecture, then he has it in his memory, and then he speaks. Yes, you can't do that if you really live in the humanities. If you live in the humanities, that would make you an untruthful person. The preparation can only consist of a certain inner gathering about the subject. Through this inner composure, one approaches the subject anew each time, even if one has been in contact with the subject a thousand times before, so that one has it, so to speak, tangibly before one in the spirit and speaks directly from the immediate perception each time. You see, when one learns something, let's say geography, any chapter — fine, one learns it, one has it, and then one remembers it. But that does not exist at all in spiritual science if it is to come to life. The one who really wants to be a spiritual scientist must let the most elementary things pass through his soul again and again. For example, the fact that I wrote my book 'Theosophy' does not have a self-contained meaning for me. What is in it, I must let it pass through my soul again and again if it is to have meaning. It is not possible to say: 'The Theosophy is there, I now have its content within me.' On the ground of spiritual science, that would be quite the same as if someone were to say — but I do not believe that there is anyone who says this: 'I ate eight days ago, and I do not need to repeat the same thing every day.' We sit down every day and do the same thing every day. Why? Because it is life, because it is not something that can only be stored in memory. The life of spiritual science is life, and it is lost if it is not experienced again and again. That is what must be borne in mind.
[ 7 ] When you approach the life given by spiritual science, you will also have heard that it is really possible, for example, to help those people who have gone through the gate of death, by devoting oneself in a kind of meditative way to some subject that relates to the spiritual world, in which these people who have gone through the gate of death then actually are. It is not a matter of reading something to them, let us say, just once and then expecting that they have it. Rather, it is the constant repetition, this living with the content, over and over again; far too little attention is paid to this. People today are accustomed to regarding everything as a theory. Spiritual science is not a theory, it is life. But if one treats it as if one learns it in the same way as one learns other things, then one makes it into a theory. Of course it can become a theory, but only for those who receive it in that way. Every serious spiritual researcher knows that one must live it; the exercises are not exhausted by knowing its content.
[ 8 ] These are things that have disappeared from Western consciousness. But the nature of the Western consciousness is also evident in other things. People have come to me and said, 'There is something terrible about the Buddha-Speeches: they contain nothing but repetitions, and so we should prepare an edition that contains only the content of the discourses and omits the repetitions. But no one really understands the Buddha-speeches who makes such a demand, because the essence of the Buddha-speeches is that you always repeat the same thing in a rhythmic sequence, with very small insertions. Now this is an oriental method that does not coincide with what is to be worked with here, but to explain something like that, I have to draw attention to that.
[ 9 ] The letter goes on to say that some of the exercises are strange and questionable. Yes, here one must consider the basis for judgment or assessment from which such a judgment is formed today. If one talks about the fact that today there is a longing for something new, then one must also familiarize oneself with what is causing such a longing; one must really characterize what is present. To make myself clear, I may perhaps recall Oswald Spengler's book 'The Decline of the West'. Spengler has now followed it up with a small brochure: 'Pessimism? I will pick out one sentence from this Spenglerian “Pessimism”; he says that it is not a matter of recognizing truths for him, but of asserting facts. — And now follow arguments about what he understands by “truth” and what he understands by “facts”. At one point he says: “Truths are quantities of thought... What is contained in a dissertation are truths; the fact that a candidate fails with the dissertation is a fact.” Now one is supposed to imagine that something is meant by such a sentence; it is complete nonsense. But people read over such a thing, they accept it as something that is supposed to mean something, and you don't notice anything strange about it and then think something else is strange. You can't even discuss such a sentence, it's absolute nonsense. But today, when someone says such nonsense, it's not even discussed; it doesn't even stand out. So it is inevitable that in a time when such a style of judgment prevails, some things are found to be peculiar and questionable. But just imagine where we have actually ended up – albeit in a different way than Spengler means. Today we complete our studies up to the highest levels without any excitement, so to speak, there are no real catastrophes or peripeteias in knowledge itself. One could say that there are catastrophes at most when a student fails, but not in knowledge itself. This engagement of the whole person, so that one is able to experience a problem with such inner acceptance as one might experience some external event, is something that hardly ever happens. One feels very satisfied when one has written a book or when one is a private lecturer, but one does not go through catastrophes or peripeteia because of the subject matter itself. This is something that, I would say, extends over the whole of scientific life.
[ 10 ] What is necessary, however, is that we come to live in the spirit again, that the spirit becomes a reality, the processes of which we participate in. This is not a contradiction of composure. Precisely when one is composed, one will be able to experience in the right way what is happening objectively and leading to stronger or more concrete sympathy; and finally, it is not a contradiction of composure to perceive the full horror of a volcanic eruption or similar events.
[ 11 ] Thus I would like to say: In our time, when people have no receptivity for the special kind of thinking needed for spiritual science, the whole way of thinking, the completely different way of experiencing the truth, must simply be thrown into it. You see, when someone says, “Yes, we don't need thinking, we don't need intellectualism, we need feeling!” it is because he does not get the feeling, he is not moved inwardly; what should be given is what he lacks.
[ 12 ] Do you see, are we really far enough today to keep certain ancient religious rules? If you give a single lecture today – and I speak from experience – if you give a single lecture today that deals, say, with certain details of the social question, there are many listeners who will say or write: Yes, that may all be, but in this lecture the name of Christ was not mentioned a single time. Yes, my dear friends, there is a divine commandment that says: You shall not speak the name of your Lord in vain — and there is a commandment: You shall not continually say Lord, Lord. It is possible to be very Christian without constantly repeating the name of Christ; indeed, it may be precisely because the name Christ is not misused that it is Christian. It is not by using the name Christ after every third line that something becomes Christian.
[ 13 ] The old comfort of thinking should end in the face of all these things. For he who does not discard this mental indolence, even though he may have the vague feeling that something must change, cannot take part in the demand of the time, because he is not able to feel the full depth of what is presented as the demand of the time able to do so because he merely imagines that he feels it and basically still wants everything to be as it is, and does not really commit himself to actually moving towards solutions that must be tried in order to truly meet the demands of the time. People often do not consider what a huge difference there is between theoretical thinking and living in the spirit. But the first step into spiritual science must be a life in the spirit. I am not saying that it must be clairvoyance or the like, but a life in the spirit; that must have a different form of experiencing the truths, the contents, than one is accustomed to having today.
[ 14 ] Another objection has, I must say, actually extremely surprised me, but since Dr. Rittelmeyer has pronounced it, it will appear. This is the objection that people feel offended by the fact that instead of being pointed to something that lies within themselves, they are pointed to something that perhaps only a few know, something that only a few have seen. People feel, so it is said, “robbed of their human kingship”; they feel great and should feel small. — Yes, I must confess that this objection surprised me for the reason that I actually do not really see what it is about. Because, right, it is said in the letter that, yes, people expected something to come from above that would take hold of them, but now they felt thrown back on themselves, on exercises they should do, on efforts to understand something. First of all, I feel an extraordinary contradiction between these two assertions. Secondly, I have to say that throughout my whole life – and that is quite a long time now – I have been extremely happy when a truth came to me from any side, and I actually always found it terrible when someone rejected a truth because it had not grown on his own soil. That is, after all, a completely egotistical and subjective judgment, but we are steeped in such egotistical and subjective judgments, and that is why we need a renewal [of thinking in] the [present] time, because that is available.
[ 15 ] So here we have a bunch of judgments that show just how necessary it is for a change to occur. Because if these judgments continue to exist, which have caused the very distress of our time, then we will not get ahead. Therefore, it is necessary to say, however crude it may sound: In response to these objections, it should be said, above all, that those who object should consider whether they should not make them, so as not to interfere with the advent of the new through their most ancient prejudices. — That is what must be said above all.
[ 16 ] Another objection, which is of course raised a great deal, is that anthroposophy presents itself in the form of a science, and the conclusion is then drawn that the realm of faith should be transformed into a realm of knowledge. Actually, the objection, when it is raised, is based on an inaccurate grasp of what appears in anthroposophy. Anthroposophy does not demand that we should transform something we have believed into knowledge or the like, but in Anthroposophy, a positive thing occurs first: it is shown that through knowledge we can have something not only about the outer world of sense perception, but also about the spiritual world. At most, the question may be whether the methods used lead to something real, certain, and the like. If the matter were put in such a way that it would be said that this could be objected to imagination, that could be objected to inspiration, and so on, then this can be discussed in a completely objective way. But there is no judgment at all when one says, “I feel uncomfortable when anything can be known about it.” It does not depend on whether one feels uncomfortable or not. What matters is that through certain methods something can be known about the supersensible, just as something can be known about the sensible. And what can be known cannot be judged at all in such a way that one says that the objects of faith are based on a free recognition of inner truths, while anthroposophy wants to enforce knowledge through 'sense evidence and proofs'. Anthroposophy is a science and is founded as a science; it cannot have anything to do with such an objection, precisely because it is a science. One could say the same about mathematics; one could say that one dislikes the fact that mathematical truths are just that: true. One cannot really make such an objection because it is basically unfounded.
[ 17 ] One objection that I have heard in a wide variety of nuances is that one expects something that might shock one, that one accepts, and then one hears of such things as “Christ is the Ruler of the Sun” or the story of the “two Jesus boys,” to which one is actually indifferent. My dear friends, I must now confess that I cannot understand how anyone can be indifferent to these things if they understand them. For that is the great, the tremendous question of the present: How is the realm of the moral grounded in the realm of natural necessity? On the one hand, we live today in the scientifically recognized realm of natural necessity, and within this realm of natural necessity one allows oneself to make hypotheses even about that which is not subject to direct observation. For example, we see the development of the Earth only through a certain span of history, geology and so on, and then we form ideas about the origin of the Earth from a primeval nebula, or as the modified hypotheses in the sense of the Kant-Laplace , which of course no longer applies today; from this, the idea of the beginning of the earth's development has been gained and from the second law of the mechanical theory of heat, the law of entropy, the idea that everything is heading towards a heat death. Anyone who constructs these hypotheses about the beginning and end of the earth's development must say to themselves – because according to the scientific spirit that underlies it, there is simply no other way to assume it – that the primeval nebula was there as a sovereign entity with the laws of aerodynamics and the laws of aerostatics, and from these the laws of hydrodynamics and hydro statics, and then those fortunate circumstances occurred through which such a connection was formed, as it appears to us in the simplest cell, the amoeba, and then everything that is more complicated organisms has become, including man, and in man moral ideals have then emerged through which he feels his actual human dignity.
[ 18 ] What would we be as human beings before ourselves if we did not have our moral ideals, and if we were not ennobled by these moral ideals, by being included in a divine world order, in a whole world context? It is of no use to simply ignore this and say: We separate the realm of certainty of faith, which we have with moral ideals, from what we have as the natural order. Only those who do not really seriously consider what is presented to us in the natural order can be led to such a separation.
[ 19 ] My dear friends, I once met a person who, at the time I met her, was initially concerned with the great problem of death in the world and then moved on to a worldview like that represented by Haeckelism, to embrace with the most earnest attitude, with the most inner enthusiasm, a worldview that is honestly based on natural science. What did this personality say about moral and religious ideals at the time? She said: These are religious bubbles that arise in human experience, something that man imagines, and that is what the human race lives on, from which the human race takes its dignity; but once the great cemetery of heat death will come, then with the external forms of the organisms will be buried everything that emerged as a moral-religious foam formation, and in space a sloop will circle in some curve, of which one will be able to say: there humans once formed from mechanical or dynamic laws, these humans had foam bubbles rising and from that these humans derived their dignity; and all of it has become a cosmic cemetery.
[ 20 ] You see, this personality was honest, and out of his honesty, because he could not bear it, he returned to the blissful bosom of the Roman Catholic Church a few years ago. This is one example, and I could easily multiply it by numerous others.
[ 21 ] This is the abyss that has opened up between the moral-religious world order and the scientific-mechanical world order. There are only a few people of sufficient feeling who cannot stand, with their entire world view, what science says about the beginning and end of the earth. For example, Herman Grimm says that a carrion bone, which rots and decays, would be an appetizing piece compared to what the Kant-Laplace theory has made of the earth. What Herman Grimm added is true: future generations of scholars will be able to write ingenious treatises to explain the nonsense that the Kant-Laplace theory has introduced into people's minds to their detriment.
[ 22 ] My dear friends, anyone who fully realizes the depth of the damage caused by such a view, from the lowest school class onwards, to the detriment of the human soul, must indeed look much deeper for what needs to be done today than is usually the case. He must not get stuck in half-measures and say: We must simply separate from the general world view that which must be the content of faith, we must have our own religious belief, and alongside it, science may have its existence. For then, at most, the only thing that helps a person in their moral and religious view of the world is to return to the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, in order to numb themselves, if they can still find such an anesthetic.
[ 23 ] We have just come to the point in the course of evolution that we no longer know that the spiritual also lives in all natural orders, that, for example, there is actually a center within the human being where that which happens outside in nature is completed. My dear friends, people in the 19th century were justifiably deeply moved by what, for example, Julius Robert Mayer expressed as the law of the conservation of energy and matter. The law of the conservation of energy and material was fully recognized in the 19th century and dominates our physics today. But it applies only to the external world and even there only within certain limits, which are limited in time; but it does not apply to man, even in relation to time. For man it is simply true that there is a center within him where all material things he takes in are transformed into nothingness, where matter is destroyed, where matter is dissolved. As we incorporate our pure thoughts into our etheric body and these thoughts act through our etheric body on our physical body, matter in our physical body is destroyed. We have within us a place where matter is destroyed. (The following explanations are accompanied by drawings on the blackboard. The original blackboard drawing is no longer available.) I draw schematically, it is spread intensively over the whole person, I draw it as if it were a part. This place where matter is destroyed, this part of the human being where matter is destroyed, is at the same time the place where matter is reborn when we are imbued with moral or religious feelings. And what is created here, simply by experiencing religious and moral ideals, acts as a seed for future worlds. When the material world of now has perished, when the material world of now has succumbed to heat death, then this earth will transform into another world body, and this world body will consist of that which forms itself as a new materiality arising out of moral ideals. Because our science is not able to penetrate deeply enough into the material, it is also unable to grasp the idea that the material itself is only an abstraction. We can speak of the heat death [of the earth], but at the same time we must speak of the heat death in the same way as we speak of a plant in terms of what falls away from the plant as it withers and dries up and what remains as a germ for the following year; in the same way, we can speak [in terms of the heat death of the earth] of the fact that the germs remain with us, [which survive the death of the earth].
[ 24 ] There is a territory where scientific truths cease to be merely scientific truths in the modern sense, where moral ideals cease to be soap bubbles when the earth succumbs to heat death. There is a territory that can be reached where moral ideals will be preserved when physical materiality is destroyed, where the word becomes a scientific truth: Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away! There is a territory where the Bible becomes natural science; and sooner or later – this must be recognized in the foundations of today's time striving – no healing can occur before we have the opportunity to advance to a science that is neither one-sided modern natural science nor one-sided abstract spiritual science.
[ 25 ] Today, much of what is called “spiritual science” is really only the science of ideas. For anthroposophy, spiritual science is not only something that grasps what lies beyond matter, but something that intervenes in the material world through its activity.
[ 26 ] Starting from these research results, and using strictly spiritual scientific methods, everything that needs to be said about the connection between the sun and the Christ can be derived. These things must be seen in the right light. Over the past three hundred years, we have come to see the stars, the sun and the moon as something to be calculated. What has brought us misfortune is that we only calculate. We must come to realize that calculating the structure of the world is like examining only the corpse of a human being. We must learn to examine the spirit of the universe again. Everything depends on it. For we do not find the spirit when matter presents itself to us, I might say, violated, in such a way that it shows itself to us in the universe that we can only calculate it or, at most, judge it according to the principles of mechanics. Therefore, it must be said that it is entirely up to the individual person if he says: It is not important to me that the Christ is the Ruler of the Sun. One must understand the sentence in the right way: I don't care.
[ 27 ] Now, my dear friends, I have heard some people say that they don't care that the Christ is connected with the sun, but they cared when their taxes were raised by 50 percent. And yet it is more necessary for the overall salvation of mankind that the Christ is connected with the sun than that taxes are increased by 50 percent.
[ 28 ] How we think about the two Jesus boys in detail is open to discussion again. But what can one say to an objection that says we should practice something that, yes, I don't know what it's about, and then the matter is presented to us by the two Jesus boys, which leaves us indifferent. I open the Gospel and read a great deal that is very similar to the story of the two Jesus children, which is discussed in anthroposophy. But one does not say: We want religion, it does not matter to us whether Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary or the like, every single gospel truth is completely indifferent to us. I don't know what else is unimportant to someone. One doesn't need to get involved in something that doesn't interest one, but that is not an objection, certainly not.
[ 29 ] Now, because time is already running out, I would like to address the eighth point that I have written down. It says that a certain progress in the internalization of the human being is expected; because of the way culture has been made, culture has already become something hated by people, they don't want to hear anything about culture anymore; and now [with anthroposophy] something is coming again that not only speaks of internalization, but that even wants to have an effect in architecture and in the art of movement.
[ 30 ] Yes, my dear friends, anyone who takes life seriously cannot want anything other than that which appears as anthroposophy, that which he sees as the spiritual foundation of the world, to penetrate into all of his outer life. I am still talking about anthroposophy, and we will then also have to touch on what needs to be said in relation to religion. That is precisely the disaster, that we are no longer able to really carry into our outer life what we experience in the spiritual, and that ultimately comes out in these areas, where it is particularly noticeable. Think if someone had told the Greeks that what they experience spiritually should not be expressed outwardly. The Greeks built their temples of Zeus and their columned temples in the way they thought of Zeus and Apollo. We alone do not create anything; we imitate the ancients. We have no possibility of creating an outer physiognomy of life in the areas that correspond to the spirit. The only thing we can create is a department store. The department store is a magnificent creation for the materialistic spirit of the present time. But if we want something, a house of the spirit, and we turn to a master builder, then he will build it in the Romanesque, Gothic or some other old style, and then we have no feeling for the fact that we are standing within walls that do not express the same thing that we experience inwardly, spiritually.
[ 31 ] You see, when the idea arose — not through me, but through others — to build a house for anthroposophy, there could not for a moment be the thought of going to a master builder and having a Renaissance or Baroque building erected and then living in it, but only the thought of In this building, this and that is spoken, and the forms that are visible all around must say exactly the same as what is spoken in it. If this is not just theory but life, if the forms are creative, then they stand alive in the world. One cannot measure what is created here as a matter of course in contrast to the lying cultural activities of the time that brought us to this crisis.
[ 32 ] This is what I would like to present to you, my dear friends, for the time being. There are too many questions to tackle in one go, so I will continue talking about this tomorrow. Today, I have limited myself to addressing the objections that are raised against anthroposophy in general. But I will still have to expand on what has been specifically said against the service that anthroposophy is supposed to provide for religious renewal. For I always want to emphasize: if the idea arises that one represents any already existing religious confession, or a confession that one believes to be founded on anthroposophy, then one does anthroposophy a great injustice, because it has never claimed to be a religion or to want to found a religion. It does not do that as anthroposophy. Anthroposophy pursues cognitive purposes and goals; and anyone who says that Anthroposophy is not a religion because it does not have all the characteristics of a religion is saying something that Anthroposophy itself has to say about itself from the outset. But you can't accuse someone of not being something that they don't want to be! The objections that are raised from the religious side seem to me to be like, let us say, reproaching someone who is proficient in one field for not achieving what he could in another field. But the objections that Dr. Rittelmeyer has listed, as far as I have considered them, are those that relate to the relationship of the human being to anthroposophy itself. That is why I have dealt with them from this point of view first and will deal with the religious aspect tomorrow.