The Rudolf Steiner Archive

31. The Bible and Wisdom I

[ 1 ] The great German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte once spoke meaningful words about the interaction between two segments of the population in one of his inspiring “Addresses to the German Nation.” He spoke of how a nation’s intellectual life can only be truly vibrant if there is a full understanding between the way in which the leaders at the forefront of this intellectual life express themselves, and the way of thinking, the sensibilities, and the feelings of those who receive it—those who are meant to listen in their hearts and souls to what the leaders of the people have to say. And Fichte called those nations—in terms of their intellectual life—more or less dead nations in which a class of the educated, a class of higher intellectual life, employs a language and a mode of thought that do not find an immediate, living, and full resonance in those who are supposed to listen to the voices of the leaders—to the voices of those who have something to proclaim about the highest questions of existence, about the riddles and the secrets of the world that are hidden in our existence.

[ 2 ] What the philosopher and orator said back then about a nation, we can also apply to other forms of intellectual life; indeed, in a certain sense, we see it increasingly confirmed in what we experience in the realm of religious coexistence—between those who are meant to listen, those who have a longing and a need to receive something, and the leaders in this realm of spiritual life, in the realm of religious life.

[ 3 ] If we take a closer look at the past few decades— perhaps the entire century a little more closely and take stock of these facts, we see how, in contrast to those sacred texts that have in fact provided spiritual nourishment for vast, vast segments of our population for millennia—in contrast to these religious texts—a form of scholarship is asserting itself that is no longer immediately understood by the broadest segments of the population, by those for whom it is intended. We see how those who are scholars, leaders, and teachers in this regard have various things to say about the religious texts of Christianity and related matters—various things that have created a deep chasm between this scholarship and the immediate religious needs of broader and broader segments of the population: the two groups no longer really understand one another. If one looks at the matter with an unbiased eye, one notices this very, very quickly.

[ 4 ] Theologians and other scholarly circles that engage with the Bible—whether in an academic or popular context—with that document that is of the utmost importance to our national life, have been led by their research to a certain way of understanding what these texts are, what value and origin they have, and what their content is—a way of understanding such that what they have to say no longer finds a living echo, can no longer kindle living life in the hearts of those who are meant to listen.

[ 5 ] When we pick up such popular writings on these matters—from which we are supposed to learn, books that are distributed to the people in thousands upon thousands of copies—when we look at them and ask ourselves: Is this scholarship of such a nature that what is spoken of there—and which reaches the people through thousands upon thousands of channels—is it such that it can satisfy humanity’s deepest religious needs, so that the ordinary person, who seeks spiritual nourishment above all in religious texts, seeks something that resolves the highest questions of existence, the mysteries of worldly life—is what is offered here such that this person can find what he is seeking?

[ 6 ] If we examine the facts before us with an open mind, we must say: Very little, very little of genuine, truly profound religious feeling exists in our theological scholarship, and very little, very little of what emerges from this scholarship—in the form of ideas and research findings on our religious documents—resonates with us; very little of it is capable of penetrating the heart, lifting the spirit, and bringing it to full expression. We need only look around a little, and this will be confirmed.

[ 7 ] Let’s take a look at what has developed in this area over the past 100 years; let’s examine it clearly: The time has passed when the Old and New Testaments were regarded as books in which truly and genuinely God-inspired individuals, under divine inspiration, once solved the enigmatic questions of existence—as they needed to be solved for the religious mind. For many, many centuries, there were times when the broadest segments of the population listened to the words of Holy Scripture as if the highest truths were being proclaimed—even when they received them —admittedly not directly, but indirectly through the mouths of priests and sages, as the religious texts provide—they listened as if convinced that, when the content was proclaimed to them, they were being given the highest truths about the spiritual-divine realities underlying our everyday sensory life. There was a time when people were convinced that the Bible is no ordinary book, but originated from that very Being who also brought forth all the phenomena that surround us. The Bible was spoken of as an inspired book, and it was thus perceived as a book whose words resounded from the spiritual worlds themselves, whose words therefore proclaimed the eternal wisdom that humanity needs on its path of development throughout the course of world evolution. In those ancient times, no one dared to think of subjecting this book to any kind of criticism. It is precisely the result of work carried out by researchers over the past 100 years that the content of this book has been subjected to critical scrutiny. People no longer retain that reverence that led them to accept this book as it is presented; instead, they have asked themselves: Do the individual parts agree with one another, or do they contradict scientific findings from other fields of research? Are they such that one might consider it an inspired book from beginning to end? The answer to these questions provides the basis for the critical work that has been carried out over the past 100 years by the scholarship of our time. And what has come to light in the process? It is not necessary for our purpose—which is to examine today the relationship between true wisdom and the Bible—that we discuss biblical criticism; we wish only to say a few words in this introduction about the spirit of this biblical criticism.

[ 8 ] For example—and I can only touch on this briefly and in general terms—it has been observed that in the early parts of the Old Testament there is a peculiarity: two ways in which the divine primordial being of the world is named. It has been noted that in certain passages the divine primordial being is referred to as Yahweh, while in other passages it is referred to in a kind of plural form: the Elohim.

[ 9 ] Another observation was made that seemed to point to something: that right at the beginning of the Old Testament, as is believed, a fact—the creation of humankind—is recounted twice. The creation is recounted as a seven-day process, and in this account it is told how, finally, on the sixth day, humankind—as the crown of creation, as it is said—“male and female” (Genesis 1:27) came into being. Strangely enough, it is now said, this creation of humankind—specifically, of male and female humankind—is recounted once again! Now, the matter is presented as if humankind had already existed, as if animals had not yet been created around them; in short: Critical scholarship maintains that the very same event is recounted a second time.

[ 10 ] Furthermore, many passages were found in the writings named after Moses that were difficult to believe, and for which one also believed there was evidence that they originated from the great, inspired Moses himself, in accordance with the ancient view—for example, when speaking of the land of Canaan, so that one saw: It was not possible to speak of this land in this way during the ancient times in which Moses lived, but only at a later time. Then one examined the style in which it is written and found that the individual parts show a great difference in expression; at times they were more colloquial, at other times more priestly and scholarly.

[ 11 ] There is still so much, so much I would need to tell you in order to fully explain the spirit and meaning of this biblical research. We don’t need to do that; we just need to realize that, under the influence of such critical research, scholars came to conclude: A single meaning or a single author could not have produced these highly diverse, pieced-together parts that we call the individual books of the Bible. Thus, people came to conclude: These highly diverse parts originated at the most varied times, took shape among the people in the most varied ways, and were then compiled. Specifically, two parts were distinguished: a first part and a second part, clearly distinct from the first. Each of these parts was thought to have its own specific scribe. The former was called the Yahwist. And everything that seemed to be more original and imbued with folk power was attributed to this Yahwist. Thus, everything written in the style of the Paradise narrative—where Adam is led into Paradise and Eve is created from his own substance—was attributed to this source.

[ 12 ] All of this was attributed to one source. In contrast, everything that seemed more like speculation was attributed to another source. This source was called the so-called “Priestly Source,” which is said to contain only the more scholarly, priestly sections that had a more speculative character, such as the account of the six- or seven-day creation. Thus, little by little, these stylistic and source analyses came to be extended to even the smallest individual parts—one might even say scraps—and traced back to their various origins.

[ 13 ] Yes, there are Bible translations today—the so-called “Rainbow Bibles”—in which the individual sections, which are said to come from different sources, are printed in different colors. Often, in such a Bible, you’ll even see the color interrupted—for example, in the middle of a line or in the middle of a sentence—and another color appear; this means that this sentence is considered to have come from different sources. The parts primarily attributed to the Yahwist are said to have been written during David’s time, while the others are said to have been written after the Babylonian Exile. Thus, the Old Testament gradually came to be seen as a collection—something compiled over the course of a long period of time—and, given this way of thinking, what was lost was necessarily that which, in its ancient grandeur and significance as a religious sentiment, was linked to what had been found in the Bible as revelation over the course of centuries, indeed millennia.

[ 14 ] Viewed in this light, we must say that the attitude of the broadest circles toward the Bible has changed more than people are generally willing to admit at present.

[ 15 ] This divide exists—more than even those who still possess deep religious fervor realize—between those who are supposed to explain what the Bible is really all about and those who are supposed to believe. And anyone who is able to look impartially at these circumstances, who surveys the spiritual currents of our time with an open mind, will see that a time is not far off when this gulf between theological scholarship and the warm religious sentiment of the people will no longer be bridgeable if things continue in this manner, if nothing changes.

[ 16 ] Religious life in the old way is no longer possible under these circumstances, and anyone who is willing to keep their eyes open can foresee the time when biblical criticism —despite all the objections of those who wish to conceal these facts—will have a devastating effect on religious life and render the divide unbridgeable, unless another spiritual current gives the matter a completely different turn and direction, bringing about such a change. This spiritual current can only be one such as has been known for several decades now as Theosophical Wisdom.

[ 17 ] Here—in Munich—we have discussed a wide variety of topics over the course of this winter; today and tomorrow we will examine the relationship between this theosophical school of thought and the interpretation of the Bible, that religious text which is so significant for our cultural life.

[ 18 ] This theosophical worldview takes a very peculiar stance toward the Bible. Our understanding of the Bible is not—and must not be—something that falls outside the necessary historical course of our modern intellectual life, but rather something that lies entirely within the framework of our modern intellectual life.

[ 19 ] Theosophy aims to be a renewal, a restoration of an immediate, direct knowledge of the spiritual worlds. It is the firm conviction of all those whose lives have been permeated by this theosophical school of thought that behind the world perceived by our senses lies a spiritual world, a world of spiritual beings. It is further the firm conviction of this same spiritual movement that this spiritual world is not something inaccessible and unfathomable to human beings, but rather something that human beings can explore and come to know. Precisely under the influence of the materialistic mindset of recent times, a sense of timidity and hopelessness has crept into our quest for knowledge: Never in the history of human development has there been so much talk of the limits of knowledge as there is in our time, especially when discussing the very reason for existence and the truly creative and active beings that lie behind the sensory world. Today, people are quick to say: “Our powers of cognition are not sufficient for this; we cannot investigate it.”

[ 20 ] Our school of thought, however—Spiritual Science—says: We believe wholeheartedly and without reservation in evolution; not only does everything else in the world evolve, but human beings do as well, and as they stand before us today, their evolution is not complete; they can continue this evolution—especially their spiritual evolution—at any moment. Within him lie dormant powers that can be drawn forth from his soul to then become active in the pursuit of higher knowledge.

[ 21 ] To those who speak of the limits of knowledge, spiritual science says: Certainly, you are right, quite right, when you say that the source of existence cannot be explored with the powers of cognition of which you speak—if you speak only of these powers, you are entirely correct; but we, in the realm of spiritual science, do not speak of these powers, but rather of powers that, while not inherent in human beings from the outset, can be developed by anyone—and indeed, by everyone—provided they do not shut themselves off from them by saying, “I do not want to go any further.” Human beings live in this world, which surrounds them with color and sound. Through his senses and with his intellect, which is limited to the sensory world, he gains insights into it. Likewise, the higher worlds also surround him; but he has not yet activated the organs within himself to perceive them; he lives in these higher worlds like a blind person in the physical world of colors and light. But a person can also live in this higher world as one who sees.

[ 22 ] Just as a person born blind, when he undergoes surgery, enters a world that was previously unknown to him—even though it has always been around him—so too does the one whose spiritual eye has been opened, whose spiritual senses have been awakened, enter a new world that has also surrounded him all along, but which he could not perceive because he had not yet opened the faculties necessary for it. Only those who refuse to think logically can deny the possibility of such a higher world. Only those who can look into it themselves are qualified to determine what that world is like.

[ 23 ] Now, what do the religious texts reveal about this spiritual science? Something that, for those who truly delve into the matter, is a source of ever-renewed satisfaction and inspiration. But before we discuss this in more detail, let us turn to something else.

[ 24 ] In our time, there are four ways of relating to religious texts. One can experience these four ways when, as a person born into our time, one seeks out everything that seems capable of providing satisfaction. Let us suppose a person is born and, through school and family, is then guided into a more or less naive religious life, so that at first he accepts the ideas of the Bible in a naive way, just as the naive believer does. He believes in them for a time. Then, perhaps in our present day, the time comes when—as they say, as many people say—he becomes “wise,” when he becomes an “enlightened” person, and he then turns away from his old, childlike faith!

[ 25 ] What I am about to say is not meant as mockery, but as a truly tragic experience shared by many, many of our contemporaries. They find themselves saying: When I consider modern science with its irrefutable findings—which contradict so much of what I was taught and what I accepted with faith—I have no choice; I must give it up, my beautiful childhood faith. —It is often tragic for such people to part with that faith; many cling with all their hearts to their old faith, yet their sense of truth regarding modern science separates them from it. They then become “enlightened people”; they try to be content with what purely external modern science makes available to them. These are the “smart people,” among whom many often look down on the naive believers with a certain arrogance and even some derision.

[ 26 ] Strangely enough, a group has now emerged within these circles—which had so completely broken away from the Bible—within the freethinking movement itself, which has come to realize that these religious texts do not merely contain naive, childlike beliefs. They say to themselves: Although what is told to us here are not facts, they are allegories, symbols of developmental processes—for inner development, if you will—and so one person interprets these things one way, another in a different way, and so on. Precisely within the so-called freethinking movement, a group has recently formed that has made the allegorical interpretation of the Bible its mission. When one considers the work of this group, one must say that it has produced much that is beautiful and profound; they have reflected on many myths and legends in an excellent manner. But here the worst kind of arbitrariness prevails. Everything depends on the interpreter’s state of mind. One person thinks more deeply, another less so, about the things they seek to explain. What each person knows and is able to comprehend simply varies. Some arrive at these points of view; others, however, can take a shortcut by omitting one or the other.

[ 27 ] Finally, after passing through these preliminary stages, some people come to truly penetrate the religious texts with the help of spiritual science, and there they notice something peculiar. They increasingly realize that what is written in the Bible must, in turn, be taken literally—truly literally. It dawns on them like a new light, like a revelation, and on a higher level they come to recognize once again the value and significance of these religious texts. This is an experience that many have certainly undergone precisely through theosophy. Starting from a serious quest for knowledge, they have come to cast everything—everything—aside; moving beyond the individual intermediate stages, guided by this quest for truth, they have, after a shorter or longer period of time, arrived at Theosophy, and through it the religious texts have regained their value for them, and what these once gave them, they have regained! The deeper one delves into the meaning of this marvelous book, the more one realizes that everything, absolutely everything, is exactly as it is described there, and that it is precisely those passages that may have most provoked our disbelief, our criticism, and our mockery that can reveal to us the deepest spiritual truths.

[ 28 ] The relationship of spiritual science to the Bible and other religious texts will also be described from another perspective. You see, what theosophy can be in relation to the Bible has long since taken place in another realm of spiritual life—the realm of the natural sciences—in order to define its position in relation to another great text. What has taken place since Copernicus and Galileo in the realm of external scientific knowledge is now taking place in more recent times in the realm of religious knowledge and with regard to religious texts through spiritual science, through theosophy.

[ 29 ] I would like to share a fact with you that will make this clearer: Throughout the entire Middle Ages, Aristotle’s contributions were regarded as an irrefutable fact in all schools with regard to the study of the external natural world; he had been a significant naturalist and collector of scientific knowledge for his time. It is truly astonishing what he compiled in his writings regarding knowledge of nature. It was there; it existed in the form of books, and these were, for that time, dogmatic texts on nature. Throughout the entire Middle Ages, people taught from these books; what he had said about stars, plants, animals, and humans—what they contained as a new revelation—was regarded as the definitive authority. Then came Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and their great leader Giordano Bruno; a completely new approach to the study of nature took hold. These people turned their gaze to nature itself; they no longer asked, “What did Aristotle say about this or that human organ, perhaps?”—but instead they examined everything themselves; they observed natural objects directly with their own instruments and methods; they wanted to see with their own eyes, and for them, the only thing that was authoritative was what they themselves had discovered, and no longer what Aristotle had said.

[ 30 ] A brief story may illustrate just how great the difficulties they faced in challenging the old Aristotelian beliefs and how deeply rooted those beliefs were. Through his thorough studies of the human body, Galileo had discovered various things that could not be reconciled with Aristotle’s teachings. It is interesting to note what an old Aristotelian, a friend of Galileo’s, once said to him in this regard. He was invited by Galileo and guided by him to examine a human body, where he was shown that one of Aristotle’s assertions proved to be incorrect when observed directly in the human body. Galileo wanted to make it clear to his friend that the true source of scientific knowledge about nature is the direct observation of nature itself. This friend, however, looked at what Galileo was showing him and, willy-nilly, had to admit that Galileo was evidently right, yet he continued to swear by Aristotle’s assertion, just as any orthodox theologian today might swear by the Bible: “It is true,” he said, “the facts are as you describe, but Aristotle said otherwise, and I believe Aristotle more than my own eyes.” That is how powerful tradition is, how powerful prejudices are in shaping human thought.

[ 31 ] But today we see something different, and we must say: Times have changed; those prejudices have been replaced by a different reality. Today we are imbued with the conviction that we must approach nature itself directly if we are to arrive at true knowledge. We are well aware that it is not ancient traditions that can serve as our guide, but rather the judgments and insights we have gained based on our own observations. At the same time, however, through the natural sciences we are coming to realize more and more that the people of that time did not understand Aristotle at all, but rather had misunderstood him entirely. Today we have reached the point where we are making the astonishing discovery that Aristotle was right after all—if only we understand him correctly. Thus, it is precisely because we have gained access through the direct knowledge of the facts of nature that we have now been able to recognize the true value and meaning of the traditional teachings.

[ 32 ] Where natural science stood back then, spiritual science now stands in relation to the Bible. Through the current that spiritual science brings to people today, human beings face the spiritual world in the same way that, in Galileo’s time, the sensually oriented person faced external, real nature. Just as there have been researchers since that time who, with their methods and instruments, approach the sensory facts of nature directly, so there will be more and more researchers who look directly into the spiritual worlds and immediately recognize what is recounted in the Bible. This has been in the making for a long time. For natural science, this has been achieved; for spiritual science, it must yet be achieved.

[ 33 ] The Germans have a legend whose significance points to this: the Faust legend. Faust—it is said of him that for a time he set the Bible aside; he no longer wanted to be a theologian, but rather a man of the world and a physician, because he had set the Bible aside for a time. He wanted to approach the mysteries of nature directly; he wanted to attain direct wisdom.

[ 34 ] Thus, spiritual wisdom does not seek the content and insights of the spiritual world in the Bible; rather, independent of any tradition, it seeks to explore the factual content of the spiritual world and approaches the texts with what it already possesses in order to test the texts against its own insights. If I am to characterize this approach, I would like to do so with an example. What every schoolboy learns today in geometry was once already discovered by ancient researchers. What schoolboys learn today is called Euclidean geometry, named after that great Greek scholar to whom we owe the oldest work on these subjects. Is every schoolboy now required to pick up Euclid’s first work in order to learn from it what he needs to learn? The schoolboy knows nothing at all about these ancient texts; he learns from within himself, from his own ability to discern what is correct, from the inherent correctness, clarity, and truth of the matter itself, and only much later, when he studies history, does it become clear to him that what is correct is already contained in that work by Euclid and can therefore be found there.

[ 35 ] Just as geometry is true in and of itself, so too are the facts of the spiritual world true in and of themselves; and just as we no longer need ancient texts to explore the principles of geometry today, so too do we not need ancient texts to recognize the truths of the spiritual world. This is precisely the direct path, the immediate path into the spiritual world, as shown by modern spiritual science. Here, the Bible is the historical document which, like Euclid, is not necessary for understanding, but can confirm what has been discovered independently. So you see that spiritual science stands as independently as possible in relation to the Bible and is therefore also called upon to explore it and recognize its true value. Let us ask ourselves: Who is actually called upon to recognize this? Our example can lead us to the answer: Only one who truly knows geometry can be called upon to recognize the value and significance of a text on geometry! Likewise, we must say: The only one called to assess and recognize the value and significance of the Bible is the one who is able to investigate what it contains from within the spiritual world itself! Thus, as you can see, spiritual science has already established a completely new relationship to the Bible as a text.

[ 36 ] Well, in light of this spiritual science, the findings that “critical scholarship” on the Bible has brought to light now appear in a peculiar light! It seems relatively insignificant, quite trivial, and irrelevant when the individual sections or parts of this document were written or composed; that interests us only as a historical fact. We, however, gauge the value of the book itself—that is, what we ourselves recognize as its content—by the accuracy of that content.

[ 37 ] Anyone who studies the Bible from the perspective of spiritual science is sometimes overcome, when considering modern biblical criticism, by a feeling—one that I myself once had toward philological scholarship—that sometimes arises in response to this critical philology—for modern theology is, after all, nothing more than philology—a feeling that I will now describe to you.

[ 38 ] There is—and this is only seemingly far-fetched—a very beautiful prose hymn to nature by Goethe, which I have mentioned on several occasions. In it, Goethe expressed his religious convictions in the enthusiastic manner characteristic of him at that time:

Nature! We are surrounded and embraced by her, unable to step out of her, and unable to penetrate deeper into her. Uninvited and without warning, she draws us into the cycle of her dance and carries us along until we grow weary and slip from her arms. ... Human beings are all within her, and she is within all of them. ... Even the most unnatural is nature; even the crudest philistinism has something of her genius. ... One obeys her laws, even when one resists them; one acts in concert with her, even when one seeks to act against her. ... She is everything. She rewards herself [and punishes herself], delights and torments herself. ... She has led me in; she will also lead me out. I entrust myself to her. Let her do with me as she pleases; she will not hate her own work. I did not speak of her; no, whatever is true and whatever is false—she has spoken it all. Everything is her fault; everything is her merit.

[ 39 ] And then he concludes with the words:

Her crown is love, ... and a few sips from the cup of love make up for a life full of hardship.

[ 40 ] This is an essay filled with many pearls of wisdom steeped in enthusiasm. Goethe was once asked in his later years when he had written this essay. In response to this question, you will find a second essay in which Goethe says he can no longer remember when he wrote this first essay, nor even that he wrote it at all, but he presents it entirely as an expression of his views at the time, so that it is quite reasonable to assume he did write it. What Goethe said there has given the learned Goethe scholars much to ponder and has prompted incredible research; there was a time when Goethe scholars conducted long, long investigations into whether this essay was written by Goethe himself or not.

[ 41 ] When I was appointed years ago to the Goethe Archive in Weimar to prepare a new edition of Goethe’s scientific writings, I was once tasked with examining this question as well; I was asked to pay particular attention to clarifying this point of contention. I came to the conclusion—and was able to establish—that at the time the aforementioned hymn was written, Goethe often went for walks with a younger man, and that one day, during a walk along the Ilm, he recited this essay to that young man in those beautiful words. This person was a certain Tobler, who had an excellent memory and was able to transcribe this essay verbatim from memory. Thus, we have in Tobler’s transcription a genuine essay by Goethe.

[ 42 ] With a sort of pedantic philological precision, I myself demonstrated back then that every sentence was written by Goethe, even though it was transcribed by someone else. Shortly thereafter, I met one of the most renowned Goethe scholars [whose name I understandably will not mention]. He addressed me with the following words: [“You have truly earned credit for what you have brought to light, because] now we finally know who wrote the essay—that it was not Goethe, but Tobler.”

[ 43 ] This is an experience that can show us how to approach modern biblical criticism. It did not matter to this gentleman at all where the spiritual source lay; his sole concern was to determine who had dipped the pen in ink and used it to write on the paper.

[ 44 ] It seems almost grotesque, but essentially, today's biblical criticism takes the same stance. It is not concerned with the spiritual sources of what is recounted there, but rather with demonstrating—in a figurative sense—with meticulous precision who was the last to dip the pen in the inkwell, and that is precisely what these people wish to accomplish: to distinguish, with different colors, what flowed from one pen and what from the other. This is not meant to be the slightest criticism of that line of scholarship. The scholar was, after all, correct at the time: Tobler had dipped that pen in the ink and written the essay. The value of this research should therefore not be called into question in the slightest. That is not the point. The true and boundless diligence displayed here deserves full recognition, for whoever is familiar with it knows what diligence—what astonishing diligence—is applied to answering these questions. True, perhaps everything this science discovers is true, but the question is simply this: Is it fruitful for people’s inner lives? Is it of value to those who, from the depths of their being, hope for an answer to the great questions of existence? One more point must now be pointed out for a better understanding of these lectures. The word “inspiration” played a major role when people spoke in the past of the conception of the Bible: it was said that what is written in the Bible arose from inspiration. Into it—the Bible—flowed wisdom from the very same spiritual sources that are connected with the creation and production of the world itself. Gradually, the materialistic age dawned; it could not believe in such inspiration. The moment humanity ceased to believe in the spiritual worlds themselves, this concept had to be abandoned. Spiritual science, however, recognizes this concept and traces it back to its true content, its true meaning.

[ 45 ] The science of the spirit first recognizes a world—a physical world, the world of our senses—which we perceive with our eyes, can grasp with our hands, and hear when we listen to something that makes a sound. This entire world of the senses and of the intellect that comprehends this world—this world is, for the materialistic mind, the only real one. The spiritual world is, however, a second world for those who, with an open mind, seek to enter it through spiritual science. As mentioned, spiritual wisdom reveals that there are abilities which, although mostly dormant in human beings today, can be awakened and then enable people to truly experience the spiritual worlds. In the human organism, the eye developed only gradually; it was only with the development of the eye that the surrounding darkness, light, and color began to penetrate the human being. With the formation of the ear, the world of sounds resounded within him. With the development of the brain, human beings became capable of recreating and forming the sensory world within their minds and of comprehending it spiritually.

[ 46 ] Just as the eye once lay dormant within the human organism, so do other spiritual organs lie dormant within the human spirit, within the inner being of the human being. These organs can be brought forth—through certain methods that spiritual science offers to humanity—from the soul and the spirit, and then, within the very same world that surrounds us, there is a second and a third world. I would like to first describe the second world to you in a few words. When a person whose physical senses are fully open looks at any object, they see that object with a certain color. The surface of this being is imbued with a certain color. He can then hear what emerges as sound from the soul of this being, and so on, but within the boundaries of this being’s skin there is something else—just as true and just as real as what he can perceive with his senses: Within this being lies a sum of pain and joy, drives, desires, and passions. It is impossible for you to penetrate this second world through your senses.

[ 47 ] There is, however, a way to open up the mind’s eye; then the inner spiritual world of another being will not remain hidden from you, but will appear before you just as these external colors and sounds appear to the senses. One can perceive as much of the world as one has senses with which to perceive it. We can recognize a certain range of realities only if we have senses for them. Just imagine all the things that might reveal themselves to a person if they had more senses, more faculties of perception. Through what is called initiation, we can experience how our senses are opened—not only to what our external senses tell us about the external world, but also to what is happening soul-wise within a being. It is possible for us to perceive the joy and suffering of a being with the open sense of the seer. A certain sense of color arises before the seer’s inner eye when a person stands before him with some inner experience, and each time the same experience occurs, the same inner color appears to him.

[ 48 ] With sympathy, for example, we perceive with the eye of the mind how this sympathy takes on a certain color and form; antipathy and pain appear to us in a similar world of images, in different colors and forms. This world of second sight exists; this world can be developed—it has always been known in the spiritual sciences. This world is called the imaginative world, and the ability to see in this way is called imagination. The person who possesses these abilities encounters a foreign being within themselves, sensing that being’s joy and suffering. They perceive, in an image, the inner life of the other being; at the same time, they are surrounded by the inner imaginations, the inner life of that being. This world, to which all of this belongs, is also called the astral world. As soon as the eye is opened to this world, however, one not only perceives what is truly present in the soul experiences of physical beings, but one also discovers that there are, in addition, soul beings in our surroundings that have no physical expression. Such beings exist. Anyone who knows spiritual science—just as a chemist knows chemistry—knows this world of imagination; for if they continue to develop, if they apply the methods prescribed by spiritual science in the proper way, they enter this world of surging colors, and if they proceed even further along the path of inner development, then what might be called clairaudience—in contrast to clairvoyance — and grants them knowledge of what is truly called the spiritual or even heavenly world.

[ 49 ] This other world is also referred to by the term commonly used in theosophical literature as the Devachanic world; the ancient Pythagorean school called this world the world of spherical harmony: One hears the sounds of spherical harmony when one evolves upward into this region.

[ 50 ] We are thus surrounded by three worlds: the physical world, which we perceive with our external senses; the astral world, in which—when we enter it—we encounter the images of spiritual beings. These imaginations are the expression of a world far truer and more real than the sensory world. Then, when we penetrate even further into clairaudience, we enter the world of inspiration. Spiritual science has known these worlds since the earliest times, and the theosophical movement aims to make them accessible once again to the modern culture of today’s humanity. The perception of this spiritual world of Devachan, in the form of clairaudience, has been called inspiration throughout the ages.

[ 51 ] Human beings can reach yet another level, where they glimpse into yet another world—the world of intuition. This occurs for a person when they see in spiritual beings not only what is recognizable on their surface as astral, when they hear not only what emerges from their soul as sound—only then, when they can become one with the entire world. This is characterized in a technical sense as follows: In ordinary life, we stand outside a thing—one stands outside a plant or a mineral that one wishes to study. But when you have reached this stage of cognition, your own being flows into the foreign object, and you speak with your soul from within the object itself. There is no thing in itself, outside of you; there you are in all beings; there you have become one with the entire environment; there, things themselves speak to us.

[ 52 ] Through inspiration, the things around us express their essence within the harmony of the spheres. In the images of the imagination, they reflect their spiritual outer aspects to us in colors and forms. The spiritual researcher knows that there are three such worlds beyond our physical world, that there are beings in these worlds who are beyond the reach of our physical senses, and that the creative beings of our sensory world are contained within these higher worlds.

[ 53 ] What created the minerals, the animals, and the plants is contained within these worlds, and what is contained within human beings as a truly higher being is also a citizen of this higher world, which can only be perceived through the imagination. Human beings are not confined to the sensory world alone; no, they are beings that have their home in the world of imagination and can only be truly recognized through imagination; and within all of us lives an innermost being—within ourselves—which can be recognized in its true form only when we are able to step outside of ourselves, so that it seemingly meets us in others; that is, it can be recognized only intuitively, through intuition. And if humanity is to receive knowledge of those entities that, as the creative, primordial entities, underlie our sensory world of facts, then people must convey this knowledge through their higher-developed perception—through their imagination and intuition.

[ 54 ] When human beings today penetrate spiritual truth themselves—when spiritual researchers thus enter the spiritual realms—they can proclaim, based on their own experience, what the leaders of humanity once recorded in religious texts, what they gave to humanity as a guide to higher development. In ancient times, there was a kind of twilight clairvoyance. This gradually disappeared, and our present “scientific,” critical awareness of facts took its place. This will be overcome when higher spiritual-scientific knowledge once again joins this waking, objective awareness of things.

[ 55 ] For certain intermediate stages, an understanding of the spiritual foundations of knowledge of the higher worlds had to be lost. In earlier spiritual times, however, it was generally known that those who had risen to a state of inspiration were truly inspired, and that they had genuinely recorded their own experiences in religious texts.

[ 56 ] There will be more and more people who—regardless of these documents—will be able to recognize more and more directly what is true in these documents. The concept of inspiration will be rediscovered; then the time will come when a new relationship will once again exist between wisdom and the Bible. Everything that can be known about divine-spiritual matters can be directly investigated using the methods of spiritual science—everything that any religious text has ever conveyed. Then people will once again recognize the truth of these texts; when they themselves can look into these worlds, they will once again experience that all these things are true, that there was indeed a good reason why, for a time, people could naively believe in everything reported in such sacred books. The fact that this awareness can be regained will point to a time when people, precisely because they themselves will know something of what underlies all matter as Spirit, will once again come to recognize that those texts—which criticism cannot make sense of, those texts that criticism has devalued in the eyes of many people today—are indeed true. Recognizing the Bible once again for its true value—as a book that arose from inspiration—will be one of the achievements of the Theosophical Movement; for people will once again come to understand what inspiration is and what inspired knowledge entails. People will be able to rediscover the wisdom in the Bible when they are able to recognize, independently, what is described in it and what is meant to be given to humanity.

[ 57 ] There will, in turn, be sages who, drawing on their own spiritual experiences, will be able to reveal what the fundamental principles of existence look like and how the enigmatic questions of existence can be resolved. And if there are such sages who, drawing on their direct insight, can speak of these things, then the gulf can once again be bridged between those who are to be guides in religious insight and those who wish to look upward—those who seek meaning for their existence that transcends the most empty of everyday life, and who wish to live a life worthy of human dignity. A connection between the broadest strata of those who wish to listen and those who are to teach will once again become possible. Then the foundation will once again be laid for a healthy national life and for a healthy religious development. These are interconnected: this healthy religious development will mean healthy national development.

[ 58 ] In this way, we will once again learn to look deeply into certain things and then realize how literally we can take certain things that were no longer understood at all because the sense for spiritual research had been lost. We will see that it is true: there is a naive attitude toward that great religious document of which Goethe said that it must serve as a foundation for the religious development of humanity for time immemorial.

[ 59 ] There is a certain validity to this attitude of doubt and rejection in our time, but those who say, “True wisdom and knowledge of facts must necessarily lead away from what is presented in this document,” are mistaken. This is a beautiful, profound experience that the spiritual researcher has—that he can say to himself: As long as I stood in a relationship of doubt and rejection toward it, I learned to understand it; then it became valuable to me again; then I looked once more into immense depths. Then comes the realization: Yes, I have understood much, but there is still much, much more that I must yet learn to understand.

[ 60 ] But then one finds more and more that one understands, and one is surprised to realize that one used to criticize certain things simply because one did not understand them at all, and that they now appear in a completely new light. Then comes the point where one becomes modest and humble in the face of such a book, which not only contains human wisdom but goes far beyond all that is human. Then one might say: Through spiritual science, I have come to understand some things and to appreciate others—there is still much I do not understand, but now I no longer criticize; instead, I wait calmly and patiently until I, too, will one day understand what lies beyond. There is no more beautiful feeling than this: to gaze into the original source of wisdom with modesty and humility, for this gaze is accompanied by a sense of the unfolding infinity of existence within an ever-expanding and broadening perspective of wisdom. We have come to recognize a few things, and this little has taught us to sense that, as we develop further, we will be able to unlock more and more; that an ever stronger and brighter light will shine upon us from the great religious texts of humankind, the closer we approach the sources of the divine essence from which we once sprang in ignorance and to which we will return in the course of our development; and we see this goal as a flourishing, satisfying reality before us, urging us not to slacken in our striving for perfection, for the spiritualization of humanity in its development.