The Rudolf Steiner Archive

“Contributions to the Further Development of the Christian Religion” is the title of a book (published in Munich in 1904 by J.F. Lehmann's publishing house) for which “a large number of scholars from various professions and sciences joined forces for a common task”. This task is characterized as follows: “to explain and promote the state of religion in contemporary life; each contributor reports on the subject with which he is familiar, but together they address not their fellow specialists, but all those who care about the highest questions and who share in the movement and striving, the doubt and restlessness. ... Only those who stand on the ground of Christianity, who are convinced that an eternal truth has broken through in Christianity, that a way of life has been developed to which lasting spiritual domination is due, can contribute to the further development of the Christian religion. But only those who are also convinced that the present state of the Christian religion does not correspond to the demands of the world-historical situation, that in that eternal truth is combined with many things that today many, exceedingly many, perceive as temporal and human, to which they therefore cannot possibly pay the reverence that is due only to the eternal and divine, can work for a further development.

In the book, the teachings of Christianity, insofar as the individual authors have penetrated them, are now themselves measured against a truth that, from a higher point of view, is felt to be no less temporal and human. In almost all the essays, it can be seen that the authors are rooted in the present-day cultural-historical way of looking at things, which tends towards materialistic ideas. It is understandable that it is not stated everywhere that such a standard is applied. The authors are also hardly aware of the “temporal and human” in their judgment. And they may have many objections to the term “materialistic.” But it is not the dogmas that someone represents that are important, but the habits of thought that are peculiar to him. He who can accept only what the modern world view calls “natural” lives in materialistic habits of thought, even if he defends a doctrine that comes from the spiritual world in the highest sense. — When considering Christianity, it is possible, through true immersion in its core, to draw the newer world view up to it, instead of drawing it down into the realm of modern thought. And only the former can have a truly educational effect. That is why the sober coldness of current ideas emanates from the book everywhere, not the warmth that one feels emanating from Christianity when one penetrates into its deep secrets.

Books of this kind show, precisely through what they cannot achieve, the necessity of the theosophical perspective for a revival of Christian truths. The approach from which these “contributions” arose devotes all critical energy to ruffling the garment of Christianity because this garment does not match the modern costume; the theosophical method, on the other hand, attempts to penetrate the essence of that which wears this garment. The latter then shows itself in the character of another time, but it itself still contributes to the understanding of its wearer. In this way, theosophy does justice to the modern scientific way of thinking in that it naturally replaces the garment of a bygone age with one of the present. After the garment has been torn to shreds, nothing remains of the essence in the description in the “Beiträge”, which it has not really approached at all, but rather an arbitrary construct of what the observer perceives as Christianity. And that is in most cases a profession of faith without psychic and spiritual power. There is not the slightest necessity for this profession to be traced back to a Christ who has been completely “temporally and humanly” made, and the fact that this Christ is still presented as the same one of whom the Gospels tell appears to be the height of arbitrary conceptual constructions. The only contribution that is somewhat noteworthy is R. Eucken's on “Science and Religion,” in which an attempt is made to understand the independence of intellectual life and to break it down into three stages: 1. the spirit that seeks to understand nature is placed as something peculiar above placed above nature itself, 2. the spiritual life in the history of mere succession of human-personal effects is regarded as something special, and 3. the creative power of the individual personality is understood as an emanation of his divine power. But this attempt also gets stuck in bare abstractions and does not penetrate to a true conception of a spiritual world. The other contributions deal with: The Nature and Origin of Religion, its Roots and their Development (Prof. Dr. L. v. Schroeder, Vienna), entirely in line with modern rationalist cultural history; the Old “Testament in the Light of Modern Research (Prof. D. H. Gunkel, Berlin), only a protective writing for modern biblical criticism; Gospel and Early Christianity (the New Testament in the light of historical research by Prof. D. A. Deißmann, Heidelberg), no vigorous advocacy of clear ideas; Faith of Salvation and Dogma (Prof. D. Dr. A. Dorner, Königsberg); Religion and Morality (Prof. D. Dr. W. Herrmann, Marburg); Christianity and Teutons (Sup. D.F. Meyer , Zwickau), a very subjective picture of Christian life in Germany in the centuries before Luther; Religion and School (Prof. Litt. D. Dr. W. Rein, Jena); the community-building power of religion (Lic. G. Traub, Dortmund); The Essence of Christianity (Lic. Dr. G. Wobbermin, Berlin). It should be emphasized that the book is written in the spirit of modern university theology, based on the “latest scientific findings”.

A work entitled The Origin of Christianity, by the Berlin university professor D. Otto Pfleiderer, is causing quite a stir in a wide variety of circles (Munich, J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1905). Pfleiderer wants to strip the origin of Christianity of the miracle that “the second person of the Godhead descended from heaven to earth, became human in the womb of a Jewish virgin, resurrected bodily after dying on the cross, and ascended to heaven”. He believes that in doing so he is making Christianity accessible to historical explanation. “For to understand an historical phenomenon is to understand it in terms of its causal connection with the conditions of human life at a particular place and time. The entry of a superhuman being into the earthly world would be an absolute new beginning, which would have no causal connection with what had gone before, and thus could not be understood in terms of any analogy to other human experience; in short, it would defy all historical explanation.” It must be said that we can never apply the standard of what we understand at a particular point in time to everything in the world and describe as “superhuman” and “causeless” what cannot be measured by that standard. On the contrary, we must ourselves extend our standard in the face of certain phenomena. It is indeed comprehensible that someone should say: This I understand, therefore I hold it to be real; another I do not understand, therefore it is unreal to me. But this is no different from someone who understands nothing of the power of electricity and considers the telephone impossible. What Pfleiderer retains of Christianity after deducting what he considers “supernatural” is a mere rationalistic construct; within such a construct one can no longer speak of a “divinity of Christ”. But the task is precisely to understand what divinity is, what secrets are hidden behind the “virgin birth”, “resurrection” and so on.

This is where the theosophical point of view comes in; and all those who do not want to go along with it fall back on rationalizing Christianity, which is the same as de-Christianizing it. For those who penetrate into the deep secrets of Christian truths, “Pfleiderer's Christianity” is no longer Christianity, but a completely arbitrary construct created by modern thinking. And from this point of view, the explanation of the origin of this religion from the myths and mysteries of the preceding period becomes quite worthless. For only when one penetrates into the true life of the Adonis resurrection celebration, the initiation of the priests of the great mystery cult, and so on, and does not rationalistically reduce them to mere fantastic cultic actions, only then does one you penetrate into the prophetic significance of these ancient forerunners of Christianity and recognize how they have found their fulfillment in the great mystery of the crucified and risen Son of God. — Pfleiderer says: “Therefore, we would do well to become more and more familiar with the idea that the real object of our pious belief is not the past, but the eternal! 'What has never happened anywhere will never become obsolete.'” But this ‘eternal’ is interpreted by each according to his understanding. There is nothing to be said against this; and if someone wants to establish as religious content what ‘has never happened anywhere’, that is everyone's business. But Christianity can never be based on what never was, but on the “living Christ,” who worked in Palestine 1900 years ago and is proclaimed by the Gospels. Those who want to base it on something else can just as well call white black.

Of course, none of this is directed against Pfleiderer personally, who has done what he believes to be right in a perfectly scholarly manner, according to the precepts of his science. But it should be pointed out where this science must lead. And how a renewal of spiritual science in the theosophical sense is necessary. I know that it must seem an outrage when it is said that the official representative of theological-Christian science at a university teaches something unchristian. But the confusion is great today, and not to call such things by their right name would mean a breach of duty at the present time. In Pfleiderer's circles, however, a theosophical attempt to fathom Christian truths is considered complete dilettantism. It cannot be otherwise. Because all the preconditions are lacking to understand such an attempt. The theosophist understands Pfleiderer; but Pfleiderer will not want to understand the theosophist.

A few months ago, the Kosmos, Gesellschaft der Naturfreunde (Cosmos, Society of Nature Lovers), Stuttgart, published a collection of popular scientific writings that included a booklet on The Sensory Life of Plants (Franckhsche Verlagshandlung in Stuttgart). It was written by the brilliant Raoul H. Francé, who is also the author of the important work in installments “The Life of Plants” (Franckh'sche Buchhandlung, Stuttgart), and who, two years ago, in an excellent orientation tool for those who want to learn about the current state of research regarding the development of living beings. A work such as The Mental Life of Plants must fill occultists with satisfaction. They are bound to be pleased when as many people as possible take note of the facts presented here. For all those who have any sense at all for the “mysterious” sources of life, such a presentation can be a good preparation for understanding the points of view of occultism and theosophy. And when the narrator of these facts solves his task in such a subtle and at the same time generally understandable way, this must be particularly welcomed. A noble sense of nature, a delicate way of approaching the phenomena of life, prevails in the booklet. It is evident everywhere that the author approaches these phenomena not only with intellectual cleverness, but with the participation of the whole soul. He discusses the “wonderful” facts in the life of plants. They are only “wonderful”, however, for those who are inclined to see something lifeless and automatically functioning in plants. For such people, the facts listed can indeed arouse astonishment. For those who know something about occultism and see the expressions not only of life but also of the “spirit” in all natural kingdoms, “admiration” does not cease, it can even increase to “exaltation”, but the “wonder” does cease when they hear from the mouth of the natural scientist how the plant “perceives” light, smell, water, etc. From the story of R. France & s, something feels like a shy admiration for the strange things he has to tell. “... the plant moves... its whole body as freely and lightly and gracefully as the most skillful animal - only much slower. The roots search the soil, the buds and shoots move in measured circles, the leaves and flowers nod and shudder at changes, the tendrils circle in search and reach out with ghostly arms to their surroundings – but the superficial person walks by and mistakes the plant for rigid and lifeless because he does not take the time to spend an hour with it. But the plant has time. Therefore it does not hurry; for the giants in Flora's realm live through the centuries and see countless generations of people come to life and pass away at their feet.” Those who describe in this way are not only concerned with taking note of what they are depicting, but also with empathizing with how they depict it. Therefore, some characteristic passages from the booklet will be reproduced here. “One of the most vital organs of the plant body is the root, or more correctly, the fine, worm-like root ends, the tip of which Darwin compared to a brain for a reason. It is hard to believe what this white thread can do. Above all, it slowly but constantly turns its tip in a circle, literally screwing itself into the ground. Anyone who has observed this compares it to a search for food. The roots feel their way through every crumb of earth in their surroundings. And how strange; from where the soil is dry, the root turns to wetter places. It always grows towards the area with more moisture. In physiology, this is called hygrotropism, a sense of proximity to water. But the root also turns downwards. It also has a sense of gravity (geotropism). As if with tiny ropes, every plant is pulled deeper into the earth. If you examine a perennial meadow clover or a carrot, where it is particularly easy to see, you will find that every year it sinks about 5 cm deeper from the point where it originally germinated. It can only compensate for this descent into the depths by constantly growing the underground stem, but it is precisely this that ensures its firm footing. Living beings know how to turn everything to their advantage.

The story continues with the beautiful description of the tendrils of certain plants, which “search and grope” like the arms of a polyp, in order to embrace a support, thus enabling the plants to climb up trees and walls. The phenomenon of “plant sleep” is explained. “The leaflets press closely together and stand diagonally upwards; they have completed their night turn after sunset.” It is shown how leaves and other parts of certain plants join together in strange ways when they are touched. The reader also learns how other plants have devices that help them to catch small animals in an almost insidious way, which they then consume as food. “In the moors around Hamburg and Hannover, the sundew grows just as it does in the swamps of the Oderbruch and the Spreewald, the high moors of the German low mountain ranges and the mosses of the Bavarian-Swabian plateau. On the upper side of each of its small, key-shaped leaves, a sundew plant has red lashes, at the tip of which a dewdrop really does glisten in the sunshine. Rigid and immobile, they spread out like antennae. It is, of course, only our imagination, but we believe we can see that the plant is lurking. And truly, woe to the unsuspecting mosquito, the eager fly, that wants to nibble on the temptingly sparkling dewdrop. Its little head gets stuck in the viscous mucus; where its little feet come into contact with one of the deceptive glue spindles, it gets more and more smeared and sticks all the more firmly. Meanwhile, the feelers are seized with excitement. After just a few minutes, they reach for the victim, one after the other, slowly but with unerring certainty; within one to three hours, almost all of them have descended on the unfortunate mosquito, whose fate is thus decided.” The prey is now devoured. “On the outside, of course, nothing betrays it, but when the tentacles let go after a few days and the little frying pan straightens, only a scrawny skeleton remains, which the wind blows away. Flesh and blood have been sucked out – the tentacles are not only tongues, but also stomachs at the same time. .... They are creatures that stretch their stomachs on stems into the air."

Thus, in a thoroughly sympathetic way, France presents a long series of plant life phenomena. He then comes to the following consideration: “From this infinite wealth of experiences, however, new convictions necessarily emerged. Beings that react so surely, so diversely, so promptly to the outside world must, of necessity, also possess those connecting paths between their ego and the outside world that we call ‘sense’ and ‘sense organ’ in the case of ourselves.” And it is out of this conviction that researchers have sought the special “sense organs” of plants. France also gives a good overview of what more recent naturalists have discovered in this regard. There are simple organs in plants that can be compared to the sense organs of animals and humans. In certain leaves, for example, the uppermost layer of cells acts like a collecting lens, whereby the light is collected in the center of the cells and prepared for the corresponding effect on the plant nature. This can be compared to the compound eye of certain animals. Furthermore, there are cells at the so-called root hood and at other points on the plant in which freely moving starch grains are deposited. These move around when the plant makes certain turns, and the direction of the plant in line with the line of gravity can come about. Again, this organ can be compared to a sensory organ for gravity. It is not possible here to point out in detail all the “ingenious” devices of this kind that can be found in the plant body. In this connection, special mention should be made of the beautiful little work by Haberlandt entitled “The Sensory Organs of Plants” (Leipzig 1904). Haberlandt, together with Nĕmec, Noll and others, is among the most deserving researchers of recent times in this field. Certain organs that can be compared to nerves have even been identified in plants. It is easy to understand why Francé came to the conclusion: “What more magnificent doctrine can the dumb plant still grant us than the one it has already revealed to us: that its sensory life is a primitive form, the beginning of the human spirit.” Or: “That in its sensory life, the animal is nothing but a more highly developed plant.”

The occultist, however, may point out that his “science” leads to the knowledge of this field, admittedly in a different form, but all the more surely for that. Anyone who has heard lectures on “occultism” that touch on this field will know how absolutely clearly it is spoken of there as of the “root as the head of the plant,” of the plant's relationship to light and gravity and all the other things that Franc& touches on. For those who see through the circumstances, the present attempts of natural scientists appear as unclear groping ventures into a field that can receive clarity and certainty from occultism. Indeed, in many ways the modern natural scientist appears to the occultist as a fantasist. Even the talk of the “meaning” and “mental life” of plants seems fanciful compared to the clear ideas of occultism, which shed light on the relationship between the above-mentioned life phenomena and organs of the plant and those of animals and humans that can be compared with them. And so, in particular, one of Frances's statements would like to be corrected by occultism. France says: “I am not afraid to say it again: that we have hardly tackled the main task, which we have left unsolved, barely grasped in its essence, and must leave it to our children to solve.” This main task can be “grasped in its essence” if natural science does not proudly reject occultism, but instead allies itself with it and allows itself to be fertilized by it. One should not “wander into the distance” to “our children”; one should seek the “good” that “lies so close,” namely in occult wisdom. But for the time being, natural science does not want to learn about occultism. The word “learn” is used here consciously, because occultism is not condemned because it is known, but because it is not known. Essays that will appear in this journal in the future will shed light on the research that underlies the writing of Francés from the point of view of occultism. But the occultist can only repeat: delve into such works as those of the spirited France: you will find in them the best, the surest preparation for occult training. Our ancestors did not need this preparation; it is useful to the present-day mind, which is more directed towards the material. And the “children” will no doubt find the reconciliation between occultism and natural science. Until then, the occultist can wait patiently. With his sincere love for the natural scientist, he stands on the Goethean point of view: whether you are loved in return, what does it matter to you?

At this point, we would like to give the floor to one of the best German thinkers of the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1872, at the age of only thirty, he was snatched from a promising life. Two of his writings have been printed: “The Ego and the Thing in Itself” and “The Indo-European Religions”. These are treasures of German intellectual life. If we can see the development of this intellectual life in its true light since 1870, it is only too understandable that Paul Asmus, who died so young, could find only a few readers. This period was devoted to the development of knowledge directed towards the sensual and factual. People wanted to process the results of experiments, of the microscope and the telescope, etc., as the basis of their world view. And Paul Asmus was one of those who wanted to explore the secrets of existence in the ethereal heights of pure thought. He is a true and noble disciple of the great philosophical idealists of the first half of the nineteenth century. Today, only a few are trained in the field of pure thought to ascend to these luminous heights. Few know the significance of these regions themselves and know that it is here, and not where mere sensory observation and experimentation is carried out, that the riddles of life are revealed. — In this magazine, which serves a worldview that is supposed to lead to the spirit, some of the estate of the prematurely deceased is certainly in place. The sister of the thinker, Martha Asmus, who has herself emerged in recent years with three small volumes of stories, has provided me with her brother's manuscript “Die Willkür”. From this, what can be published is that which can give an idea of the way in which Paul Asmus approached one of the most important human problems.

In the next issue, I will give a brief description of the direction of Paul Asmus' ideas. I know that the flight of thought that this researcher has taken is one that few today are inclined to follow. Today, thinking demands convenience, and understanding Paul Asmus' ideas requires full working dedication. Yet the Theosophist knows that it is not research that must be adapted to man, but man to research; and that only complete devotion to its demands can lead to realization.

Few works have been written about Kant that match the quality of what Paul Asmus has written about him in his essay “The Ego and the Thing in Itself”. He does full justice to Kant; but at the same time he shows how impossible it is to stop at Kant, and how the great impetus given by the Königsberg philosopher to German thought must necessarily have led to the conceptions of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and others. Kant had shown, and this fact is one of the most significant in the history of modern thought, that the ordinary scientific methods of thinking never lead to a knowledge of the “thing in itself,” but always only to a knowledgeably dominating the world of the appearances given to man. But Kant pointed to the “thing in itself” in a very peculiar way. He assumed that in the categorical imperative, which speaks to man in the imperative of duty, a call sounds from the world of the “thing in itself.” But this call does not provide any knowledge of the Supreme, but only a belief in it, which gives man direction in the moral life. If man wants to consider himself a moral being and develop further and further in the direction of morality, he must believe in the reality of what the categorical imperative sends to him. But he cannot recognize what carries him so morally.

Now Fichte has tried to examine this call that sounds within man, and so he came to his “I-philosophy”. In the “I”, according to Fichte, a higher world opens up to man, which is just as real, indeed much more real, than the outer world of appearances. For this outer world of appearances only acquires meaning and significance when the human ego allows its own light to shine on it. Paul Asmus presents this process of Fichte's thinking emerging from Kant's in a very astute way. And in the same way that Hegel and Schelling then seek answers to the great riddles of existence from the “I”, from the human spirit, which no external sensory perception can solve.

And from here, Paul Asmus then found access to an understanding of religions, these manifold attempts by humanity to grasp the active spiritual forces of the universe from the depths of the human soul. It is not easy for many to follow Paul Asmus's significant discussions of “Indo-European Religions” because he is operating at the pinnacle of human thought. But anyone who learns to read the book by training their thinking will receive the purest possible enlightenment about the forms of human striving for truth. Our philosopher sees through to the spiritual core of religious thought everywhere through the imagery of religions and shows the connection and relationship between these cores. His book is therefore an interpretation of a great primal thought of the Indo-European peoples. No one will study it without being deeply impressed and realizing what the development of religious life is. But this puts Paul Asmus among those who, in the sense of Theosophy, pursue the essence of religions and philosophies of humanity.

The following is the conclusion of Paul Asmus' introductory discussions of “arbitrariness”. His manuscript then continues with further discussions of the subject. We will also present the essentials of these in the following issues. What we have printed so far shows the path that the strong, sharp-sighted thinker has sought to take to the important problem of human freedom. Those who cannot move freely in the element of thought will call these discussions “abstract” and shadowy, and may even think that they are far removed from “real life” and that they contribute nothing to an understanding of the facts. But such a person has only not yet struggled through to life in the pure element of thought; he has not yet learned to dwell far from all sensuality, from all sensual imagining, in the ether region, where true life pulsates in the depths of man, which is a spark from the sea of light of eternal being. But anyone who has struggled to do so feels united with the divine world spirit in such a thought life; he lives in God at the same time as he lives in himself. Communion takes place with him in the spiritual realm. Thinkers like Asmus, who have developed out of the stream that German philosophical idealism gave from the first half of the nineteenth century: such thinkers understood to live in thought. In German intellectual life, historically speaking, what the theosophical mystic knows as a very specific inner life fact has taken place. The Kamic-Manasic thinking, in which the man of everyday life is caught, and in which, in particular, the European man of culture lives: this thinking throws off the Kamic veils and becomes pure Manasic thinking.

Whoever wants to go beyond a certain level in the field of knowledge must get to know this experience within themselves and let it become a fact. Those who cannot attain this stage either remain entangled in the fetters of a dim mysticism that only enables them to see the facts of the astral plane without understanding, or they have to content themselves with mere belief in the theosophical dogmas. Therefore, I consider it one of the tasks of this journal to present these samples of pure etheric thinking. Such thinking alone can provide inner, self-assured firmness and certainty for the researcher, guiding the theosophist between the Scylla of nebulous enthusiasm and the Charybdis of blind belief in dogma into the bright halls of wisdom. Those who not only think through what is given in pure thoughts, but bring it to the point of direct experience, will convince themselves of the truth of what has been said. But for the time being, only a few people in our culture can achieve what is called “living in thought”. And most people cannot even “think” the right thing when they hear the words “living in thought”. The theosophical movement, which is supposed to bring us back to spiritual life, will also have the task of understanding the spiritual thoughts of German idealism. And Paul Asmus, whose physical shell was appropriated by the earth so early, may well also make an impact with his wonderful thought-germs on the karma of the theosophical movement in Germany.

The fact that Paul Asmus sought the secrets of existence at the ethereal height of pure thought is the defining characteristic of his research. What underlies things as their essence is revealed in the thinking human being. This fundamental view of German philosophical idealism is also Paul Asmus's. The thoughts that a person has about the starry sky are also the order, the inner lawfulness itself, on which this starry sky is based. When I think, it is not just me who speaks, but the things within me express their essence, that which they actually are. Sensuous things are, as it were, only parables of their ideal essence; and human thought grasps this essence. In his essay 'The Ego and the Thing in Itself', Paul Asmus writes: 'Let us imagine a lump of sugar; it is round, sweet, impenetrable, etc. These are all qualities that we comprehend; only one thing we have a notion of something absolutely other, something that is so different from us that we cannot penetrate it without losing ourselves; from whose mere surface thought recoils in awe. This one is the unknown carrier of all those qualities; the in itself, which constitutes the innermost self of this object. Thus, Hegel correctly says that the whole content of our representation is only an accident to that dark subject, and we, without penetrating into its depths, only attach determinations to this in itself – which, after all, because we do not know it ourselves, also have no truly objective value, are subjective. Comprehending thought, on the other hand, has no such unknowable subject to which its determinations are mere accidents, but the representational subject falls within the concept. When I comprehend something, it is present in its entire fullness in my concept; I am at home in the innermost sanctuary of its essence, not because it has no essence of its own, but because the necessity of the concept, which appears subjectively in me and objectively in the thing, compels me to reflect its essence after it. Through this re-flection, as Hegel says, the true nature of the object reveals itself to us at the same time, just as this is our subjective activity. —"

Anyone who expresses his or her belief in such a sentence has placed himself and his thinking in a true relationship to the world and reality. Through observation we get to know the periphery of the world; through thinking we penetrate to its center. Contemplation within ourselves solves the riddle of existence for us. The thought that flashes up in me is not only of concern to me, but also to the things about which it enlightens me. And my soul is only the arena in which things express themselves about themselves.

To understand this, however, man must have thought as an element of life, something that is as much a reality for him as the things that he encounters and can grasp with his hands are a reality for the undeveloped man. He who can grasp nothing in his ideas but shadowy after-images of what the senses tell him does not understand what thinking is. For in order to penetrate to the essence of things, thinking must be filled with a content that no external sense can provide, but that flows from the spirit itself. Thinking must be productive, intuitive. When it then lives not in fantastic creations, but in the bright clarity of inner vision, then the world law itself lives and moves in it. One could well say of such thinking: the world thinks itself in the thoughts of man. But for this it is necessary that man experiences within himself the eternal laws that thinking gives itself. What people usually call “thinking” is, after all, only a confused imagining.

The fact that Paul Asmus has risen to the point of view of pure thinking, living within itself and giving itself its own necessity, makes him a genuine philosopher. And the fact that he handles this self-directing thinking with such clarity and naturalness makes him a significant philosopher. The philosopher knows selflessness in thought; he knows what it means to let thought arise within. He knows that in so doing he rises above mere opinion, which originates in the arbitrariness of the human will, and that he ascends to the summit of intellectual necessity, through which he becomes the interpreter of world existence. Theosophy demands strict control of thought from its disciples, so that they strip away all arbitrariness, all erroneous thinking, so that no longer they, but rather the things speak through them. Hegel's school was also a school of thought control. And because so few people really practice thought control, and because even very few of those who call themselves philosophers know what it is about, so many must misunderstand Hegel. Paul Asmus is one of the very few who have understood Hegel. What he has said about Hegel are pearls of philosophical insight. Anyone who reads and understands Paul Asmus's short essay 'The I and the Thing in It' will gain more than he could from studying the bulky philosophical works of authors who talk about the fundamental questions of knowledge and have never acquired the basic condition for such participation: a strictly controlled, intuitive, productive thinking.

The editor of this journal is grateful to the author for providing this material for publication. It will form the introduction to a three-volume edition of Swedenborg's works; and those who profess the mystical-Gnostic worldview can be satisfied with such an undertaking. The undersigned did not want to be narrow-minded and did not want to give the article a place in this magazine because he cannot agree with essential points in the remarks of Mr. Btieger-Wasservogel. One should also hear the voices that contradict the direction of our magazine. But it is probably permissible to point out this contradiction here with a few words. The views expressed in the essay about Swedenborg's visions are quite untenable before a real understanding of Swedenborg. The visions of this man are here reinterpreted in the sense of a rationalistic pantheism, which stirs the spiritual world into an unclear “Allgeist”, that is, into a nebulous thought-mush. But Swedenborg was a personality whose soul was awakened to the so-called “astral” vision; and only those who have an understanding of such worlds can give an accurate judgment about them. To say that Swedenborg conversed with Plato when he compared his thoughts with those of Plato is like the blind man speaking of colors. What is said in the essay about “Theosophy” only shows that the author never knew what 'Theosophy is. Of course, what is said about Swedenborg's complaints about theosophists is “a2v”. But so few know who “write” what Theosophy is and what Theosophists want that, despite our perhaps harsh judgment, nothing bad has been said about the essay, which nevertheless pleases us. We Theosophists want to understand others; and we can wait until they will repay us with like for like. If I had to disown my mathematically sober thinking and my veneration of Spinoza because I am a Theosophist, I would truly no longer be one in an hour. But since I became a Theosophist because I once really learned to think mathematically between lectures on “Integration of linear differential equations,” synthetic geometry, and descriptive geometry, and thus also gained access to spiritual research in the sense of Plato, then nothing will happen to me.

These chapters are from a book written entirely from the inner experiences of a man. This book will be a valuable addition to our Western mystical literature. The selection we were allowed to make here for Lucifer-Gnosis is intended to draw readers' attention to a work that speaks of worlds that cannot be reached through external science, but only through inner experience. And to understand this work, something is needed that does not express itself in the intellect, in the use of reason, but rather it requires a kind of immersion in the sentences that are permeated by the spirit, which is transformed into love for the reception of what is shared. If the reader reads in this way, then he will gratefully seek to live what a introverted, quiet man presents here as the flowering of his soul.

It gives us particular satisfaction to prepare for the subtle spiritual book from which we have quoted and which is to appear shortly.

On an Essay by Dr. R. Salinger, “The Philosopher of Romanticism”

Although the editor must take a completely different view of Schelling's work than the esteemed author of this article, he is nevertheless publishing it on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the philosopher's death. Only a few words will be said about this differing point of view. Schelling is one of the deepest minds of the German people. Everyone can learn an incredible amount from the source of his significance. No later “research” can refute such a thing. That he is “not understood” is something he shares with all minds from his height. But one must learn to understand him. Those who have passed over to the “order of the day” via his world-view have done so the least. The theosophist will have much, very much to learn, especially from the last — posthumous — writings, “Philosophy of Mythology” and “Philosophy of Revelation.” In these, infinitely more real wisdom is to be found than with those who believe themselves to be “beyond” Schelling. Only then will he be understood when one no longer criticizes him, but selflessly delves into him. He is only discredited by his “hatred” of the no less misunderstood philosophical theosophist Hegel. But here too, comprehension is called for, not criticism. It is natural that a journal like Luzifer-Gnosis cannot give one-sidedly that which coincides with the standpoint of the editor. All sides should be heard.

Regarding Dr. O. Kiefers' comments: “Plotinus' Theory of the Soul” and “Plotinus' Idea of the Sage”

It is necessary to add something to the remarks of Dr. O. Kiefers in the two previous numbers of this journal. However, it should be explicitly noted that this is not meant as a criticism of the value of these comments. Anyone who has some knowledge of the nature of our knowledge respects the views of others, even if they have different thoughts to counter them. The following is therefore said with full respect for the esteemed author's views.

It is not possible to address all points. It is said that Eduard von Hartmann once again emphasized: “Consciousness is only a reflex of the unconscious mental activity in us, and a soul activity also takes place when the mirror of consciousness is shattered by physical disturbances! Plotinus' teaching about the soul is in complete contradiction to this. He assumes a complicated doctrine of transmigration similar to that of Plato and the Pythagoreans, and yet, according to his view, all self-consciousness and indeed all individuality of the human soul must naturally extinguish in the realm of the intelligible! In our opinion, such an assertion can only be made if one does not interpret the ideas of consciousness, self-consciousness and individuality in the sense of Plotinus. For Plotinus, as for anyone who has mystical experiences like him, personal human consciousness is indeed a kind of reflection of the true human essence in the earthly-material body. But this form of consciousness should not be confused with self-consciousness and individuality, which coincides with the latter within certain limits. It is precisely the self that is indestructible; and its entry into the earthly body reflects it for itself in the way we know it as personal human consciousness. In a mode of existence other than the earthly, the self will indeed become conscious in a different form; but it is to consider earthly consciousness the only possible form of consciousness when one says that self-consciousness and individuality would have to extinguish with death under the premises of Plotinus. No, they only change their form. After death they will take on the form that corresponds to the existence in which they will then find themselves.

It is also incorrect to say that the “pure soul” is not affected by what the “lower soul” does. Although the pure soul detaches itself from the lower soul, the former takes with it the experiences it has had with the latter. And these experiences depend on the organs, on the entire nature of this lower soul. Therefore, these experiences are decisive for the further destiny of the “pure soul”. A dualism can only be perceived here if one reads it into it oneself by explaining certain self-made ideas about the nature of the lower and higher soul in Plotinus' thought. Eduard von Hartmann does this too, who only recognizes one, the personal-human form of consciousness, and therefore considers all other mental activity to be unconscious. It is a long way from stating that one regards the 'lower' and 'higher' human soul as the two elements of man, as one is not a dualist by admitting that water is not a monon, but consists of hydrogen and oxygen. Must monism then demand that the unity lie entirely on the surface? Therefore, it is quite understandable that Plotinus demands of the wise man that he work in and with the world. “Consequently,” as Dr. Kiefer says, “Plotinus' thoughts would demand the opposite.” Oh no. The peace and bliss of the wise man lies higher than in external asceticism. He can develop a manifold activity in the world and thereby experience unity with the divine in higher worlds.

It is understandable that the arguments of this essay should give rise to the misgivings of many readers of the journal Luzifer-Gnosis. Indeed, the editor has often heard the opinion expressed that such arguments have no place in this journal. Such views, it has been said, are the product only of a fantasy that is incompatible with the purity of mind necessary for an elevation to spiritual life. I can understand all these opinions very well, and yet it seemed to me not only permissible but even necessary to present the comments of the esteemed author on the writings of Lanz-Liebenfels to the readers. I have not hidden from the author that I will openly express my opinion on the matter after publication. Today it shall be only a short one, because the space does not allow more; but in the next issue, I will deal with those questions from a secret-scientific point of view, to which the essay urges.

It seemed necessary to me to print this because Lanz-Liebenfels' explanations are a prime example of what happens when someone with a materialistic attitude approaches things of this kind. Lanz-Liebenfels is by no means the only one who thinks along such lines; what he says is only a radical example of a direction to which the present attitude tends all too easily. Everywhere one encounters the endeavor to bring human conditions as close as possible to animal instincts. People take pleasure in pushing this animalism into the foreground in all human considerations. Anyone who looks more deeply into these things will easily recognize that in an age in which natural science is as materialistic as it is in the present, there is a danger of going so far down the path that certain facts of human history are seen in a light that stems from a confluence of humanity with animality.

It is not possible to discuss LanzLiebenfels' research here. The only thing that can be done is to characterize it from the point of view of spiritual research. In the essay mentioned above, LanzLiebenfels quite rightly says in the text on which it is based: “The scientific writings of the ancients are written in a secret language and contain absolutely no contradictions or fables.” This is literally true; but for that very reason, in order to judge correctly about these writings, one must possess the key to this secret language. And this key can be attained only through a real knowledge of the secret science. And no one who possesses this key is still able to believe that the ancients really spoke of a physical animal man when they gave certain people animal names. They still had a real insight into the higher bodies of man. The astral body of man was given to them in experience. They knew that the physical body rests in an astral cloud, which is an expression of the drives, instincts, passions, etc. of the human being. And they saw how this mobile astral body is constantly changing, adapting to both a higher and a lower soul life. Just as the human being, the animal also has an astral body. It may be said that the human astral body rises higher in form, color, movement, etc. than the animal astral body, the more man ennobles his instincts and passions. But the less this happens, the more similar the human astral body appears to some animal astral body. The ancients simply based their descriptions and illustrations not on the physical human body, but on the astral body. In certain cases they did not want to depict the physical body at all, but to create a symbol for the astral body. When they spoke of peoples who were completely dominated by lower instincts, they indicated this by giving the people the animal name that corresponded to the nature of their astral body. If they called a person a “long-tailed monkey,” they meant nothing more than that his astral body appeared to them to resemble that of a long-tailed monkey. Thus it could also happen that “sober historical tribute lists” state that a king received “pagutu,” “baziati” and “udumi,” i.e., various types of animal people, from the land of Musri. Why should these not be mentioned alongside elephants, horses, camels, etc., which is declared to be quite impossible on page 559 (of issue 30 of Lucifer-Gnosis)? In terms of their physical body, these people did not resemble animals; such a description was based solely on their astral body.

The messages of the ancients can be understood with this key of esoteric science. Consider, for example, what is said in the essay “The Stages of Higher Knowledge” in this very issue. Those who attain vision of the astral world first see their own drives, desires and passions as an astral dream; and they appear to them like animals or demons that are outside of them. How clearly this makes a passage that Liebenfels, for example, cites from the Talmud: “All animals are good in a dream, except for the monkey and the guenon.” That such is said of these animals in particular is, of course, related to certain views of a certain time. From what has been said, it can be seen what the result is of applying to the physical world what in a description of the ancient world refers to the astral world. Given such a premise, what becomes of the assertion that, for example, a person belonging to a people with already refined instincts has engaged in sexual intercourse with a companion from a still inferior people? From this latter man a physical animal is made. Once this point has been clarified, there is really no need to go into the rest. For all the other grotesque interpretations are based on a similar lack of knowledge of the true key to the old “secret language”.

It will always be dangerous if the descriptions of the higher worlds fall into the hands of people who only want to know the physical world and therefore interpret all spiritual truths in a grossly sensual way. This danger is a reality for the “children of our age”. And the readers of the essay in question, who have become concerned, can still be given quite edifying things to hear and read. For we are still far from having reached the zenith of materialism. As a characteristic example of what this materialism leads to, something like this had to be printed here sometime. What occult science has to say about such things has been said in this journal and will often be said again. No reader of this journal can therefore really be misled by explanations such as those characterized. But anyone who is interested in occult matters should know that the materialistic interpretation of certain facts is relatively harmless when it is based on knowledge of physical science, but that it must become positively outrageous when someone has heard of higher things and enters into the materialistic channel with them.

The dangers to which this refers cannot be avoided in this day and age, since certain parts of occult science are now available in print. In an article that will soon appear, entitled “Secret Doctrine and Freemasonry, as well as related directions”, I will point out certain aberrations to which the public nature of our lives must necessarily lead. But the right relationship to these things is gained only through knowledge of them, and by no means through ignorance. That is why the article appears in this journal. I do not wish to discuss today what is said in it about the mysteries of the grotesque, for this will be discussed in the article just mentioned. The reader may also inform himself about two other errors from the explanations that will soon be contained in Lucifer-Gnosis, namely, the incorrect statement that in the course of human embodiments seven male and seven female should alternate. In reality, as a rule (although there are exceptions), a male is always followed by a female and so on. Nor is this true of the much-discussed double sexuality in the present human epoch. For this is nothing more than a regrettable relapse into ancient stages of human development.