The Rudolf Steiner Archive

5. Errors in Spiritual Research

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! In every realm of thought and life, it is certainly not only desirable but necessary to understand not only the characteristics of truth but also the characteristics and sources of error. For there is no doubt that it is often only through an understanding of the sources of error that one can protect oneself from all the obstacles that stand in the way of the search for truth. However, an understanding of the sources of error is of particular necessity in the field of spiritual research, for unlike other fields of truth-seeking, error lurks, so to speak, at every turn in spiritual research. But it does not merely lurk as something that is easily recognized; rather, in most cases, it appears in disguise, masked—indeed, one might say, in a form that is quite difficult to discern. Error lurks there like an adversary who does not merely want to be refuted—as is the case in external, physical research into truth—but who truly wants to be vanquished by the soul of the spiritual researcher. And in many cases, it is true that one can only arrive at the truth on the paths of spiritual research if one truly succeeds in vanquishing error as an adversary. I explained here the day before yesterday how, when a person attempts to walk the paths of spiritual research, they have no other means than to make the human soul itself an instrument capable of mediating between human knowledge and the supersensible worlds. Ordinary science creates external instruments with which it conducts its experiments and observations. The spiritual researcher has as his only instrument that which he can create from his own soul—by drawing from the soul those powers of cognition that are not necessary for ordinary physical life and cognition but lie dormant within the soul, and by entering the supersensible world through these powers of cognition.

[ 2 ] Furthermore, it was shown the day before yesterday that when the soul applies the described methods to itself, it first advances to what is called imaginative knowledge, and how error already lies in wait there. When the soul advances to this imaginative cognition, through which it feels empowered to allow images and imaginations to rise up from its deepest depths, error is already lurking there—an error against which the spiritual researcher must struggle: the error of taking this world of images for something objective, for something that exists in the world outside of oneself. It has already been said that all self-training on the part of the spiritual researcher must be directed toward exerting a strong inner willpower to prevent the prejudice from arising in the first place—the prejudice of taking these images rising within the soul for anything other than merely a reflection, as it were, a projected shadow of one’s own soul experiences. The moment the images that initially arise through meditation or concentration are taken to be anything other than an expression of the soul itself, error immediately sets in. And it has also been said that what appears as the imaginative world must be overcome, that it must be eradicated from the soul, must descend once more into unfathomable depths, and that only through this does the soul enable itself to perceive the supersensible facts and beings set before it from a position of objectivity.

[ 3 ] Thus we were able to characterize the first stage of supersensory knowledge: imaginative knowledge. And the mediumistic nature of the human being was presented as a counterpoint to imaginative knowledge. Of course, it is not possible to repeat everything that was said the day before yesterday; but it should simply be noted that attention has been drawn to various problematic aspects of the mediumistic nature, and that the fact that these problematic aspects are not mentioned today should not lead to the conclusion that they are being given too little consideration. It has also already been explained what the mediumistic nature consists of. While in imaginative cognition the soul’s inner life forces are strengthened, and consciousness is strengthened—that is to say, more inner powers are drawn forth from the soul than are ordinarily present in everyday life—in the mediumistic state, the “I,” or ordinary consciousness, must be actively subdued, so that the medium’s ordinary life of imagination and sensation ceases and a sort of more or less unconscious state sets in. Because consciousness is, as it were, pushed out of the medium in this way, the forces that exist in human nature beyond consciousness—one might say are integrated into the general fabric of the world—are activated, and this general fabric of the world, with its spiritual underpinnings and processes, then acts directly upon what lives within the medium. And through this, the medium is able to reveal itself; however, it is not the human individuality that is revealed, but rather the forces and processes of the world that are at work within it. The medium becomes, as it were, the revealer of spiritual activity and spiritual deeds of beings of the world. Thus, imaginative knowledge—with the elevation, intensification, and concentration of consciousness—stands in contrast to the mediumistic being, with a greater or lesser extinction of consciousness.

[ 4 ] Let us first address the sources of error in mediumship. Those people who love to gain insights through the revelations of mediumistic beings from the worlds that then influence human nature when consciousness is suspended generally reject the idea that the mediumistic personality should take into their consciousness any teachings of spiritual science, any concepts, notions, or ideas from spiritual science. That is to say, such researchers, who wish to recognize an objective truth through the medium—a truth that works its way in through the medium’s powers—do not like it when the medium has acquired concepts about the spiritual world. And from their point of view, these individuals are entirely correct. They are right for the reason that the insights of spiritual science, with their concepts and ideas that are deeply imprinted on the soul, also place heavy demands on consciousness and force their way into human consciousness; and this makes it difficult, when attempting to shut down this consciousness in the medium, to truly silence these powerful forces. And one may then observe that, instead of revealing what is independent of their own soul and their own individuality, the medium only brings to light what has previously influenced the soul through spiritual science. And researchers in this field are generally very concerned with keeping their mediums free from the influences of spiritual research, which would then be brought to bear through the medium, rather than the spiritual forces—uninfluenced by human individuality—that would otherwise come to light through the medium’s manifestation when consciousness is suppressed.

[ 5 ] That, too, would not be conducive to investigations of the mediumistic personality if the medium has a vivid imagination through which she can conjure up various things in the world. For any vivid imagination has a considerable effect on the individuality and asserts itself when consciousness is subdued. Thus, one may say: Everything that constitutes the active, strongly conscious, and creative content of consciousness has a disruptive effect on the manifestations of the mediumistic personality. Indeed, anyone with experience in this field knows that individuals who are highly gifted in terms of imagination and reflective thought tend to be poor mediumistic personalities. If, for example, a person has absorbed what is written in my *Secret Science* regarding the development of the planetary system, and one can then persuade this medium to give messages on the subject, one will find that what the medium has learned in this way interferes with their messages; whereas, if this is not the case, one can obtain the strangest results through the medium—uninfluenced by anything learned—which, however, are at times grotesque in expression and appear peculiar. But if one engages with it, if one looks beyond the grotesque expression, it becomes evident—precisely with mediumistic personalities of a certain kind—how cosmic connections regarding evolution can be expressed through what is sometimes grotesque material originating from the personality. For anyone wishing to conduct investigations with the help of a medium, it is above all necessary to acquire a certain amount of practice in distinguishing the medium’s subjective, individual contents of consciousness from that which the medium cannot know and yet is revealed through them. Therefore, for more trivial investigations, particular consideration should be given to those manifestations of mediumistic personalities in which it is known with absolute certainty that the medium is communicating something that they could not possibly communicate while fully conscious.

[ 6 ] I am citing only those things, my esteemed audience, that have been thoroughly examined and are as well known to anyone with experience in this field as any scientific fact. If, through a medium—when the medium is speaking from a dulled state of consciousness—one receives, for example, a message in a language that one knows the medium has not learned in the course of his or her life, then one knows that something is speaking through the medium that cannot be connected to the individuality itself; one thus knows that objective content from the world is being conveyed through the medium.

[ 7 ] Thus, due to the peculiar nature of the mediumistic personality, we simultaneously see everywhere the source of error that practitioners in this field must avoid. In particular, this source of error must also be taken into account when dealing in this field with the mere observation of somnambulistic personalities who, through the methods and manifestations of which they are capable, convey information from the spirit world. One will always find that subjectivity interferes to a high degree with these communications. Anyone with experience in this field knows that a medium who is, for example, Protestant receives her manifestations in a completely different way than a medium who is Catholic. One can observe that a Catholic medium, whose emotional life is imbued with Catholic beliefs, sees certain beings in the spiritual world who, however, appear in the form that the medium in question—let us say, angelic beings—imagines them to be. What may be the case with such a Catholic medium will not be the case with a medium whose emotional life is, let us say, influenced by Protestant beliefs. Therefore, it is again urgently necessary, in addition to observing what is communicated through the medium, to closely examine the individuality of the medium themselves. And here we enter a realm that is highly conducive to shedding light on potential sources of error.

[ 8 ] Anyone who is a skeptic in this area or who regards the whole story as nonsense will say: Well, there you have it—through such a personality, what she herself believes, what she herself holds in her consciousness, is revealed. - Certainly, if one looks first and foremost at the totality of what comes to light through the medium, one will almost never be able to avoid the errors; but for the objective observer of these things, the content of what is revealed becomes less and less significant; rather, what matters more is that such a revelation takes place at all—that something like this can be experienced while consciousness is subdued. It is the experience that matters. And if one learns to look beyond the content of the revelation and instead observes the processes taking place in the human soul as a result of this connection between human nature and the forces of the worlds, then one sees why it is entirely possible that one revelation might have a Catholic character and another a Protestant one. For the experience—the manner in which spiritual forces and beings enter, which clothe themselves only in the manner described—that is what matters. The error arises when one regards the form of manifestation as the essential element. The truth is found when one can look beyond the form of manifestation and focus on the fact that such a process is taking place at all, regardless of whether the experience is colored in one way or another by the individual’s perspective. For what is experienced is not some kind of humanly conceived angelic apparition or anything of the sort, but rather spiritual forces whose true nature can be perceived only through careful investigation; yet it can be demonstrated that they exist and are expressed through the medium, colored by the inner constitution of that individual.

[ 9 ] It will not be easy to say where, in the field described here, error ends and truth begins, because in fact one merges into the other. Rather, one must characterize the matter in such a way that one embarks on a path where one finds ever closer approximations to the truth as one acquires the skill to eliminate sources of error; so that it is likely that anyone who conscientiously seeks the truth in this field may be seriously misunderstood in our present age, where such things are not valued. People believe that what he seeks to recount as experiences is somehow open to challenge. But that is not at all what conscientious researchers in this field actually mean; what they mean is merely the description of something that has manifested itself, and if they are conscientious, they even indicate for themselves where the sources of error lie. But it is enough, after all, to be able to point to a path toward the existence of a spiritual world—a path that, though fraught with error at every step one takes, nevertheless allows one to set that error aside the further one advances. So the point is not to answer the question: “What is truth, what is error?”—but rather that there is a path by which one can gradually move beyond the error that lurks everywhere and enter the realm of truth, so that truth is, as it were, something one approaches as a distant goal. That is the essence of this field.

[ 10 ] What is essential, then, as we proceed along this path, is to engage in more and more of these experiments—if we wish to call them that—in which the individual aspect of consciousness is thoroughly eliminated, and in which what remains is, as far as possible, involved only in the objective processes of the world. Thus, it is the attenuation—the ability to attune consciousness downward—that is essential in this mediumistic field. And the more one succeeds in attuning this consciousness downward and in making the mediumistic personality, so to speak, merely an instrument for supersensory world processes existing outside of it, the more one attains truth in this field. However, attention must be drawn to one point that is well known to those familiar with these matters: When one is dealing with such a somnambulistic personality—who either enters such a state at certain times by nature or is induced into it by certain, albeit often quite questionable, means—one initially receives, in their revelations, the laws of the supersensible world; laws of the world are expressed; this will indeed become very evident in the revelations of the personality in question. If beings from the supersensible world are to make themselves known in this way, these beings must first, so to speak, take possession of the mediumistic personality, and one must be able to see through the personality to the actual being that is revealing itself. This requires a trained perception of such matters, which can be acquired only, on the one hand, through practice, and on the other hand, through insight into what spiritual science in general has to offer.

[ 11 ] Imaginative insight is, in fact, the exact opposite of what has just been described. Today, esteemed audience, I have attempted with these brief remarks to point out what spiritual science has to say about the nature of mediumship, although I do not normally consider it my task to present spiritual science to the public in this way; rather, what is presented here is to stem from that which is precisely the antithesis of mediumship, it should stem from what the human soul can explore—a soul that, through the development of the powers slumbering within it, makes itself an instrument for looking into the imaginative world. The extent to which this imaginative world is radically different from the pathological, fantastical world of hallucinations, visions, delusions, and so on was already discussed the day before yesterday. Now the question arises: Do errors, so to speak, lie in wait for the knower in this realm just as adversaries do? Are there sources of error here as well? — That is certainly the case. Even before entering the supersensible world, one can gain an idea of the extent to which errors can arise at all when the soul, as described the day before yesterday, sets out on its own to journey into the spiritual worlds.

[ 12 ] In the ordinary world, we have all kinds of worldviews or standpoints, all kinds of perspectives. There is materialism, positivism, individualism, spiritualism, and so on and so forth. Just try, without feeling like a fanatic of any one of these worldviews, to listen to someone else who, because of their entire upbringing and life experience, feels compelled to present all the logical and other reasons—say, for materialism or spiritualism, and so on; try, for once, to listen objectively to such people who, from their own standpoint, present everything that can reasonably be put forward to justify one of these worldviews, and you will be convinced that it is actually never entirely justified to consider yourself an opponent of materialism, spiritualism, and so on; one will find that an infinite amount of reasonable, supporting evidence can be presented for all these viewpoints. If one is open-minded, one will usually even be able to agree entirely with a proponent of the viewpoint in question, provided they are reasonable. Even if one does not at all hold the materialist viewpoint, when listening to a reasonable materialist, one will be able to say: “Yes, what he presents as his position is actually quite well-founded.” The trouble begins when people are dogmatically committed to a particular viewpoint and sometimes become so rigid as to be intolerable, attacking and rejecting a different viewpoint that differs from their own. It would be quite conceivable for someone with experience in this field to say: “Yes, I can very well be a materialist where materialism is justified, and a spiritualist where spiritualism is justified, and so on.” This possibility certainly exists.

[ 13 ] I was supposed to give, so to speak, a demonstration in two lectures I delivered here last winter on the topics: “How Does One Refute Theosophy?” and “How Does One Justify Theosophy? ”—a demonstration of how one can indeed present positive arguments in favor of opposing viewpoints. This aspect of everyday life can already point us toward what discerning people have always pointed out: that, when taken fanatically or viewed one-sidedly, not a single such viewpoint truly represents the truth. People who begin to develop a sense of this fact often say: The truth lies in the middle, between the opposing viewpoints. — To those who delve deeper into this matter, however, this statement strikes them exactly as if someone were to say: If I have two chairs in front of me, I do not sit on one or the other; rather, the best thing is to sit between the two chairs.” — Goethe, who had valuable experience in this area, rightly said that the truth does not lie between two opposing opinions, but rather that the task—which is meant to lead us to the facts in the first place—lies in between. And the truth will generally prove to be unlike either of these one-sided views. This is already evident in many respects, even while we are still in the physical world and have not yet entered the supersensible world at all. This fact alone could have a shattering effect, and it must have a shattering effect on those who are capable of taking knowledge seriously—for whom understanding is truly a matter of life and death. For one can describe any matter from one side, from one point of view, and present good reasons for it; and one can substantiate the same matter from the other side with perhaps equally good reasons. In many cases, this can lead to a kind of doubt regarding the truth. For those who are strong enough, however, it will not lead to doubt about the truth, but to something entirely different; it will lead them to an investigation into how a person arrives at a standpoint in the first place.

[ 14 ] Ladies and gentlemen, if someone is not merely committed to materialism but has retained enough freedom to step back from their perspective and muster some self-awareness, then they can ask themselves: How has my life actually unfolded so far? How have my habits of thought developed, leading me, for example, to focus more on material contexts? A follower of materialism might ask this. A follower of a more spiritual outlook might do the same. And there, even in everyday life, one discovers through self-knowledge how one actually forms one’s own point of view—how that point of view is something subjective, something dependent on one’s individuality. And through this, one learns to recognize the truth value of a point of view by understanding how one arrived at it oneself—how a certain course of life has led one to think precisely in this way. It is not by seeking the truth in the middle between the various viewpoints, but by recognizing how this viewpoint came about and why one judges in this way, that one becomes fair toward others; and one also comes to recognize and acknowledge the value of the other viewpoint—how, in turn, the other soul, on its own life path, has come to view things from a different perspective. Nothing reconciles people’s differing viewpoints as much as when the holders of these differing viewpoints practice self-knowledge in the manner described.

[ 15 ] Just imagine a group of people with opposing viewpoints coming together, as if in a committee, and arguing fiercely about their different positions. Anyone who has been through something like this knows that it usually leads nowhere. When people stand up after hours of discussion, everyone is usually even more fanatically entrenched in their position than before. If, however, an attempt were made to have such a group remain silent for an hour, with each person spending just that hour examining how they arrived at their position, and if they only then began speaking again, they would be less likely to tear each other apart. This possibility is entirely conceivable. For one would find understanding for the other’s point of view through self-knowledge, through examining the path one has taken to arrive at one’s own point of view. Even in ordinary life, even before one enters the supersensible worlds, it becomes clear that self-knowledge is the path to gradually approaching the truth, and that the truth then establishes itself as a fact at the center—and that one must not insert one’s own opinion between the opposing viewpoints.

[ 16 ] This self-knowledge must take place to a much greater degree in those who wish to avoid the sources of error in the supersensible realm. And here it must be said that the spiritual researcher has no prospect of approaching the truth unless he begins by pursuing self-knowledge to the utmost in the supersensible realm. He has ample opportunity to do so if he does not allow himself to be taken in by what initially appears in his soul as images, but rather if he is able to say to himself freely and confidently: What appears there in your soul is yourself; just as you see images—even if they may be wondrous—that is not a supersensible world; all of that is yourself, projected outward, cast as a shadow into space. — Thus, even the very first step on the path to spiritual research offers the possibility of self-knowledge. And by coming to know oneself in this way, one first learns to detach oneself from what can then be regarded as objective. In the field of spiritual research, there is no other way to eliminate what is untrue, what is an error, than first to attain full self-knowledge, so that one can, as it were, distill what one truly is from what remains. And here the spiritual researcher can recognize, through a very specific step he must take, that he has progressed far enough in self-knowledge. If this were not the case, it might be better not to venture into the supersensible realm at all. For nothing is as difficult for human beings as self-knowledge, as the objective observation of what one actually is. Nothing is so difficult, for all the interests, all the inclinations, all the sympathies one has for one’s own self stand in the way and, in a sense, deceive us by leading us to believe that they represent something real, whereas they are merely reflections of one’s own being.

[ 17 ] The step through which the spiritual researcher can know that he possesses the necessary self-knowledge is referred to in spiritual research as something that, of course, cannot be discussed in its entirety here today due to time constraints; it is referred to by the term “encounter with the Keeper of the Threshold.” What is this so-called Keeper of the Threshold? One can only gradually form an idea of what he is. Let us suppose that, at a certain stage in life, we look back quite intensively on the entire course of how we have become who we are—on all the views we have held dear, on everything we have learned, on the ways in which we have formulated our assertions up to now, and on the ways in which we have felt up to now with regard to the sensible and the supersensible. Even if these things are very difficult—it is important to know that one must ask oneself precisely such questions and, alongside other meditation and concentration exercises, regard these questions themselves as forms of meditation. This awakens dormant powers in the soul—those dormant powers through which one can, so to speak, detach oneself from one’s own being and come into the position of facing oneself.

[ 18 ] In the world of the imagination, this initially manifests itself very concretely through individual symptoms. When one engages in such exercises of self-knowledge, when one asks oneself the questions: How has one formed opinions up to now? What has one particularly loved in religious, moral, and other respects?—when one poses such questions to oneself, one senses a certain change in the soul that is, at first, quite uncomfortable. It consists in becoming weary of one’s own being in many respects. And one is not yet a true spiritual seeker who has not been able to feel this weariness with one’s own nature to a significant degree. For, when it comes down to it, one is, after all, all of that which one has cultivated up to now as one’s opinions, feelings, and sensations; one is scarcely anything else in one’s own consciousness. Now all of this has become like something external to oneself. One becomes alienated from oneself. What one formerly regarded as one’s own individuality becomes something external; one feels emptied, like a nothingness in comparison to what one actually is—and which no longer seems as valuable as it once did.

[ 19 ] These feelings that have been described can—if one seeks a path into the spiritual world as carefully as is suggested in my writing “How Does One Gain Insight into the Higher Worlds?” —these feelings can all be experienced so subtly that the soul’s life is far from being exposed to any danger.

[ 20 ] For those who wish to attain higher levels of spiritual insight, the sensations described must occur with such intensity that their inner being is transformed in a very significant way, and they find themselves experiencing a state of feeling as if everything they had within themselves were now outside of them, a range of sensations that is new and foreign to them and which therefore gives them the impression of standing before an abyss. What they had until now appears to them as something they should no longer make use of. If one has had such an experience intensely enough, one will very soon feel another experience arise within imaginative insight, which consists in getting to know oneself in a new way. That which one has, as it were, set aside from oneself as one’s own being—one comes to know it with all manner of qualities, most of them unsympathetic. And alongside this, images of beings appear, and they now become critics or judges of what one actually is. One finds oneself, so to speak, surrounded by a multitude of images of other beings who are watching one closely, judging everything that is good or bad about one. In short, self-knowledge manifests itself in the sense that one feels one’s own being, as it were, distributed among other beings. It is truly something that is well captured by the image of Dionysus, whose being is split and fragmented. All training, as described in *How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds*, is directed toward knowing how to behave correctly at the very moment when what has just been described occurs—when, so to speak, one does not perceive one’s own individuality, but rather when the world perceives and judges you. One must, however, first be trained to face this vision so that it does not unsettle one, so that one is not shocked. The fact that the person living an ordinary life does not see—and that he is, in fact, sitting in a glass house, surrounded everywhere by world forces and beings who see right through him to his innermost depths—this fact would have a disruptive and unsettling effect everywhere in ordinary life. The fact that one does not see them, that one is protected from them, is described in spiritual research by saying: Beside the human being stands the guardian at that threshold, the crossing of which leads into the supersensible world.

[ 21 ] I attempted to portray this in detail in my mystery drama *The Keeper of the Threshold*, in which I sought to translate the truth described here—more from a theoretical perspective—into dramatic action. Only after one has undergone this encounter with the Keeper of the Threshold does one come to realize how, everywhere, not merely errors of perception but real errors lie in wait; how one must be on guard everywhere and find the right way to view things as they truly are.

[ 22 ] Since self-knowledge is difficult—since self-knowledge conceals itself—there is a danger of a significant error: that the spiritual researcher will not reach the point where he can survey himself, where he is able, so to speak, to stand beside himself. Now, one cannot simply say: “Here is the truth, here is the error”—as is also evident at this point—but only that one can set out on the path to truth. The more one succeeds in viewing oneself as an objective being and thereby detaching oneself from everything one is to observe—so that nothing at all of what is within oneself flows into the facts of the supersensible world—the more one achieves this, the closer one comes to the truth. Just as consciousness must be subdued in the mediumistic personality, so must it be strengthened in spiritual research—which seeks to look into the supersensible world—precisely to the extent that one does not deceive oneself about oneself and what one possesses within. The fact that one has one’s own self clearly focused before one—precisely what must be set aside in the case of a medium—must be held as sharply as possible before the soul when entering the supersensory world. In this way, one excludes everything that is personal from supersensory perception.

[ 23 ] Let us suppose that a person sets out honestly and conscientiously on the path indicated in the preceding text; he may perhaps reach a certain point, but then his courage or desire fails him, and he does not go any further. Of course, one can suppress everything one has experienced up to that point. The spiritual researcher is not always a spiritual researcher, but only at certain moments. If he were always in such a state of mind, he would indeed appear to be a madman. Those who have already transformed their soul to a certain degree and then, so to speak, give up on the whole endeavor may find that what they have previously recognized by looking into the spiritual world becomes chaotically mixed up with what the sensory world presents to them. Things become jumbled together, and one can no longer make sense of them. The ears hear, but the supersensible also mingles in, and one becomes confused. Of course, this can only happen if what is stated in the book *How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds* has not been taken into account. Incorrect application of methods can, of course, occur in any science. But the one who has reached the end of this path—one does not easily reach the very end, but one gains a means of approaching it and a certain degree of certainty along the way regarding how things should be—the one who has arrived at something will experience the following:

[ 24 ] Not only does he overlook his own mental characteristics, his prejudices, and so on—and exclude them from what he calls objective knowledge—but he also never allows images of what the senses perceive, or of what the mind bound to the physical world conceives, to be mixed into objective knowledge. For he is, after all, unable to set aside his entire personality, his entire self. And here we can now arrive at a kind of definition of error in the supersensible world. This error consists, namely, in not having gone far enough in shedding one’s own subjectivity; and if one has not done so, one will always intermingle one’s own individuality into the picture of objective reality. When it is often said that what seers perceive is described somewhat differently by each person, and that therefore one cannot rely on anything at all, this is, on the one hand, quite natural. This fact can be acknowledged, but emphasizing it is trivial, because it goes without saying. It is natural that the ideal of the spiritual researcher can hardly ever be fully attained and that, consequently, a subjective, individual element is always mixed into whatever the spiritual researcher describes. However, anyone capable of comparison will find—especially if they take into account what has been said about the mediumistic personality—that when one looks not only at the images but at the experience itself, a more or less uniform picture emerges.

[ 25 ] With regard to the moral qualities necessary for the seer, it must also be emphasized that he must be conscientious and that he must develop all those qualities that were mentioned the day before yesterday. It is entirely correct—as was emphasized so strongly the day before yesterday—that while one can only gain insight into the spiritual world through the processes described, once one has succeeded in translating the findings of research into the spiritual world into concepts accessible to the physical human mind, these concepts become accessible to every human being. They must be sought in the supersensible world, yet they can be understood by ordinary, sound human reason. It is equally true that anyone who can think well—who is a logical thinker here in the physical world—is also capable of correctly assessing what they experience in the spiritual world. And whoever is a fool in the sensory world and cannot think logically will, no matter how much they may see, describe everything incorrectly and in a caricatured way. The entire way one thinks—whether correctly or incorrectly—extends into one’s perception of the supersensible world. The same is true of a person’s moral qualities. Anyone who seeks to ascend into the spiritual world with an immoral state of mind will—precisely because in this spiritual world it is the inner qualities that pave the way—encounter precisely those things and beings that disrupt and hinder the world, and will perceive them, through their immoral state of mind, as distorted and caricatured. But whoever enters with a moral state of mind—specifically, with a selfless state of mind—will find the beings of the spiritual world who will show them things in their proper mutual arrangement and relative importance.

[ 26 ] Thus, with regard to spiritual vision, the determining factor for truth or error is not something one acquires only as a seer, but rather something one has already acquired beforehand, both intellectually and morally. Moral and emotional factors, in particular, play a major role in the way one interprets and understands supersensory phenomena. Anyone who is bound by a particular belief, who harbors sympathies and prejudices in favor of a specific thing being true, carries this attitude, this prejudice, into the supersensible world; they interpret the phenomena accordingly. And everything they fathom and proclaim from the spiritual world may be an error, because it is colored by their subjective belief.

[ 27 ] And here we come to the point where—after discussing the sources of error in spiritual research itself—we must address the sources of error in the dissemination of spiritual science and spiritual research. In a certain sense, the dissemination of spiritual research is like the dissemination of any other field of research. Just as, for example, not everyone can be a chemist, but everyone can take in and understand what chemists have discovered about substances in the laboratory, so too can everyone—even if they are not a researcher in the spiritual sciences—evaluate what is proclaimed by researchers in the spiritual sciences, and not merely to a certain degree, but in its entirety, in its full scope. In this respect, the two are similar; in other respects, they are dissimilar. They are dissimilar because chemistry, mathematics, or other sciences are fields that, when presented by researchers, one can approach coolly and objectively—albeit with a genuine thirst for knowledge. This is not the case with spiritual research. Spiritual research touches the innermost recesses of our hearts, the great questions and mysteries of life. And just as the researcher carries his prejudices, his beliefs, his sympathies, and antipathies into the spiritual world—thereby distorting the matter and perceiving it incorrectly—so too does the public—let us use the term—the community of adherents, approach the spiritual researcher with certain beliefs, certain sympathies, or certain antipathies. Something develops that does not lead to an objective assessment, but is connected to all manner of factors that play out from person to person. As necessary as it is to learn about these things, and as eagerly as the soul yearns to learn about them, the human soul is sometimes too casual about applying an unbiased mind to judge what the spiritual researcher presents, even though it could be judged thoroughly. All too often, then, belief takes the place of an unbiased assessment, perhaps simply because what one person or another says appeals to us because they present it in a pleasing or compelling manner, or because we otherwise find them likable. Belief takes the place of objective, conscientious examination; we accept things on authority. And the worst thing, my esteemed audience, is when this obsession with authority comes between the spiritual researcher and his audience. And just as, through all the things we have heard today that the spiritual researcher should heed, he stands guard, as it were, over his own self, so too should the believer—the one who listens to the spiritual researcher— keep watch over his common sense and, time and again, engage in a kind of self-examination to become aware of how much mere belief, mere prejudice, sympathy, and everything that can be called the delusion of authority is intermingled with the facts as he accepts the spiritual researcher’s messages.

[ 28 ] For in two respects, accepting things on mere faith is highly detrimental; in two respects, this is a source of error, particularly in the dissemination of spiritual science. The first is that—and the facts prove this amply—what is most essential for everyone to develop is not cultivated in the believer: sound judgment and the ability to remain alert to common sense. And since common sense can best be cultivated by thoroughly reflecting on the findings of spiritual science, one deprives oneself of the best opportunity to do so by accepting these findings on mere faith. And the second: Because what the spiritual researcher has to say is important, he will—if the listener does not remain vigilant in exercising common sense—be able to exert a certain, improper influence on his followers, because people believe him, because, out of prejudice, they accept what they should actually be examining. As a result, the spiritual researcher—instead of exerting a legitimate influence by convincing the listener and having the listener see the truth of what he says—will instead attempt to convince by stifling common sense, by overwhelming common sense. While examination and common sense should actually enhance the formation of critical judgment, it is unfortunately all too often the case that this judgment is suppressed—partly due to the carelessness of those who wish to become adherents quickly, because they like what the spiritual researcher says, or even because they are attracted to him personally, and, on the other hand, because the spiritual researcher himself is, so to speak, tempted to inspire this belief. The more readily people believe him, the more easily he is tempted.

[ 29 ] Even if, because of the numerous prejudices that still stand in the way of spiritual science, an ideal state cannot yet be achieved today, it must nevertheless be said that, if truth is to prevail, the community of believers should make it as difficult as possible for the spiritual researcher to disseminate his truths and should set the highest standards with regard to embedding the findings of spiritual science into the concepts and ideas of common sense. This will counteract what is, unfortunately, also a fact—and a constantly recurring source of error in the dissemination of spiritual truths—namely, that charlatanism and all manner of similar practices so easily mingle with conscientious spiritual research, truthfulness, and honesty in this field. If one is not vigilant in upholding common sense, one can no longer distinguish between conscientious spiritual research and charlatanism and humbug, and everything gets lumped together.

[ 30 ] Two opposing spiritual orientations will be thrown together: charlatanism and conscientious spiritual research. One of these spiritual orientations is that of believers caught up in a delusion of authority, who, lightheartedly and driven by their sympathies and prejudices, become adherents of spiritual science; they mix everything together and often accept one thing just as readily as another. For this type of soul, which is so inclined, there is scarcely any other remedy than for conscientious spiritual researchers to step forward—who, although it would be easy for them to spread error, spurn this and conscientiously stand on the ground of truth. Whether this is the case can only be taught by experience and reality in each individual instance. The souls of a different sort—who also find it difficult to distinguish between charlatanism and conscientiousness in this field and who likewise confuse everything—are those who do not want to engage with the matter at all, who judge it superficially based on the few concepts they have cobbled together, and who, because they often succeed in expose fraud, not only label everything with that name but also lump everything into that same category. They are just as incapable of distinguishing between charlatanism and conscientiousness as the others; they are equally responsible for creating the conditions under which charlatanism and conscientious spiritual research can spread in equal measure, because they lump everything into the same category. One camp—that of the devout believers—often regards the greatest charlatanism as an irrefutable, supreme truth; the other sort of people—the biased, the uninformed—sometimes also regard what is conscientious spiritual research as charlatanism and error, and one cannot always blame them for this, simply because one cannot blame them at all, since they do not truly understand what they are saying.

[ 31 ] Thus, in order for truth—and not error—to prevail in the dissemination of spiritual research, it will be necessary above all else—and anyone with experience in these matters knows this well—that, particularly among the adherents of spiritual research, a critical mind, critical judgment, and common sense be cultivated, rather than a delusion of authority. This delusion of authority will naturally fade once a realization spreads among those who appreciate and need spiritual research—a realization that, unfortunately, is still not very widespread today, especially among the adherents of spiritual science—namely, that a seer, a practitioner of spiritual research who can look into the spiritual world, by virtue of being able to do so, is therefore no higher than an animal, is therefore nothing special, and is in no way distinguished from other human beings by this ability—any less than someone is distinguished from others by being a chemist, a botanist, a machinist, or a tailor. The value of a human being does not lie in the possession of spiritual insight, but solely in the fact that they can explore this very realm and bring it to the understanding of others. What constitutes a person’s value is solely their common sense, their capacity for judgment, and their moral qualities. And spiritual science, in particular, could prove that a person’s value is already determined by their intellectual and moral qualities before they enter the spiritual world, and that if they are inferior there, the results of their research are also inferior. It is extremely important to recognize this. And even more than the opponents of spiritual science, its adherents should engage in self-reflection in this area and seek the right mindset to overcome the delusion of authority.

[ 32 ] Thus, my esteemed audience, today I sought not only to describe the possibilities of error in the discovery of spiritual truths, but also the possibility of error with regard to the dissemination of spiritual truths and their integration into the general spiritual culture of an era. And I sought to evoke a sense of how conscientious spiritual research recognizes that its opponents may often be right to raise this or that objection, and that conscientious spiritual research can—and indeed must—raise such objections itself, whatever their nature, because it is precisely important in this field to look error in the eye in order to recognize the truth. For those who profess spiritual science, anyone who wishes to be conscientious generally has only one consolation, which must indeed be present—and with this let us conclude what we have considered today, for ultimately what matters most is not what concepts and ideas sink into the soul, but what mood they evoke in the soul —for adherents of spiritual science, there is this one consolation: that truth possesses a powerful force, and that even if error creeps in through the delusion of authority, those who have for a time clung to this or that out of mere delusion of authority are generally cured by the self-correcting nature of truth. In most cases, such a cure takes place precisely because, in a sense, one pays the price for having held such a blind faith in authority. And it has often happened that, because one did not examine the details closely but took what was said at face value, a glaring and radical case then reveals just how carelessly one had proceeded. If the pain and disappointment are all the more significant as a result, then the cure has indeed been successful.

[ 33 ] But for those who lump all spiritual research together with charlatanism and deception, whether they do so in good faith—which does indeed happen—or out of malice, today’s reflection may offer them a different kind of comfort: a comfort that the human soul can always find whenever it yearns to face the truth, whenever it thirsts for truth. Truths of spiritual science, when they first emerge, are indeed much more subject to the vicissitudes of fate—the same vicissitudes to which other truths are also subject as they gradually emerge in the course of human progress. Consider, for example, how the Copernican worldview was received! Consider how Galileo was treated! Consider how the entire world resisted when Francesco Redi proclaimed the truth—which we now take for granted—that earthworms cannot arise from river mud or other non-living matter, but that all living things emerge from a pre-existing living germ! How even learned bodies protested when the truth—now taken for granted—was stated that iron stones can fall from the air to the earth—meteorites! How people resisted when something as seemingly insignificant as the postage stamp was first to be introduced. At that time, an influential figure said: “Yes, if correspondence were really to increase as much as those who want to introduce postage stamps assume, then the post offices we now have in our cities would no longer be sufficient!”—Numerous other examples could be cited to show that when truth enters the world, it is regarded as paradoxical and therefore rejected. The sight of these fates of the truth can give us comfort and confidence in the face of all those who reject spiritual science and lump it together with all manner of charlatanism, the comfort that people have always found in the truth throughout the ages, and which can be expressed in the words of someone who, though he erred in many ways, nevertheless sought the truth with earnestness and vigor.

[ ] And it is precisely these two lectures—which dealt with the interplay between truth and error in spiritual research—and what ran, so to speak, like a continuous stream through all the individual sections of these lectures, that can be summarized in the words of the vigorous seeker of truth, Schopenhauer, who, with regard to the fate of truth, spoke these comforting words in his work *The Foundations of Morality*—and with this we shall conclude—: Throughout the centuries, poor Truth has had to blush at the fact that she was paradoxical, and yet it is not her fault. She simply cannot assume the form of the enthroned universal error, and so she can do nothing but look up with a sigh to her patron god, Time. But the beating of its wings is so slow that, despite the triumph of time, the individual human being perishes before the wings have even finished flapping. — But the truth will prevail, even if individuals perish and suffer the pains of error no matter how deeply.

Question and Answer

[ 34 ] Question: Some people occasionally experience—usually after prolonged, strenuous thought—a strange sensation, as if they were standing outside themselves, beside themselves, surrounded by a terrible emptiness, and their body then seems like something entirely foreign. One then has to force oneself to feel like a body again, much like in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s work. What can be done about this?

[ 35 ] Rudolf Steiner: Above all, one must take into account that everything of this kind that occurs in the world exists in varying degrees. What has been described in today’s lecture represents only a more significant degree of the phenomena that can always be present in human beings to a lesser extent. The path to, so to speak, detaching oneself from the instrument of one’s body is precisely the path of meditation and concentration. And when the question refers to “especially after strenuous thinking”—meditation and concentration are a very intense degree of strenuous thinking, feeling, and perhaps even willing. Therefore, such phenomena—which occur to an extraordinary degree during meditation and concentration, when the individual aspects of human nature are in a looser balance (and, incidentally, they are in a different balance in every person)—are entirely possible. This has, for example, been described very aptly in fiction. Anyone who assumes that a fictional depiction of such things is based solely on fantasy is mistaken. The serious artist, even when taking the abnormal as his subject, draws from personal experience. This is very much the case with E.T.A. Floffmann. Many people would experience this if they were always mindful of themselves, but the level of attention does not always extend to these occurrences, and as a result, such facts often go unnoticed. Essentially, spiritual research is not something entirely extraordinary, but merely an intensification of what occurs everywhere and at all times in ordinary life.

Question: In what way is knowledge of higher worlds worth pursuing—aside from curiosity—since it depends on common sense?

[ 36 ] Rudolf Steiner: For those who do not yearn for answers to the higher questions of existence, spiritual science may be dispensable. But for those who yearn for answers to such questions, it must be said: Just as the body hungers for food, so the soul hungers for answers to the great questions of life. And as has already been said in this lecture, one can certainly deprive the soul of truths, but not of its hunger for truths. This becomes even more evident in its effects: the soul first descends into all manner of states of disorder, even despair; thus, what is initially a matter of knowledge translates into issues of health. Here, one need only point to the close connection between nervousness and a disregard for spiritual truths. They are, after all, a necessity of human nature. This question once again reveals what has been mentioned many times before: that, fundamentally, when it comes to these matters—which are so difficult to explain—and which I therefore strive to present conscientiously and precisely in these lectures—people do not listen closely enough. If one had listened carefully to what was actually said in the lecture itself, such a question would not have needed to be asked. One would have heard, for example, that a person’s worth depends on the state of the soul, on moral and intellectual qualities, and not on the content of truths, for these must first be discovered through supersensible research. In higher knowledge, one will find the intellectual if one is predisposed toward the intellectual, and the moral if one is predisposed toward the moral—but one must bring this with one into the supersensible world; one must possess it in one’s intellectual and moral constitution, which one must bring with oneself.

Question: It is a fact that mental work can redirect the functions of the psyche. But where are the guarantees of the absolute validity of the immutability of our psyche?

[ 37 ] Rudolf Steiner: It was stated twice in the lectures that one cannot say, “Here the truth ends and here error begins”—but that there is the possibility of embarking on the paths to truth. It would be best, of course, if one could write down all truths on a small piece of paper; one could then put it in one’s vest pocket and consult it when needed. But that is not how truth works. One must work one’s way up to it little by little. Is it even legitimate to demand guarantees that anything has objective validity?

Question: In Theosophy, are the intellectual soul and the emotional soul the same thing?

[ 38 ] Rudolf Steiner: No, but they are two sides of one and the same entity, so that one aspect of the soul, when it turns outward and judges things, is called the intellectual soul, and the same entity, when it experiences its own inner life, is called the emotional soul.

Question: Is there a specific code of ethics for parapsychologists?

[ 39 ] Rudolf Steiner: Nothing other than general human morality itself, which can, however, be refined, as is also described in “How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?” But just as morality in general does not allow for double standards, so it must be said that the spiritual researcher, too, must not have double moral standards. However, as mentioned, he must cultivate certain inner moral qualities more deeply.

Question: Does the science of the spirit have the right to reveal sacred laws?

[ 40 ] Rudolf Steiner: Those are simply the laws of nature.