The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. How Do You Refute Spiritual Investigation?

[ 1 ] As in past winters, I will take the liberty of giving a series of lectures on spiritual science here at this location over the course of this winter semester. As the program will show, these lectures will first address what spiritual science has to offer, from its own perspective, regarding the questions of life; then the focus will shift to examining certain important cultural phenomena, outstanding cultural achievements, and remarkable figures of the past, such as Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, and that finally, the relationship between spiritual science and various phenomena in the immediate spiritual life of the present will be examined. Today, these lectures will begin in a somewhat unusual way. The introduction will not present arguments to support and reinforce this spiritual research, but rather, on the contrary, will address the possible, more significant objections that can be raised against this spiritual science.

[ 2 ] It is in the nature of things that this spiritual science, in our present age, attracts much opposition as a result of the state of our contemporary culture and various other factors. But nothing would be more inappropriate for this spiritual science than for it to succumb to fanaticism and, so to speak, to see only what can be presented as evidence for it from the perspective of its proponents. Fanaticism must—and we shall see for what reasons—be entirely foreign to this spiritual science. Therefore, it must, perhaps more than is necessary from any other standpoint, be careful to understand the objections of its opponents; indeed, it must, in a certain sense, even tolerate them, and it must seem understandable to it that a whole number of sincere seekers of truth in the present day cannot go along with it. It has indeed been my custom—as the esteemed attendees of previous lectures will know, and this custom will continue in the future as well—to take possible objections into account at the same time as presenting individual arguments. Today, so to speak, more significant, more weighty objections are to be anticipated. For objections to what is to be said from the standpoint of spiritual research truly arise not only from opponents; rather, when spiritual research is pursued conscientiously, the soul devoted to such a pursuit finds itself confronted with these possible objections at every turn. Since the truths of spiritual research must be attained and fought for within the soul, the soul must, in a certain sense, be a match for the opponent with regard to such objections that are raised within the soul itself; and one will make much better progress in this field if one is clear from the outset about all the possible objections that might be raised.

[ 3 ] However, it is not my task here to address those objections or alleged refutations that can, so to speak, be found on the street or pulled out of thin air; rather, consideration must be given to the objections that one, as an honest seeker of truth, can—and to a certain extent even must—raise oneself based on our contemporary context and the spiritual foundations of our present age. Nor will I address the objections to many of the things that are often called “spiritual research” or “theosophy” today; for it must be admitted from the outset that much of what appears today as “theosophy”—particularly in its form—is not exactly something to be taken seriously. But what has been and is being presented here will be taken into account in my remarks today. If, however, we wish to engage with such objections, then much of what has already been said in the course of the preceding cycles—and what will still be discussed in the upcoming lectures—must, as it were, be brought before the soul in outline form. Let us therefore briefly agree on what is meant here by spiritual research in terms of its content and sources.

[ 4 ] To begin with, one can characterize the science of the spirit in very general terms by saying that it takes the position that, beyond everything a person perceives through the senses—and everything that can be explored by a science based primarily on the senses and on the intellect, which draws its conclusions from the senses— — that it must go beyond all of this to the spiritual causes of the sensory facts and those facts that can be investigated by the intellect, so that it not only assumes but also attempts to prove the existence of a spiritual world behind these sensory facts—a spiritual world in which lie the causes of everything that the senses perceive and the intellect can investigate.

[ 5 ] This spiritual science differs from various other schools of thought, both present and past, in that it does not merely claim, in general or hypothetically, that there is a spiritual world beyond the intellect and the senses, but that it proceeds from the assumption that human beings are capable of training and developing their powers of cognition and their soul forces in such a way that they are able to look into a spiritual world—something they are incapable of doing without this development. Thus, it is not merely the possibility of a spiritual world, but the knowability of a spiritual world that is the distinctive feature of this spiritual research or anthroposophy, if we wish to call it that. It is acknowledged from the outset that one cannot penetrate the spiritual world using the inherent nature of the soul’s powers and the characteristics of the powers of cognition that human beings possess for their ordinary daily use—if we may put it that way. However, spiritual science disputes the claim that these powers of cognition cannot be developed, that they cannot unfold to the point where, after being elevated to this higher level, they can look into a spiritual world just as the eyes look into the sensory world. And with that, we have already arrived at the very sources of this spiritual research.

[ 6 ] These sources reveal themselves to the soul when, through inner work and inner development—and the methods of this inner development have often been discussed here—the soul elevates itself to a higher level of perception. Then, as spiritual science shows, alongside the sensory world that surrounds us there exists another world—a spiritual world—from which the true causes of all phenomena in the sensory world originate.

[ 7 ] Through the study of the spiritual world, however, we come to view the human being as a far more complex being than he appears to be from the ordinary sensory or intellectual perspective. We come to view the human being as a fourfold being. What is called the physical body is regarded by spiritual research as only one part of the entire human being. This physical body can be observed by ordinary sensory life and comprehended by the intellect. This sensory body is the subject of ordinary science. For a large part of our contemporary worldview, this physical body constitutes the entirety of the human being. For spiritual scientific research, it is only one part among the four members of this human being.

[ 8 ] Beyond this physical body, spiritual research distinguishes the so-called etheric body or life body, which is integrated into the physical body. But it does not speak of this etheric body or life body as if it were accessible merely to the intellect, but rather in such a way that the developed soul forces are able to perceive it, just as the developed eye can perceive the colors blue or red, while the color-blind eye cannot perceive these colors. And it then states that the necessary conclusion follows: the physical body naturally disintegrates upon death through its own inherent forces, because the forces belonging to the physical body bring about its decomposition, its decay, and are held together only by the fact that, during the period of life between birth and death, the etheric body—or life body—is integrated into this physical body, serving as a constant fighter against the decay of the physical body. Only when separation from the etheric body occurs at the moment of death does the physical body follow its own forces, which then—because they act according to their own nature—bring about its decomposition. Human beings share the physical body with the entire mineral, inanimate world. They share the etheric body with all living things, with the entire plant world.

[ 9 ] However, spiritual science cannot stop there. It recognizes a third aspect of the human being that is just as independent as the physical body. There is no need to be taken aback by these terms; they will be explained in due course and have, in part, already been explained. The astral body is distinguished as the third component. It is the actual bearer of passions, desires, instincts, and emotions—in short, everything we call our soul life, which takes place within. And within this astral body, we in spiritual research then distinguish the actual “I-bearer.” While human beings share the astral body with everything else—such as beings in the animal world that possess emotions and passions and can develop an inner life of imagination—they possess the “I-bearer” as the fourth component of their being, the crown of their individuality. The human being’s being, as understood in spiritual science, consists initially of the physical body, the etheric or life body, the astral body, and the “I-bearer.”

[ 10 ] Furthermore, those who are able to penetrate the spiritual world come to realize how a large part of the states of life to which we are subject differs from ordinary life—namely, the life of sleep. For the spiritual researcher, sleep differs from waking life in that, in the sleeping person, the ego-bearer and the astral body are separated from the etheric body and the physical body. The latter two remain in bed during sleep like a plant-like form, whereas the I-bearer, together with the astral body and the emotions, instincts, imagination, and so on, moves out of the physical and etheric bodies during sleep and then unfolds a life of its own in a spiritual world that exists independently. However, for the average person today, when the “I” and the astral body are on their own during sleep, ordinary life is impossible, because the astral body and the “I” have no organs with which to perceive the environment—they do not have eyes and ears like the physical body. Thus, it is impossible for the astral body and the “I” to perceive the world in which they then find themselves.

[ 11 ] The higher evolution of the soul consists precisely in the astral body and the “I” becoming capable of developing organs to perceive their surroundings, and in the fact that this enables the spiritual researcher to enter a state in which he can perceive the spiritual world; so that, in addition to the waking state and the sleeping state, he then has a state of “waking sleep,” if we may call it that, which is precisely the state in which the spiritual researcher can perceive the spiritual world to which human beings, by their very origin, belong. Thus, spiritual science attempts to explain, on the basis of spiritual facts, the transition of the human being between periods of twenty-four hours each of wakefulness and sleep.

[ 12 ] What is further significant for spiritual science is that it addresses the great mystery of death and life—in other words, the question that so deeply moves the human heart: the question of human immortality. Here the spiritual science adds that the actual spiritual being of the human being is not merely a result of his physical organization, but an independent entity and being belonging to a spiritual world, which builds up the physical body, which exists before birth—indeed, before conception—and which, from the very first moment when the human being enters existence as a germ cell, works to build up his organism. In other words, this is the spiritual-soul aspect—the truly active and constructive force—that organizes the human being throughout his or her life, that carries only the fruits of his or her life experiences through the gate of death, and that, upon death, passes into a spiritual world to undergo further experiences, and which then organizes a new physical body for another life, in order to live through a new life and repeat the cycle.

[ 13 ] In other words, spiritual science speaks of repeated earthly lives—it speaks of repeated earthly lives in such a way that, from our present incarnation within sensory existence, we look back on other incarnations in the past, but also look forward to future incarnations of our being. Thus, we divide the total life of the human being into a life between birth and death and another life, which—for the senses and the intellect—unfolds in a purely spiritual manner between death and the next birth. However, spiritual science does not conceive of this as an eternally recurring process, but rather recognizes these repetitions as merely intermediate states, while tracing the total life of the human being back to an original spiritual state that preceded all life—above all, our planet; so that earthly lives once began when the human being stepped out of a purely spiritual existence, and that, once the conditions have been fulfilled, the human being will again enter into purely spiritual states, which will contain within themselves the fruits of everything the human being has experienced through the various earthly lives.

[ 14 ] This is, however, only a rough outline that will be filled in with specific details in the upcoming lectures, but it can illustrate the conclusions reached by research in the humanities. When we consider this entire picture, however, it must be said that for a large portion of the thinking humanity of our day, this image will be not only something incomprehensible and unprovable, but perhaps even something offensive—something that may even provoke irony, scorn, and ridicule. Even when speaking of the nature of spiritual science, a person who today wishes to ground everything of importance to them firmly in the soil of science must raise serious objections. A person standing on this ground of science must ask themselves: In the face of such a proposition, what significance do all the great—not merely individual—achievements of science hold? What, then, is the significance of scientific methods? What do seriousness, dignity, and precision mean in relation to spiritual research? What significance do all the efforts made by science over the past centuries and decades to attain certainty—objective certainty—hold? Spiritual science, of course, does not seek to work against science—this has often been emphasized—but rather to stand in full harmony with it. Therefore, it must be aware of what science objects to in it, not only in terms of its content, but especially in terms of its seriousness and the achievements of the past centuries.

[ 15 ] One can rightly say spiritual science points out that these sources of spiritual research lie in a certain development of the soul, in which the soul undergoes certain inner processes of imagination, feeling, and will—that is, what is called meditation—so that it thereby has inner experiences that are, of course, strictly limited to the soul itself and that no one other than the one experiencing them can verify, and then such things are presented as scientific results concerning the spiritual worlds, without any means of verification. Where, science might ask, is the very finest achievement of this science—namely, that through the research of the past centuries, it accepts as valid only what can be objectively verified by every human being, everywhere and at all times? External experiments and observations have the characteristic that anyone can engage with them. This is not the case with what is attained and fought for within. When one looks at people who experience things in this way within themselves, does not the great diversity of the contradictory things they continually express reveal the profound uncertainty—how little the experiences conveyed by a mystically deepened consciousness actually agree with one another? How much more consistent, by contrast, must the research be that individual researchers conduct in clinics, laboratories, and so on! It will be pointed out that this could not be otherwise, so that what a person experiences subjectively thereby reveals itself to be unscientific—and this is especially so because it cannot be verified by anyone else, since others cannot look into the soul of the spiritual researcher in question.

[ 16 ] Might one not say that these experiences of the soul bear a striking resemblance to everything that is demonstrably experienced in the soul as a result of certain pathological states, emotional extremes, ecstasy, and so on? If the researcher of the spiritual realm objects that he is not willing to accept just any vision that arises in the soul as a research result, but rather that he proceeds according to specific methods, then one can still object—and this objection seems entirely justified: Indeed, does it not become apparent in everything that people experience through visions, hallucinations, and so on, that such people, when exposed to such states of mind, develop a much greater belief in their fixed ideas, in their hallucinations and visions, than in what their external senses provide or what their intellect imposes upon them? When one considers the rigid and unyielding belief of illusionists, one must become skeptical of what the spiritual researcher seeks to bring up from the depths of his soul as something that is not an illusion, something that is said to have an objective existence in the spiritual world. One might say that such a thing could indeed have an objective existence in the spiritual world, but against the validity of such a “soul experiment,” it must be said that the illusionist has just as much confidence in his delusions as the spiritual researcher has in his research results, which he attributes to what rises from the depths of the soul.

[ 17 ] Only someone who has not kept up with the development of objective research—what one might call sound science—over the past centuries and decades could dismiss such an objection with a smile. It is more significant than is generally thought, particularly among those who arrive at their results in the spiritual sciences from a one-sided perspective. It must be said—for example, with reference to what is stated in my book *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?* where certain details are provided for the individual soul, that when the soul is entirely left to its own devices during such an experience, it has no point of reference anywhere to keep it in check. All of this testifies to the fact that one must grapple in the most serious manner with such an objection, which may even seem trivial to a superficial researcher of the spiritual sciences. So much is said about the nature of what one might call false perceptions that the counterarguments can also be applied to spiritual science by stating: Everything you present there as methods for training the soul need not be anything other than a more sophisticated capacity for illusion and hallucination.

[ 18 ] But then, spiritual science in particular appears out of place in comparison to serious, verifiable science when it points to its individual findings. The conscientious seeker of truth of our time, who has become familiar with the developments of recent years, might say: “Do you know nothing of all that has gone before?” You speak of an etheric body or life body that is supposed to have an independent existence alongside the physical body. Do you know nothing of the fact that, right up into the nineteenth century, the concept of what was called “vital force” was still prevalent, and that through serious scientific efforts, belief in this vital force was finally dispelled? Do you know nothing of the following fact: In earlier centuries, it was said that a chemical process took place between individual chemical substances in the inanimate natural world outside. But when this same interaction of substances entered the human organism, the so-called “vital force” was said to take hold; in that case, what we learn in chemistry and physics would not occur among the individual substances, but rather the individual substances would interact with one another under the influence of the vital force. It was a great step forward that this vital force was cast aside, that people attempted to say: This “vital force” is of no help at all; rather, one must proceed in such a way that what can be investigated in the inanimate world must be further explored in the living organism, that one need only take into account the more complex manner in which substances interact there, and that one need not throw oneself onto the couch of the “vital force.”

[ 19 ] It was precisely as such a “lazy bed of science” that the life force was eliminated by demonstrating how the effects of certain substances—which had previously been thought possible only under the influence of the life force—could also be achieved in the laboratory. And since it is not yet the end of the road, science must nevertheless set itself the lofty ideal of also examining the composition of substances as they exist in the plant cell, and must not rest on the laurels of a “vital force” when it comes to investigating how substances and forces act within the organism.

[ 20 ] As long as it was not possible to produce certain chemical compositions in the laboratory, it was reasonable to say that they could only come into being if the individual substances were captured by the vital force. However, since it has been possible—particularly through Liebig and Wöhler—to produce certain substances without the vital force, now that belief in the vital force has been abandoned, it must be said that even the more complex compounds in the human organism no longer require the assistance of a special vital force. Thus, in the course of the nineteenth century, science was presented with the lofty ideal—one to which most researchers adhere, even if there are also “neo-vitalists”—the ideal that will be fulfilled: to recognize the interrelationships of matter as they are organized in the living organism and to reproduce them without resorting to a nebulous, mystical vital force, which—as serious scientific research of the nineteenth century has consistently maintained—serves no purpose whatsoever, since it contributes nothing to the objective understanding of nature.

[ 21 ] Anyone who recognizes these facts and, above all, grasps the seriousness and dignity underlying this development of science may well object: Is it not outrageous that a number of people are now presenting themselves as so-called spiritual researchers, reviving the old life force in the form of their etheric body or life body? Is this not a sign of scientific dilettantism? Those who know nothing of the ideal of science may “believe” this; but the scientific researcher himself cannot be swayed by what can, after all, appear to be nothing more than a revival of the life force. Thus, one might say, spiritual science works in an amateurish manner, disregarding everything that belongs precisely to the finest ideals of modern science, and it merely exploits the fact that science has not yet succeeded in producing certain substances found in the living organism in the laboratory, in order to claim for the time being that a special etheric body or life body is necessary for the creation of life. One might say that advancing science will eventually drive this etheric body or life body out of human beings. As long as science, in its march from triumph to triumph, has not yet succeeded in demonstrating that no etheric body exists and that the combination of substances found in a living organism can also be produced in a retort, theosophists and spiritual researchers may continue to make a big deal out of the etheric body—which is, after all, merely a rehash of the old concept of vital force! — This accusation could thus be raised, first and foremost, as a case of dilettantism.

[ 22 ] If even spiritual science says of the life of sleep that human emotions, instincts, and desires are bound to a specific astral body, and that when sleep overcomes a person, this astral body emerges from the etheric body and the physical body and leads an existence of its own, then one can say: It is very easy to speak of an inner soul life when one simplifies the matter by not accepting this inner soul life with all the difficulties and mysteries it presents to science, but rather by saying: There is an astral body, and what takes place within is bound to it. — Then one might again point to the advances of science and ask: What, then, do the great advances made—especially in recent decades—mean in terms of explaining a phenomenon such as sleep or dreaming purely from a scientific standpoint? — It would take a long time if I were to present to you all the efforts of science—which are certainly to be taken seriously and with due respect—to explain sleep and dreaming. It would take a long time precisely because, especially in recent times, a large number of studies have come to light that are certainly open to discussion.

[ 23 ] It suffices to consider one perspective that can illustrate how difficult it is for the serious seeker of truth today to acknowledge what may at first appear to be merely an assertion: when a person falls asleep, the “I” and the astral body withdraw from the physical body and the etheric body.

[ 24 ] If, in summarizing a large number of different hypotheses and theories about sleep, we were to offer a general explanation of this phenomenon, it would be as follows: It is said that to explain sleep, one needs nothing more than an unbiased examination of the phenomena of the human or animal organism. It appears that waking life consists of the phenomena of the environment making an impression on the sense organs and exerting stimuli on the brain. Throughout the entire day, they exert such stimuli. How do they affect the human brain and nervous system? They act in such a way as to destroy the substance of which the nervous system is composed. Throughout the entire day—says modern science—we are confronted with external colors, sounds, and so on penetrating our soul, that is, our brain activity. This triggers dissimilation processes, that is, processes of destruction. Certain products are deposited.

[ 25 ] As long as these processes are taking place, human beings are unable to bring about the reverse process—that of rebuilding their organism. Therefore, every time we wake up, our inner spiritual life is, in a certain sense, destroyed, so that by the time we become tired, we have reached the point where we have destroyed our organism and it can no longer develop an inner spiritual life; it ceases. One need assume nothing more than that, through daily life, fatigue-inducing substances accumulate in our organism. One need only assume the wear and tear on the organic substance, such that for a certain time the organic substance is no longer capable of carrying out its internal processes. But then the external stimuli no longer have an effect, and the result is that the internal organism now begins to carry out its nutritional processes—the opposite of dissimilation processes, namely assimilation processes—so that it restores the depleted organic substance, and this brings about nighttime sleep. Once the organic substance has been restored, the inner life of the soul is also restored, and thus waking life can once again exert new stimuli until fatigue sets in again. This is what is referred to as the organism’s self-regulation.

[ 26 ] Must we not admit that the conscientious seeker of truth, who is familiar with the findings of modern science, must say: If the alternation between waking and sleeping states can be explained quite well by the organism’s self-regulation, then it is not only superfluous but downright harmful to hinder the progress of such a human science by claiming that there is no self-regulation, but rather that, because human beings are autonomous, something emerges from the organism. Since the alternation of sleep and wakefulness can be explained entirely by the organism itself, it is unnecessary and harmful to assume that consciousness is something special that emerges from the organism to develop a separate life during the night. — Once again, it can be pointed out that there is a terrible degree of dilettantism on the part of spiritual science, in which only those believe who do not themselves know the path of science for explaining the organism from within itself.

[ 27 ] When we speak of the independence of spiritual life—when we speak of the idea, which does indeed seem plausible, that spiritual life is independent; that we perceive the human organism as a physical entity through our senses and investigate the course of physical processes using scientific methods, while the spiritual is still present—this is something that has often been emphasized, for example by Du Bois-Reymond and also by others who do not readily subscribe to materialism. For take, for example, any conception of the brain: if one were to imagine the human brain magnified—as Leibniz himself said—to the point where one could walk through it, one would see only material processes within it. But mental life is still something special, and this attests to the fact that we are indeed dealing with a mental life distinct from the processes of physical life. If this is valid, then it demonstrates what, for example, Benedikt says: The fact of consciousness is, in essence, of no different order than the fact of the effect of gravity in connection with matter. For we observe physical matter, for example, in a celestial body. According to the assumptions of physical science, this body exerts gravity, and there is something that is attracted to it—for example, the Sun. In the past, such interactions between the Sun and the Earth or the Moon were described as something supernatural. But this is just as if we had a piece of soft iron and, apart from it, electrical force or magnetism. And when we have the brain before us, with ideas, passions, emotions, and so on concentrated within it, this is just like the fact that gravity and other forces operate around the material Earth. Why, then, should it be any different when processes take place around the brain that occur in exactly the same way as the gravitational processes around the material Earth? The Earth, in connection with gravity and the other forces that invisibly govern it, is nothing other than what governs the brain in the form of emotions, ideas, and other processes. One might ask: How can we claim the right to speak of the independence of spiritual life if we do not claim the right to say that gravity is exerted even when no attractive body is present? — And one might go on to say: Just as one has no right, in such a case, to speak of a celestial body generating gravity in the vast expanse of space, so one has no right to speak of a distinct spiritual entity that is not bound to the material existence of a brain.

[ 28 ] It should be clear to every serious researcher of the spirit that such matters must not be dismissed with unscientific fanaticism.

[ 29 ] If there are already serious objections to the spiritual scientific assumption regarding sleep and waking life, and to the independence of consciousness in general, how can anyone who takes contemporary scientific methods seriously possibly reconcile themselves with what spiritual science says about repeated earthly lives, about the existence of a human core being that continues to exist beyond death, that undergoes experiences in the time between death and a new birth, and then reappears in a new, subsequent physical earthly life! Here, objections are raised not only by those who rely on scientific facts, but also by those who today wish to be spiritual scientists in many respects: by psychologists and contemporary researchers of the soul. The question is asked: What, then, is the necessary hallmark of the human being’s continued existence? The modern researcher of the soul can find this in nothing other than the fact that human consciousness retains a memory of the states it has experienced during life. Continuity of consciousness is what the modern psychologist focuses on in particular. He cannot engage with what does not fall within the consciousness of the human personality, and he will always have to maintain that, while the human being does indeed have a memory of the specific states experienced in life between birth and death, nothing analogous can be demonstrated for the continuity of the human being as an entity carried over from previous earthly lives. As for various other points raised in the course of this lecture series, many serious seekers of truth today may have some objections. It can be said: You may indeed argue that certain aspects of human life appear in such a way that they cannot be explained by the events of the individual’s life alone, but rather that one must assume that a person brings certain predispositions, talents, and so on with them at birth, so that one can assume the soul already exists before entering physical life. But all of this remains, after all, merely a speculative hypothesis. It remains insufficient in the face of modern research into the soul, insofar as the latter takes a path that appears to be steering quite conscientiously toward an ideal.

[ 30 ] What we have here can be characterized as follows: Anyone who observes human life impartially—as it unfolds with these or those passions, with this or that nuance of feeling, with a tendency toward these or those ideas—will, if they adopt the perspective of spiritual science without much hesitation, say: Through our upbringing, we have indeed attained many things; but not everything can be explained by it—rather, we bring with us from birth something that originates from earlier stages of earthly existence. — But, the serious scientist might counter, haven’t we already begun to investigate early childhood—that phase of childhood of which one has no later recollection?

[ 31 ] The modern natural scientist or philosopher might then say: The spiritual researcher wants to explain a genius like Fexzerbach by suggesting that he brought certain abilities with him from a previous life, which enabled him to work as an artist. However, the following discovery has been made: Such a painter works with a very particular color palette, favors a certain facial expression, and so on, following a very specific artistic direction. If one investigates this, one finds that, for example, during his early childhood, he saw a bust in his room, and that a particular way in which the light always fell upon it became deeply imprinted on the child’s soul. This resurfaces later in life, and it becomes evident, so to speak, that such impressions are deeply influential and significant. This makes it possible to explain many things. Spiritual science seeks to trace everything back to previous earthly lives, whereas perhaps everything can be explained through careful observation and study of early childhood.

[ 32 ] One can then point further to modern natural science, which, through the biogenetic law, shows how human beings do indeed pass through the animal forms—which are believed to have been traversed by the human race in earlier earthly states—during the prenatal stage, so that there is indeed justification for demonstrating this. Building on this, one can say: Where does spiritual science point to anything similar—that something a human being has experienced in earlier earthly lives is repeated in the life of a single individual? One should be able to demand this if, as a legitimate seeker of truth in the present, one is to believe that spiritual science applies the same seriousness and dignity in this regard as is present in a similar assertion based on natural science. Thus it has come to pass—and one can say this with some justification—that once a person has acquired a little scientific knowledge about human life, animal life, and even planetary life, which becomes accessible to us through astronomy, they can then give free rein to their imagination, draw conclusions, and conceive all manner of other worlds that make a very strong impression of reality. Certainly, for those who lack scientific knowledge, the matter will very soon become entangled in contradictions, and their ignorance will soon become apparent as they project all sorts of possibilities that do not accord with scientific findings. But those who are familiar with the natural sciences will demonstrate that their ideas fit very neatly into what the natural sciences reveal. Then no one will be able to refute them. But if someone advocates for this in the spiritual sciences, one might ask again: Hasn’t something like this been unjustifiably projected from such assertions and then developed into a fantasy? Who can guarantee that one will adopt the standpoint that only what is accessible to everyone’s investigation should be considered valid? Therefore, one would have to accept this, for the simple reason that one sees how something emerged in the nineteenth century that is also making its presence felt in modern spiritual science.

[ 33 ] We have indeed seen that, in the nineteenth century, ideas consistent with what spiritual science asserts gained ground in German and French intellectual life. In 1854, Reynaud published a work titled *Terre et ciel*, and Figuier published a work on what happens to human beings after death. There were numerous opponents with a background in the natural sciences who said: Well, what is better—that you invent facts based on the natural sciences about a multiplicity of human earthly lives, about life after death, and so on, or is it better to accept some other, equally contrived hypothesis about these things?

[ 34 ] When such objections are raised—and when they are not raised frivolously, but rather on the basis of a serious search for truth—then one must say: These are not objections that arise merely from a spirit of contradiction, but rather those that the human soul itself must raise—and must raise all the more so when, on the other hand, one sees once again how carelessly those who wish to pursue spiritual science often proceed when “evidence” is presented to show that human life is an individual one, and it is claimed that no explanation can be found outside of individual life for phenomena such as human conscience and the sense of responsibility—unless one is willing to assume certain predispositions and tendencies stemming from previous earthly lives. Some say: If I consider myself responsible, then I must have acquired the predisposition for it. Since I have not acquired it in this life, it must have been in a previous one.

[ 35 ] It is also said that the human conscience is a phenomenon that proves there is an inner voice speaking within us, one that we cannot trace back to this present life, and therefore we must trace it back to a previous one. It is also said: Consider the various children of the same parents; they exhibit quite different mental characteristics. But if everything is supposed to have been passed down from parents to children through heredity, how can one explain such differences, which occur even among twins? Therefore, one may conclude—as people then say—that the children of the same parents have different individualities that cannot be inherited but must have been carried over from a previous earthly life into the present one.

[ 36 ] The conscientious seeker of truth will object: “Do you not take into account at all that a person’s individuality, as it appears to us, arises from the blending of the paternal and maternal elements, and that therefore the blend must be different for each individual child?” Shouldn’t the individualities of twins—precisely because there are different mixtures—be different as well, if one explains them solely through heredity?

[ 37 ] Such an objection is not a far-fetched one, but rather one that arises naturally from the matter itself. When one takes everything into account, it is entirely understandable that those who always demand a “verifiable” science reject spiritual science because it is not verifiable; and when one considers that such opponents have a significant advantage on their side, one can understand them. They have the advantage that, alongside the critical spirit, something else is present in our time. This critical spirit is certainly very much present, and when spiritual science makes a statement, it immediately provokes opponents who are not only logically perplexed but also morally indignant that such theories are being put forward. Such opponents are roused, and criticism is something we see springing up everywhere. And because spiritual science, with its ideas, presents itself as something shocking in our time, such criticism is entirely understandable.

[ 38 ] But alongside the critical spirit, credulity thrives in our time—the tendency to follow anyone who merely makes a claim about spiritual science. The desire to have things presented in a way that makes them understandable is scarce among people; it is just as scarce as the critical spirit is strong and credulity is widespread. Thus we see that credulity—the unquestioning acceptance on authority by a gullible public that accepts all manner of things from the field of spiritual science—actually encourages precisely what has always prevailed in opposition to genuine, serious spiritual research: charlatanism. It is an invitation to charlatanism when people gullibly follow everything. And it is a great temptation for a person when all sorts of things are believed about them, when they are spared the difficulty of truly justifying these things before the forum of science, before the forum of the spirit of the age. Even in our time, what is described here is all too widespread. We see how credulity and the most blatant superstition are rampant. Therefore, there are hardly two other things in the world that are as closely intertwined as spiritual science and charlatanism. If one cannot distinguish between the two paths, if one accepts everything solely on the basis of blind faith in authority—just as, by its very nature, some things must be accepted on the basis of authority, which is often the case today—then one invites what is rightly criticized by serious seekers of truth: the charlatanism that is so closely linked to spiritual science. It is understandable that someone who is unable to distinguish the charlatan from the spiritual scientist might then object that everything must be charlatanism.

[ 39 ] Nothing is more readily identified than the transition to matters of a moral and religious nature. We can more quickly characterize the objections that arise in this area because they are easier to understand.

[ 40 ] One might say: Just look at how what must be the most intimate matter of the human soul—what a person can find for themselves as faith, as their subjective conviction—is blown up into a supposed science! — And one can object to the spiritual scientist: If you present this as your personal belief, we will leave you undisturbed. But if you seek to impose upon others what you present as a doctrine of the higher worlds, that is contrary to the nature and character of how the inner being of a human being should relate to the spiritual worlds and to religious life in general. — If one then wishes to demonstrate the consequences in this regard, one can say: Look at people in spiritual science circles, for example, who have adopted the idea of repeated earthly lives as a conviction; one can see in them how what is a moral worldview is led, precisely through a spiritual scientific worldview, into the most blatant egoism. — And one can contrast what emerges from spiritual science with nineteenth-century materialism by saying: There were numerous people who, with their spirit, were able to transcend mere material processes, and who said: “I do not see my higher morality in laying claim to a spiritual world after my death in order to be received into it and to live on there; rather, when I do something moral, I do so without hope of a spiritual world, because duty commands me to do so, because I gladly give up what my own egoism is to me.”

[ 41 ] There have been many for whom the morality of immortality was nothing more than a selfish morality. To them, this morality seemed far less noble than the one in which everything that is done passes into the universal life of the world upon a person’s death. In contrast stands the morality of those who say that their actions would have no meaning unless they were balanced out in subsequent earthly lives. Opponents of spiritual science might argue that this law of karma merely encourages human selfishness—not to mention those who might even say outright: “I acknowledge that there are many lives in the future. Why, then, should I bother to become a decent person now?” I have many lives ahead of me, and even if I remain foolish in the present, I can still become wise and intelligent in subsequent lives. — Thus, one could argue that repeated earthly lives actually encourage people to lead a comfortable and carefree life. All of this demonstrates, with regard to the idea of repeated earthly lives, that selfishness—which seeks to preserve the ego—is very far removed from selfless morality.

[ 42 ] And we can take up an objection that Friedrich Schlegel raised against the view of repeated earthly lives, as held by the Indians: The view of human existence as rushing from one incarnation to the next leads to the alienation of the human being from active, direct engagement with reality, causing him to lose interest in everything in which he is meant to develop. — A certain unworldly, eccentric quality is, after all, easily discernible in those who immerse themselves in spiritual science. A certain spiritual egotism, a certain unworldly doctrine, is fostered by this. Indeed, it becomes apparent that such people say: “After having engaged with spiritual science for a certain period of time, I lose interest in what I used to love.” — This is something that often occurs, but it shows that the objection is made in earnest: that a person should work in the world to which they have been assigned! It is a serious objection that spiritual science should not alienate people from the immediate, intense reality of life, nor turn them into eccentrics who let everything go haywire.

[ 43 ] And now, religious life! One might ask: What is the most beautiful, the most magnificent flower of this religious life? It lies in devotion—in the selfless devotion of human individuality, one might say, to a divine reality beyond humanity. The loss of self by the soul, the soul’s self-sacrificing surrender to the divine beyond humanity, gives rise to the true religious mood. But now spiritual science comes along and explains to human beings that there is a divine spark within them, which is first expressed in a minor way during an earthly life, but is then developed and becomes more and more perfected, so that the God within the human being grows stronger and stronger. This is self-deification instead of selfless devotion to the divine beyond humanity.

[ 44 ] Yes, one can rightly object—if one takes the religious view seriously—that this immersion in one’s own divine nature, when realized through the various incarnations, can destroy the true religious spirit, just as it can destroy life in love. If a person does not feel driven to this by immediate, loving devotion, but instead thinks that a balance will be achieved in this regard in a later earthly life, then he loves only for the sake of that balance. And the religious person may say: In the spiritual-scientific worldview, religious life is grounded in the idea that a person does not have God outside of himself, but within himself. — And the objection is justified: What a sum of arrogance, haughtiness, and self-deification can thereby be established in the human soul!

[ 45 ] Those who raise such objections need not dwell on them. But one can see from this how well-meaning followers of spiritual science can come to such arrogance and, time and again, to such self-deification. This is why we find in the West such resistance to the existence of the divine spark in human beings, to the existence of the human core of being prior to birth. One should not take lightly the fact that a serious seeker of truth might raise such an objection to the idea of repeated earthly lives in contrast to the laws of heredity.

[ 46 ] One objection that I would like to read aloud—and which I will not discuss further so as not to weaken its impact—can be found in the work of Jacob Frohschammer, who can be regarded as representative of those who raise many objections to the assumption of the preexistence of the soul:

[ 47 ] “... The human soul cannot possibly regard itself as God’s essence or as a part of God—not so much because of the Thomistic concern for the unity of God, since it could, after all, exist as aspects within Him without harming His unity, but rather according to the human soul’s own consciousness and testimony, which cannot regard either itself or the world as a direct expression of divine perfection or as the realization of the idea of God Himself. As originating from God, it can only be regarded as a product or work of divine imagination; for in this case, the human soul—like the world itself—must indeed come from divine power and activity (since nothing can come from mere nothingness), but this power and activity of God must act not only as a model for creation but also as a formative force in its realization and continued preservation; that is, as a formative power (not merely of a formal, but also of a real nature), and consequently as imagination—that is, as a power or potency immanent in the world that continues to act and sustain creation, thus as “world imagination”—as has already been discussed earlier. As for the doctrine of the preexistence of souls (souls that are regarded either as eternal or as created in time, but already at the beginning and all at once), which, as noted, has been revived in recent times and is considered suitable for solving all manner of psychological problems, — it is connected to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls and the imprisonment of souls in earthly bodies. According to this view, therefore, at the moment of conception by the parents, there would take place neither a direct divine creation of souls nor a creative production of new human natures—body and soul—by the parents, but only a new union of the soul with the body—that is, a kind of incarnation or immersion of the soul into the body, — at least a partial one, so that it is partly encompassed and bound by the body, partly protruding beyond it and asserting a certain independence as spirit, yet unable to break free from it until death severs the connection and brings liberation and redemption to the soul (at least from this connection). In its relationship to the body, the human spirit would then resemble the poor souls in Purgatory, as they are often depicted by amateur painters on votive tablets: bodies half-submerged in the blazing flames, but with the upper part (as souls) protruding and gesturing! Just consider what position and significance would be accorded, under this view, to the sexual dichotomy, the nature of the human species, marriage, and the relationship of parents to their children! The sexual dichotomy would be nothing more than a means of imprisonment; marriage, an institution for carrying out this “noble” task; parents, in relation to their children’s souls, the henchmen tasked with restraining and imprisoning them; and the children themselves, owing this wretched, arduous captivity to their parents, while having nothing else in common with them! Everything connected to this relationship was based on wretched deception!”

[ 48 ] If one is a fanatical researcher of the spiritual sciences, one might smile at such a thing, but fanaticism should have no place in spiritual science. It should seek to understand and truly tolerate that against which the soul rebels. For this reason, this introductory lecture was presented not as a “justification” but rather as a “refutation” of spiritual scientific research. But the points to be presented in the next lecture, “How Does One Justify Spiritual Research?”, will stand all the more firmly if we can raise the objections that need to be addressed ourselves. I am sure you will believe me when I say that, in truth, I do not wish to refute spiritual research!

[ 49 ] I was, of course, able to cite only a very small number of objections here. Many such objections could be raised. Some of this may take place in the near future, and the refutation will then follow immediately. But from everything that has been cited, one can see how, by embracing spiritual scientific research, a person is inwardly called to a battlefield; how not only do the facts emerge that speak in favor of repeated earthly lives, of the human being’s passage through a spiritual world, and so on, but also how all the counterarguments can arise from the dark depths of the soul. It is good for those who engage with spiritual research in a calm manner to be aware of these counterarguments as well. Then they will also be able to show the proper tolerance toward their opponents. Simply engaging in spiritual science, turning a blind eye, or laughing at opponents’ objections can never be the way of the spiritual researcher. That this is counterproductive was already demonstrated by a particular case in the nineteenth century, which I would like to recount here.

[ 50 ] In 1869, Eduard von Hartmann’s *Philosophy of the Unconscious* was published. Even if one does not agree with it, one can still say that it represented a valiant attempt to move beyond sensory perception. Consequently, Eduard von Hartmann had to oppose many ideas that had just emerged as scientific ideals at the time, particularly those stemming from the newly flourishing Darwinism. Thus, we find much in *The Philosophy of the Unconscious* that was not meant to become “modern” in the face of Darwinism. But the one thing that all those on the side of Darwinism who could not agree with this book had in common was that they rebelled against Eduard von Hartmann as someone who had not familiarized himself with the findings of contemporary natural science. A great flood of counter-writings appeared. One need not assume that these counter-writings contained nothing but nonsense; some were authored by individuals who were outstanding in their respective fields, such as Ernst Haeckel, the zoologist Oskar Schmidt, and others. Among these writings was one by an anonymous author, titled *The Unconscious from the standpoint of Physiology and the Theory of Descent*. In it, compelling arguments were presented demonstrating how many aspects of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” were untenable and how its author had thereby shown himself to be nothing more than a dilettante in the field of natural science. Many people were downright astonished by the quick-witted manner in which this anonymous author proceeded in this treatise, and Oskar Schmidt, then at the University of Jena, remarked that it was the best that could be said against the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” from the standpoint of natural science. Some said, “He should reveal his identity to us, for he is one of our own”; and Ernst Haeckel remarked that he himself could not have written anything better against the “Philosophy of the Unconscious.”

[ 51 ] So it was no wonder that the first edition of this work, *The Unconscious from the Standpoint of Physiology and the Theory of Descent*, was soon out of print. A second edition was published, and now the author revealed his name: it was—Eduard von Hartmann! Now some of the voices that had previously said, “Let him call himself one of us; he is one of our own,” fell silent. But what was significant had already taken place: a man had demonstrated that he was aware of everything his most serious opponents could bring against him. This proved once and for all that one should not assume, when an argument is raised against a worldview, that the author of that worldview could not have anticipated it himself.

[ 52 ] For the humanities, this is literally a matter of life and death. Admittedly, I was not able to say everything that could be said today. But spiritual science must be aware of the objections that can be raised against it, and one can only hope that some of those who believe they possess profound knowledge—enough to refute spiritual science with this or that sound, scientific, and precise argument—might sometimes consider how much better the person against whom the objection is raised understands the matter than the one raising the objection. This is the case with a conscientious researcher in spiritual science. Of course, he cannot bore his audience by always citing every possible counterargument. But when something is put forward in favor of spiritual science, and when an opponent then appears, that opponent should first ask himself whether what he is putting forward is not something that the advocate of spiritual science could say himself.

[ 53 ] The purpose of the next lecture will be to raise the question: How does the soul properly relate to what asserts itself within it as counterarguments rising from its depths? Is it really true that, because so many objections can be raised against spiritual science, a person must truly adopt the same attitude toward it as—to put it somewhat figuratively—Goethe ultimately has his Faust say: “Could I but remove magic from my path”? Are the counterarguments against spiritual science similar to Faust’s attitude toward the counterarguments against magic? Are they such that a philosopher like Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire is right when he says: In all seriousness, there is only the following in relation to the worldview. We see that human beings are weak in many respects. Why should we not admit this weakness to ourselves, and why should it not be a strength, in fact, to come to terms with one’s weakness? How must a person admit to himself that he is weak against wind and weather, against volcanic forces and natural disasters! How must a person admit that he is weak in the face of what nature imposes upon him, when he sows the seed in the earth and adverse weather prevents it from ripening, turning his hard work into nothing but famine! If humans must often take their weakness to heart, why should they not say so—out of honesty: Although the spirit can transcend itself in many ways, it too is weak and limited and can do nothing against what nature imposes upon it; thus, it can know nothing of what our nature is—we must resign ourselves!

[ 54 ] If the reasons now put forward were so compelling that the next lecture could not be held, there would be no alternative but to accept a resignation—one felt not only by Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire but by many others, stemming from an honest, truth-loving spirit, who believe they must maintain that human beings cannot penetrate a spiritual world. Because the counterarguments spring not from a spirit of contradiction but from the very nature of the matter itself, therefore the debate over the nature and value of the counterarguments to spiritual science is not merely a theoretical matter, but something that must arise from the battlefield of the soul, where opinions wage a seemingly more or less justified struggle against one another, and where it is only through hard-fought battles that one can discern which of the reasons presented there can emerge victorious. If one faces the inner struggle of the soul openly and unreservedly and can articulate the arguments for and against an understanding of the spiritual world, one will not become a fanatical advocate of this or that contrived or contrived principle, but rather a recognizer of the principle that a calm conviction is built upon the foundation of those reasons which are asserted only then—and never before— after they have defeated their counterarguments within one’s own soul.

[ 55 ] If the seeker of truth pursues his convictions in this way, then he may tell himself that he can confidently look forward to the future development of spiritual life; for it is true, as the earnest seeker of truth has said: Whatever is untrue, no matter how often it may be put forward, will be cast aside by humanity’s ever-evolving quest for truth. But that which is true—and which has had to fight for its existence against counterarguments, as we always see in relation to the events of world history—finds its way into the development of humanity in a very special way: one can stand before this development of truth stretching into the centuries and millennia and say: And no matter how many obscuring impressions—that is, prejudices and contradictions—may be piled up, the truth always finds cracks and fissures through which to assert itself, to make itself felt for the blessing, progress, and benefit of humanity.