The Rudolf Steiner Archive

32. The Origin of Man

[ 1 ] [The very issue that concerns us today has been called the question of all questions. What else could touch human beings more deeply—from a certain point of view—if the question is framed broadly enough, than reflection on their origin, on their ancestry, for] everyone surely has a sense that this question encompasses much of what alone can enlighten human beings about their true nature, their destiny, and the very nature of their existence.

[ 2 ] However, from the perspective we will be discussing today regarding human ancestry, it is difficult to make this even comprehensible to our contemporaries—unless they have already been prepared for it in some way through spiritual science— for compared to what is being put forward today from many quarters regarding human descent or origin, what we now have to say in this discussion of ours will seem as if it were spoken in a completely, completely different language; and given the great interest that is shown in this question today, and given the public suggestion — as we might call it — which is not true science, but rather certain catchphrases derived from that science that now dominate thinking in many ways; given all this, much of what is put forward today may seem to some even more—far more than what was already said here in the last three lectures [of this series]—like mere daydreaming, like fantasy. When two things as fundamentally different as these stand in opposition—namely, what a more materialistically—the word need not be taken too literally—colored worldview has to say about human origins, and what spiritual science, as we consider it here, has to offer—when two such different things stand in opposition, then, then, above all else, one must first truly bring this to mind. Anyone today who has become accustomed to the concepts and ideas that dominate our popular literature—when the origin of humankind is discussed and it is claimed that this origin is indeed spoken of [in such a way] as it must be according to [established] scientific facts; [when one encounters this], when one has immersed oneself in popular [or, for that matter, more or less scientific] literature, one must nevertheless bear in mind that the concepts and ideas one accepts are not always based entirely on genuine observation, [on] genuine scrutiny, but rather on [the] authority that, in a—one might say—mysterious, mystical way—and I use this word in the worst sense—[has been adopted from what was once popular], from what once held prestige.

[ 3 ] [And] one must [also] realize that for those who have become accustomed to thinking in the direction that confronts them, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to even bring the ideas they have once adopted into any acceptable relationship with ideas of a different nature [such as those put forward by the humanities, for example]. For this reason, anyone speaking on this issue today from the perspective of the humanities harbors no illusions that they could easily gain the understanding of all those who, through their habitual ways of thinking, have resigned themselves to what is commonly accepted—[that is, what] appears to be grounded in the solid facts of science. That would indeed be an illusion. Nevertheless, from this spiritual-scientific standpoint—especially today—what needs to be said must be put forward, for little by little these ideas will take root among all those who are able to free themselves from the [habits of thought] just mentioned. This should be stated up front so that it is not believed that the scholar of the humanities merely indulges in such illusions as thinking he can instantly win over those who live by strict scientific concepts, or that it could not happen [that one might oppose such views], and say, from their standpoint, that everything he has put forward is pure nonsense, [pure folly]. As a rule, he is able to present the very arguments put forward by these opponents [very easily] himself. The delusion then usually lies with those who [oppose him from a humanistic perspective and] believe that their arguments might offer him anything new.

[ 4 ] Based on this premise, we may well examine this subject [from the standpoint of the humanities] without bias. Monistic thinking makes it easy for itself. [For a] materialist, the question is made easy by its peculiar logic ... [gap]. Our natural science, which has made such admirable progress over the course of the 19th century—[and] no one other than the humanities scholar can admire these advances in natural science more—our natural science has, among many other things, also broadened the human perspective beyond the sum of living beings that live around us today and that lived on this Earth in earlier epochs of its development. We [find] their remains more or less preserved in the layers of our Earth, in which beings that bear little [resemblance] to [us] can be found. And a kind of religion, a kind of creed, which has built itself upon this scientific fact, has [concluded] from the observation, from the [sensible] observation of what the world reveals around us today when we examine the Earth’s strata in search of prehistoric beings—this belief has developed a kind of theory of evolution from it, one that contains an extraordinary amount of interesting, important, and correct insights.

[ 5 ] But we can characterize the logical error made by this theory of evolution in just a few words—and we must characterize it [in this way]—and it is precisely when we take this point as our starting point that we will gather the material for thought needed to present to our minds that [being], which must subsequently be discussed from the perspective of spiritual science. Science shows us [today] the perfect being alongside imperfect life. When we explore the strata of our Earth, it shows us a sequence of stages from [seemingly] imperfect living beings [to seemingly perfect beings], so that we can say: It strikes the human eye that one living being is imperfect, while another is perfect.

[ 6 ] Now, due to circumstances and facts [which we do not wish to elaborate on here], a curious logical conclusion has arisen from this. The conclusion has arisen that imperfect living beings have evolved without further ado, and that humans are descended from these imperfect living beings—that is to say: the being that appears to us as the most perfect living being is, according to this conclusion, supposed to be descended from imperfect and increasingly imperfect living beings, all the way down to the most [im]perfect of all.

[ 7 ] Let’s consider this conclusion in its simplest, most logical and objective form: The perfect has arisen from the imperfect. By drawing a comparison, [we can] clarify this conclusion for ourselves and then ask whether it is possible. Let’s suppose we see two people side by side: one with a genius-level aptitude who has worked very hard in life and has achieved something respectable. Let’s take another person next to him; we see someone with limited ability, who was also lazy and sluggish and has achieved nothing of note. Now we hear that these two are related. We should first consider how they are related, for this is precisely the question at the heart of the so-called problem of evolution. When we [look at the beings around us], observe human beings with their [various] organs, [and compare them with] lower [forms of life—so-called imperfect ones—then] we [see] that these organs are similar [in many ways]. [We see that] humans are constructed somewhat differently, but essentially—when you get right down to it—merely reshaped, and have the same bones as lower life forms. [We could] cite numerous other reasons [that might lead us to conclude]: Yes, we must assume a kinship. But the nature of this kinship has not been established by facts; rather, it has been inferred. No one should succumb to the belief—[the illusion]—that the descent of the higher from the lower has been scientifically established; it has been inferred.

[ 8 ] If we [therefore] know that they—[the two people standing opposite each other]—are related, [if we] can determine this by any means, may we then conclude that [the one] who possesses brilliant talents, who was diligent and achieved something respectable, [is descended from the other, who was lazy and careless and did not improve himself]? Anyone who thinks about it for a moment will realize how unnatural such a conclusion would be, [and] how easily [he] could be corrected in his thinking if it were proven to him that both [these] people are descended from [the] same parents—one having merely developed upward toward diligence, while the other has regressed, developing downward. It is immensely trivial, [what I see], and it might seem as if an admirable theory that prevails in the world today is to be refuted [by an /illegible] triviality].

[ 9 ] Unfortunately, however, [when we look closely], this logical blunder [occurs], because we know that the higher life form is related, [and from this] we conclude that the higher form is descended from the lower one—[thinking that one could say the more highly developed human is descended from the lower, lazy human].

[ 10 ] Now let us extend this brief consideration, say, to the various peoples who live side by side—[a] people of lower status and [a] people of higher status. People today have become accustomed to thinking that a more highly developed people, with significant intellectual education [and cultural achievements], evolved from a state in which a less developed people finds itself today. This is exactly the same conclusion one would draw if one were to [compare] these two people side by side today; one might, under certain circumstances, be corrected just as readily if one [were] able to investigate the facts—as [intellectual] science is indeed [capable of doing]—that it is not the case that the intellectually more highly developed people are descended from the less developed, but that, on the contrary, there is a common ancestry [of the two], such that one has developed toward higher intellectual development while the other has declined. Thus, when we investigate their ancestry, we are led back to a common ancestral people—not to the ones living side by side today, but to a common one. Since both live side by side, [they are equally descended from the ancestral people]. It is only that one has evolved upward, while the other has evolved downward [in a certain respect].

[ 11 ] Let’s visualize this a little more concretely, [so that our senses can form specific, concrete ideas about it]. You all know that when European immigrants first crossed over to the American continent, they [there] encountered a [so-called] indigenous people—[a people whom] one [in natural-historical thinking] believes represent earlier stages of present-day peoples. Those people were certainly at a low cultural level at that time [from a European perspective], but if one adopts such an absolute point of view, one can still [be very far off the mark in one’s judgment]. To illustrate this, let us picture [a scene] in our minds. [The Europeans did not always conduct themselves so nobly. They] did not always choose the noblest means to exterminate the free man. One of the last chiefs [of the free people] from the regions [from which] the Native Americans had been driven out in North America [one of the last] stood face to face with a European conqueror, a leader of a European culture. The lands of the inhabitants of America had been taken away—including those of the tribe to which that Native American chief belonged. [The scene took place not so long ago.] The people—[the chief]—had been promised land in exchange for what was being taken from them, and that promise had not been kept.

[ 12 ] There, facing the leader of the Europeans, stood the leader of the “Redskins.” A speech has been preserved that the leader of the Native Americans addressed to the Europeans who had conquered his tribe and had not given [them] any land—[a speech that I cannot even give you in a literal translation, but only in terms of its meaning, based on what it contains. This is roughly what that chief said to the European]: “Yes, you Europeans, you promised us other land in exchange for the land whose soil covers the bodies of our free brothers, but you did not give us that other land. This is because the pale man believes in different things than the free man. The pale man has strange magical books with little magical creatures on them; he looks into them and sees what is right for him, he sees what is true and false. — The chief once saw the books and mistook the letters for such magical creatures, [magical spirits that prompt the Europeans to take such actions]. — The [free man] does not believe in such magical spirits; the free man does not read what is written in such magic books; the free man goes out and listens to the rushing of the water and the rustling of the trees in the forest, and he understands that. For through the rushing of the water and the rustling of the trees, the Great Spirit speaks to him. He always speaks the truth, and because you do not know the Great Spirit, who speaks the truth through the rushing of the water and the rustling of the trees, that is why you behave this way. The pale man can never understand the free man; otherwise, he would not trample the earth with his weapons—the earth that covers the bones [of our brothers] and that will one day take revenge on the pale ones!

[ 13 ] What interests us, however, in this remarkable speech by the free man is the reference to the Great Spirit, whom he sensed everywhere. In the rustling of the trees, [in the trickling of the springs], even in thunder and lightning, [in all natural phenomena], [the divine] Great Spirit spoke to him. What is remarkable about this “wild” population is [this monotheistic religion], this absence of all superstition in their fundamental religious conviction—a conviction that shone through despite the various superstitions that certainly existed. One truly need not take one’s logic very far to realize that, while the Europeans did not descend from those who were conquered by them, both—[the European and this American population]—descend from a common people who must certainly have had a wondrous nature religion. This will be a hypothesis if one takes the standpoint of sensory-physical facts; it is a certainty if one conducts research from the perspective of spiritual science using the methods we will discuss in the next few lectures—namely, in the lecture after the next, which deals with initiation. The American people had, in a certain sense, regressed; they had lost their purely primordial conception and had developed in a different direction [toward a lower state]; the Europeans, from their standpoint, had developed [upward]. Here the concept of development opens up to us, revealing perspectives that are entirely, entirely different from that simple concept of development which people are so eager to present to us as the only possible one. We see how this development is by no means simple; [how we] must assume earlier states of existence from which the present has emerged; [how that which today lives as the imperfect within the imperfect] appears as a branch that develops toward imperfection. If we could go back to times of the distant past, we would find peoples who are the forefathers of the European [population] as well as of those vanquished American Indians. The course of development proceeded in such a way that a straight path led to today’s developed population. But those [who] did not keep pace, who did not embrace what could have led to perfection, fell into decline. The others do not descend from them, but rather they [descend] from a common ancestor; the others have moved on. [They are not merely /unclear reading] left behind at a different stage, but] because they have been left behind, they now exhibit a condition that never existed in ancient times. Because [they] could not continue to develop, [they] have regressed.

[ 14 ] We can now extend this concept to all living beings. When we extend it in this way, we go back to the mammals most closely related to humans. Any simple theory of evolution would assume that the higher mammals were the ancestors of humans. Although the notion of humans’ quite crude descent from apes has, to a certain extent, been abandoned today, this line of thinking still underlies what is presented in a seemingly different way. If we use this concept to imagine the kinship between humans and the higher apes, we will say: Although today’s apes are descended from that primordial being that existed in the distant past and from which humans evolved, they have remained stagnant at [an earlier stage]; therefore, in their present state [in their present form], they do not represent the ancestors of humanity, but rather the degenerate form [that sought to cling to an ancient form; that has become corrupted]. Therefore, when modern humans look at these apes—especially when they look at them with their minds—[then] they appear to them as a caricature of their own nature, by no means as ancestors, [and those endowed with such feelings perceive it] as a kind of shame ... [illegible], when the original characteristics of humankind are corrupted.

[ 15 ] [And so, step by step, we move back from higher beings to much lower ones. In the distant past, we arrive at the ancestors of humankind, whom we must not seek among beings similar to modern humans—the further back we go, the less they resemble the beings that exist today. They are of an entirely different nature]; from those ancestors of humankind descend, like a being that has lagged behind and thus fallen into decline, the lower mammals and other lower living beings. If we go back to the simplest living beings—[those living today, for example] single-celled organisms, [from which some would also like to derive humankind]—then we would have to say, yes, these beings are undoubtedly related to humankind. But back when humans had an ancestor in the distant past—[from whom even these simple single-celled organisms are descended, since]—humans looked quite different; their ancestor was a completely different being: The most backward organisms—and therefore those least representative of the primordial form [of the human being]—are the simple ones. For they branched off earliest and, [since] humans have become more perfected, have undergone a decline, [have taken a path of decline, and represent the original form the least of all].

[ 16 ] Now let us examine this primordial form of humanity itself from the standpoint of spiritual science. [To do so, we must take a look at the nature of the human being, as we have already considered it on several occasions.] From the standpoint of spiritual science, we cannot view [the human being] in the same simple way that physical science views the physical body.

[ 17 ] [In what material science regards as the only thing—the human body—lies only one aspect of human being—this is merely to be briefly noted—which possesses only the same forces and substances as seemingly lifeless matter — yet science views this body as composed solely of these substances and forces in such a way that these substances and forces could not retain their form, just as material matter retains its form], were it not for the fact that the human physical body is permeated and imbued with the second aspect of human being—the etheric or life body. For the spiritual scientist—[as was already shown here last week]—this etheric or life body is a reality, a higher reality than the physical body, for it is the shaper and creator of the physical body. This etheric or life body is, at every moment of your life, a fighter against the dissolution of the physical body; for the moment the etheric body separates [from the physical body], [death occurs], and the physical body becomes a corpse. Human beings share this etheric or life body with all living beings, plants, and animals. The third [member we call, in spiritual science and for good reason, the astral body]. The astral body is the bearer of pleasure and suffering, of joy and pain, of all instincts, drives, passions, ideas, and feelings—of everything that lives within the human being. This astral body is the third member of the human being. It is shared only with the animal kingdom, no longer with the plant kingdom. [Then, eight days ago, we already mentioned] the fourth member of the human being, through which the human being is the crown of earthly creation—that which we might say is designated in the German language by the one name that differs from all other names: the name of our “I.” The name “I,” when one reflects on it, reveals to us the essence of the [I]. [But let us first turn to] Fichte, [who made the following statement]:

Most people would much rather look at a
piece of lava on the moon than at themselves.

[ 18 ] This “I” can only be named from within, by itself. The name “I” can never reach my ear when it refers to my own “I”; that can only be designated by the name “I” of its own accord. This is what [those engaged in spiritual science ...] have discovered and recognized: Here lies the true sanctuary, the innermost part of human nature, to which nothing else of the earthly realm has access, but where the divine essence of the human being reaches within. [The divine essence of the human being reveals itself in the “I.”] By allowing the little word “I” to resound within itself, the soul expresses to it what [religion] designates as the God within man. This fourth element [of human essence] is no longer shared by man with other beings, but belongs to him alone, and is thereby the crown of earthly creation. ... /Illegible words]

[ 19 ] [Thus, we initially perceive human beings as a fourfold entity, and anyone speaking from a so-called monistic standpoint should therefore not merely accuse this spiritual-scientific view of dualism—a concept with which so much nonsense is perpetrated—but rather] “quadripartitism” [but] then he should also immediately level the same accusation of dualism against those who say that water consists of oxygen and hydrogen, [must also level the charge of dualism. Is it a mistake to seek out the light in its primary colors? Is a monist only the one who does not think to break a thing down into its individual parts, or the one who claims that the individual is the whole?]

[ 20 ] Only the person who does not think to break a thing down into its own parts—or who claims that a single part encompasses the whole—is a monist. Then the word “monism” becomes a catchphrase that takes no account whatsoever of the facts. [But after all, people today rely heavily on catchphrases rather than facts.]

[ 21 ] We can only understand the origin and ancestry of humankind if we first consider the relationships between these aspects of human nature as they exist in modern humans. Here we must distinguish between the two fundamentally different states in which humans present themselves to us: waking and sleeping. These are two fundamentally different states. It was a remarkable observation when Du Bois-Reymond, [the naturalist], said [and this was already pointed out in the first of these lectures] at the Leipzig Naturalists’ Conference: “If one were to examine everything that takes place in the human physical body—all these [illegible] [complex movements and] processes, one could indeed investigate [in the process] how hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen [move as they … and … become—one could investigate all that], but one would never be able to explain from these movements the simplest fact of consciousness: ‘I perceive red,’ ‘I smell the scent of roses.’ [And the same applies to someone who, using marvelous instruments, could observe all movements. What would he see?] He would see movement, but not [the processes of the soul] [“I see red and perceive the scent of roses”].

[ 22 ] It is the worst kind of materialistic superstition—and, in fact, quite interesting—that even within the realm of the natural sciences attention has been drawn to the fact that [although he made significant errors,] [that] the fact of consciousness—even the simplest sensation [illegible]—can never be explained by the facts [the processes] of the physical body. [We can] understand the sleeping person, but never the waking one. Why? When a person sleeps, all these facts appear to have sunk into an indeterminate abyss, and because that is missing, we can understand [what remains]. [Essentially,] Du Bois-[Reymond also rightly—he] is a materialist himself—found the fact of life to be inexplicable.

[ 23 ] [To make this clear to ourselves, let us consider the difference] between the waking and the sleeping human being. In the waking body, the astral body is present, connected to the physical and etheric bodies. In the sleeping human being, on the other hand, the astral body is separated, detached from the physical body [and from the etheric body. This is what distinguishes wakefulness from sleep: the astral body is separated from the physical and etheric bodies during sleep, whereas in the waking state it is connected to the physical and etheric bodies.]

[ 24 ] However, if you imagine—in purely material and spatial terms—that a kind of material cloud [as the astral body] emerges from the physical body, you still have a rather materialistic conception /illegible]. [One cannot deny that what is often called “theosophy” is also tainted by this materialism; materialism has taken such a hold on people’s imaginations that even the opponents of materialism themselves operate with materialistic concepts]. People must gradually train themselves to mentally visualize the separation of the etheric body from the physical body and to know that when spatial expressions are needed, one uses them [as] images, [as parables].

[ 25 ] Human beings, at their current stage of development, are simply unable [while asleep] to perceive their physical organs; when [illegible] the astral body reconnects with the physical body in the morning upon waking, [they can then perceive the] physical surroundings through their eyes and ears. What perceives is [not your physical body, but the] “I” with the astral body, which moves into its dwelling—the physical body—early in the morning. The physical organs are the instruments of this “I” equipped [with a physical body]. Therefore, it would never occur to anyone to say, “My brain [perceives] a color,” [sees a friend]; rather, everyone correctly says, “I see a friend,” “I perceive a color,” and so on.

[ 26 ] When we consider the fact that today, while a person is asleep, their I and their astral body are outside the physical and etheric bodies, then those people ask—[then we must ask ourselves]: Where, then, is the I [with the astral body]? It, too, is somewhere in another world—a world that belongs to the supersensible realms. What does that mean? Where is this supersensible world? [Those] who oppose spiritual science imagine that spiritual science conceives of this supersensible world as existing in an afterlife. But here it is [the supersensible world, all around us]!

[ 27 ] And how, in the context of spiritual science, should one imagine this supersensible world? No differently than [one must imagine] colors and light for a blind person. Imagine that there is a person among you who was born blind. What surrounds you—colors and light—also surrounds him; he simply cannot see it. For him, the world consists of what he can feel by touch; that is his world [just as the world for you is the world of light and colors]. But if we were to operate on this person who was born blind at this very moment so that he could see, the lights and colors would shine forth from the darkness that surrounded him, [and the world that was not there for him before. Why is it there now? We see that he has now formed it out of the physical realm.]

[ 28 ] There are, in fact, as many worlds in infinity as there are organs a being has to perceive them. [We will see in later lectures that] just as human beings once, in primeval times, possessed the potential for eyes that could not yet see but became capable of seeing in the course of evolution, so too do all human beings possess the potential for what spiritual science, following Goethe, calls “the spiritual ears, the spiritual eyes.” Spiritual eyes and ears are present as potential in human beings and can be developed. This is the purpose of spiritual science: to provide people with the methods to reach a state in which they behave like someone born blind, [who can] undergo surgery, [to the world of colors and light, and] [naturally] no one who knows nothing of such a world may pass judgment on it, [but] the only sound theory of knowledge is one that states: what can be perceived actually exists. And it is not only people of the future who can perceive these higher worlds that surround us; rather, these methods can be applied to people of the present.

[ 29 ] People today know as a fact, as an archetype, that one can relate to the [higher] worlds just as a person born blind relates [to the world of colors and light]. When a person’s spiritual ears and eyes are awakened, new worlds that surround us [can] open up. It is in this world, and in no other, that a person’s “I” and astral body reside when they are separated from the physical and etheric bodies at night. As long as a person’s spiritual ears and eyes are not awakened, they cannot see [in this spiritual world], and thus their consciousness fades away. But once their spiritual eyes and ears are awakened, they can see.

[ 30 ] But perception can never [should never] determine [Da-]Being. [Otherwise, if a sighted person told a blind person that he sees color and light, the blind person might say: “You are a fool; I cannot see anything at all.”] Being does not at all coincide with truth.

[ 31 ] Now let us consider the next question: What, then, does this astral body do during the night, and what is its purpose? [Is it idle?] This astral body is indeed active during the night. When you work from morning until evening or allow impressions from the outside world to affect you through your senses, something is constantly taking place within you, and that is fatigue—the wear and tear on the physical body’s strength. Why is healthy sleep so healthy? Because the astral body works [during the night to eliminate fatigue and worn-out substances] and to restore the depleted forces. What the astral body has done, you experience [in the morning as] refreshment [even if you do not know how it works].

[ 32 ] So this astral body works throughout the night, but how is [the astral body] enabled to work within the physical body? /Illegible] It is enabled to do so because it is now outside the physical body rather than inside it. An astral human body that is outside the physical body can work on that body. One that were inside the body would have to make use of the physical body’s organs [to perceive the physical environment] and cannot restore [the worn-out physical body] from within it. Therefore, for all beings who have their astral body within them while awake, it is necessary that the waking state alternates with the sleeping state.

[ 33 ] When death occurs, [what] happens [then]? That which does not happen [otherwise] throughout our entire life. Then not only does the astral body separate from the physical body, but the etheric body also separates from the physical body. [When you look at a sleeping body, the physical and etheric bodies lie in bed in perfect union; the astral body is separated.] When you look at a corpse, the etheric body is separated. Consequently, the physical and chemical substances now follow their own laws, [the body can no longer hold itself together]—and here we have the reality of death and the reality of sleeping and waking laid out before us. Only when we understand these are we able to comprehend the primordial states of humanity; only then can we gain insight into the origin of humankind.

[ 34 ] Let us now return to our topic. [I cannot discuss all the details today, but can only provide an outline of human origins]. Let us go back to the distant past. We find a human ancestor.

[ 35 ] But what does he look like? Completely different from modern humans. Everything, absolutely everything in humanity has evolved, including the states of sleep and wakefulness. They only became what they are today; in times past, they were quite different. [The] Spiritual science indicates that the current distribution of sleep and wakefulness did not emerge until relatively late [in Earth’s evolution]; in the distant past, the pattern of sleep was entirely different. Human beings slept much longer—[were in an unconscious state much longer, that is], their astral body remained outside the physical body for much longer than it does today. And because they had the opportunity to remain outside for longer and the waking state was shorter, this astral body was by no means as involved in repairing [the physical body]. Fatigue was not as great.

[ 36 ] Today, the state of sleep is filled with the repair [of the physical body]. We see only fragments of this in our dreams as we emerge from the unconscious state. In ancient times, in a distant past, not all the work [of the astral body] had to be devoted to the repair of the physical body. Therefore, [albeit dimly and hazily], this [astral] body [together with the “I”] was, in a certain [sense], clairvoyant. In a certain sense, this astral body—which, [because it] was not so inwardly bound to the physical and etheric bodies—was able to [look] into its surroundings. It saw what was present in the spiritual world around it. However, what was it like, [this looking into the world here?] What has remained?] What has remained is the dream. But dreaming is merely a very faint, [corrupted] echo of an [ancient], twilight-like clairvoyance of all humanity—just as we have certain organs within us that once served a purpose, [for example, certain] muscles near [the] ear. [Those beings in the animal kingdom that have remained at this stage still have these muscles, which allow them to move their ears.] Such organs—[which have no function today but did have one in earlier stages of development]—are called atavisms. Dreaming is one such atavism. In ancient times, in the distant past of humanity, it was not that [illegible] that it is today, but something that brought humans into real connection with [their] surroundings. [As strange as it may seem to materialistic thinkers, I would like to give you an [illegible] and] describe a little [how it] was back then. In those ancient times, when human beings were in that twilight, half-asleep state, they could not perceive other people in such a way that they [could perceive the outer aspects of nature], but they did perceive what lived in the souls of [other] people. When he—[the other person]—was awake and thought [something] evil, then [he perceived this evil feeling; it] rose [like a kind of luminous body]—as a perceptual process for the consciousness of that time—as a colored image representing the other person’s state of soul.

[ 37 ] This is how human beings perceived the spiritual in their surroundings. [Certainly, for materialist thinkers this is utter nonsense. But the researchers of the spiritual know full well themselves the reasons that can be cited against it. So: Human beings were predisposed] to be able to perceive in dreams. But it doesn’t matter whether we [call] it dreaming; if dreaming reflects reality, then [it is] real perception. /gap] [But if it is perceived in a dream, that is not necessarily a bad thing. ... We must] imagine these ancient dreams as a far more vibrant state—one that reveals a spiritual world surrounding human beings, which still exists today, but which [human beings] can no longer see because they have lost their ancient clairvoyance, though they will learn to see it again in the future.

[ 38 ] We have now described this human being from the distant past. His astral body was essentially [more powerful], richer in content, and more full of life than it is now. [Modern] humans have acquired this [external, sensory] perception through their prolonged existence in the physical body. [But there is a primordial state of humanity in which the astral body was more separate from the physical and etheric bodies than is the case today.]

[ 39 ] Let us consider what the astral body is still capable of doing within the physical body, even today, under certain circumstances. It is true that it cannot do much today, but it is still capable of doing something. When you feel a sense of shame in your soul and you blush, the blushing is a purely physical process—and what causes it? A process in the astral body.

[ 40 ] The impression that evoked [the] feeling of shame—[a reality of the imagination, a reality of feeling] —has evoked a sensation in the astral body [and] this sensation [has driven the blood to the surface, causing the blush of shame to appear here]; here you can see how the blood could be set in motion by processes in the astral body through one process or another. [Today, the astral body is capable of very little, but in the past it possessed great power.] In ancient times, the relationship between the astral body and the physical body was quite different. The astral body could not only control the physical body [in the minor way in which /illegible] the blood is affected, but it also had the ability to reshape the physical body itself, even in terms of its form. Back then, when the astral body was still external, [it] not only had the task of removing [the physical substances of] fatigue, but [illegible] that clairvoyant ability could transform [the physical body].

[ 41 ] Today [human beings] have a different forehead. [Certain animals still have that forehead structure and [illegible] structure corrupted. Human beings] have pushed it forward through forces that were present in this astral body. [We can [illegible] visualize what propelled this human forehead forward.] It was only when human beings learned to walk upright and move in an upright posture that they first learned to imagine and feel, in a certain way, the starry sky—that which is above. The animal, with its eyes directed downward or straight ahead, does not have these impressions. When [human beings] began to traverse the starry space—namely, at the time when they possessed clairvoyant perception—[what was perceived there] caused the forehead to push forward, shaping the brain into the convolutions that human beings possess today for their faculties. This astral body is the creator of our forebrain and has helped shape [the forebrain] [in adaptation to the external world]. Thus we can literally see how the astral body has helped create the physical body.

[ 42 ] Just as the astral body today transforms a pale face into a red one [when a blush of shame rises to the face], so in ancient times it shaped [the brain] from this [primordial form] [into its present form]. Those beings in our ancestral line who have acquired this ability ascend to become human beings. [Those] who have not acquired this ability do not ascend to humanity but become densified. [Thus] an earlier stage of development became ossified and corrupted [and presents itself to us in a corrupted state]. Human beings must never be derived from today’s apes, for they have never been able to allow these forces of the astral body to act upon them. But now let us ask: if we go back even further, we arrive at an even looser connection [to the physical and etheric bodies]. There is more and more of [the physical and etheric bodies] in it, and therefore the astral body [within the etheric body] becomes ever more powerful, ever more capable of reshaping the physical body. [Human beings were gelatinous back then, just as today’s animals—which are even more gelatinous—are.] When human beings were in a soft state, the astral body was able to work upon them in a powerful way.

[ 43 ] [And] so we can go back further and further, to the state where the entire astral body was outside [the physical body], [where the physical body related to the] etheric body just as [the body of] snail relates to the snail’s physical shell—where the astral body [illegible] wraps itself around it, as it were, and reshapes it, just as the snail does with its shell—the snail does not dwell within the substance of the shell. [Thus it belongs to the physical and etheric bodies, but it does not yet dwell within them; it works on them from the outside, deep within; and we find] states, when we go back even further, [where even the] etheric body [itself] is not yet in this intimate connection with the physical body, where the etheric body is still outside the physical body, and there we come to realize that the members of human nature, [which are today internally linked with one another in the waking human being], were brought together in ancient times. Certainly they have a common origin, but even though they stem from the unified primordial being, the unity they form within the human being is a remarkable, [multi-part] unity. And if we attribute to the astral body the ability to transform the physical body, what qualities may we then ascribe to the [originally] free etheric body? ... [illegible]

[ 44 ] [The further we go back in this regard to the primordial qualities of this body, the better we come to understand the mysterious workings involved in its development]; if we attribute to the astral body the [formation and transformation, the] metamorphosis [and remodeling of the physical body], then we must attribute to the etheric body the material creation of the physical body. [What is the physical body around us today, and how did it come into being? We can clarify this for ourselves through an image.]

[ 45 ] [The] humanities scholar [is unable to illustrate everything through images with [illegible]. Today, anything that is tangible can be presented to anyone through an image; this is something that evokes more associations than a physical-materialistic perspective.]

[ 46 ] By making a comparison, we can understand how the [material] physical body of the human being came into being. People today are so quick to believe that what they know as the physical contains the origin of life; this, in turn, is [just another] habit of thought—in truth, it is not so. If one [once] examines the prejudices that are said to [stem from] science today [but do not actually stem from it] ... /gap] If one examines how things really are [and we then learn only the method of how to examine them], then one can use the following comparison to understand how the physical body comes into being.

[ 47 ] Take coal, for example; today it is a mineral substance. But long ago, it was plants. What is now coal once existed as [graphite-bearing] plants [in vast forests]; the organic has been transformed into the inorganic; the plant has become stone; the living has become physical. [If you could conduct spiritual scientific research, you would see how all stones] were originally living beings. We can investigate [and prove conclusively] that stones—[that a rock crystal] in primeval times [was a kind of] plant, [like coal. Just as the mineral realm within us originally arose as living matter, so the human being’s entire physical body was once formed from the etheric body. Just as you see today] the many coral animals that build the coral reef—the physical structure—[you see how they grow outward], you see how these living beings carve out this physical reef from their own bodies. Thus, in a bygone era, the human [ancestor] possessed only this etheric body, [the astral body, and the] physical body emerged from the etheric body [through a process] similar to ice forming from water; the etheric body is a condensation, in a condensed, different form, and this brings us back to the original state of humanity.

[ 48 ] Where only the etheric body existed, there was not yet any physical human being at all. How did the physical human being come into being? The astral and etheric human beings were there; they preceded the [physical] human being. The first physical human was a small physical formation, as if tiny calcium particles were splitting off [from an animal]—[separating; there you see the animal and then a tiny calcium particle]—or [imagine] a vessel of water here: First, a tiny ice crystal forms, then it gradually grows larger.

[ 49 ] Thus, the human being’s entire physical nature did not exist at all. It first took shape [as a small, tiny entity] within the spiritual, ethereal [and astral realms], and whatever subsequently separated from the ethereal and astral realms and turned back was doomed to decline; from that point on, it began to develop in a downward direction, [becoming the lowest forms of life]. But that which was seized by the forces of the etheric and astral bodies developed to a higher level. [Something of the animal separated], step by step, until [the stage where] today’s human being came into being; yet in every step of [development] that he has taken, he has left beings behind. The simplest being one sees today, which is said to be the progenitor [of humanity], is merely a side branch [of human evolution].

[ 50 ] But human beings [as spiritual beings], as astral beings, are ahead of other living beings. He is the firstborn as a spiritual being. From him [as a spiritual being] descend [the other beings], the imperfect beings—from him who [from the very beginning] possesses within himself all the potential for the highest perfection. Thus, human beings existed as spiritual beings before they existed as physical [beings]. [So where do we come from? From the world that human beings cannot see at all]; human beings do not see the world in which the astral and etheric bodies dwell. Within that world lies the realm from which human beings truly originate. Hence, in a mysterious way, that which is the highest aspect of the human being originates there, [and from it emerge the astral body, the etheric body, and] finally, the physical body. Humanity descends from the divine-spiritual, [humanity descends from the spiritual. Only] then do we view the emergence and origin of humanity in the entirely correct light when [we] truly [rise to spiritual-scientific contemplation. These spiritual-scientific perspectives can be explained in detail over the course of the winter. What now appears as a program will become clear in its details. That remains to be seen ...] The physical is born out of the spiritual. The spiritual is something that permeates everything; this has always been felt [above all] by those who, through their good dispositions and insight, did not have a materialistic outlook [or materialistic habits of thought]—namely, that human beings originate from the spiritual. From [the] laws—which, as spiritual laws, permeate and resonate throughout the entire world—it is from such laws that human beings appear to spiritual researchers to have originated. In this respect, spiritual research stands on no other ground than that of Goethe—whom we have recognized as a true spiritual researcher—and which he expressed in the most diverse forms, [including in that wonderful series of poems titled] “God and the World,” which includes a beautiful poem, “Orphic Primordial Words,” of which the first stanza is of particular interest to us today because it shows us how Goethe was aware of the facts we have discussed today. He wants [in his first stanza] to show us how that which is spiritual in the human being—which derives from higher laws [than physical laws, which are explained by external sensory facts]—cannot be fragmented by the forces of the temporal, cannot be fragmented by the forces of the sensual. [This is what he intends to express when he] links an ancient, sacred conception to [his own fragmentation]: I and spiritual beings are not bound by the sensory-physical laws of the body, which they themselves [first] brought forth, built up, and transformed; they are eternal and unchangeable in their essence, in that they transform and reshape that which they themselves [as the “I” and the astral body] have brought forth.

Just as on the day you were bestowed upon the world
The sun stood in greeting to the planets
You were thus immediately and forever ordained
[according to the law by which you came into being].
This is how you must be; you cannot escape it,
As the Sibyls and prophets have already said.
And no power, no time can fragment
A defined form that develops while alive.