The Rudolf Steiner Archive

3. How Does One Justify Theosophy?

[ 1 ] It might be called frivolous for us to first attempt to refute theosophy here and then seek to justify it, since the speaker apparently does not believe in the refutation himself.

[ 2 ] But I truly believe in it! My aim is not to refute refutations, but rather to draw attention to important points regarding great epistemological puzzles. In a certain sense, I believe in the validity and significance of the objections that have been raised. To illustrate what I mean, I’d like to tell you a little story.

[ 3 ] In a village, the young son of a family was tasked with fetching the daily supply of rolls needed for the family from the baker. He was always given [ten] Kreuzer to take with him. This young son wasn’t very good at math and therefore didn’t pay much attention to how many rolls he could get for six Kreuzer. However, a foster son temporarily came to live with the family, and he was good at math. This foster son began to calculate how many rolls one should get for a sixer. Since a roll cost two Kreuzer in that town, there should have been five rolls. But the boy had brought back six rolls. The foster son was puzzled by this and said, “That doesn’t add up—two times five is ten. So he should only get five rolls.”—But the next day, there were six rolls again, despite the foster son’s correct calculation. How could this be? It turned out that it was customary in that town to throw in an extra roll for every ten Kreuzer. That solved the mystery. So it was correct, even though the calculation was also correct. The result of the calculation, then, had nothing to do with the correctness of the matter itself. Both were correct in their own right, even though they did not agree with one another. Just as I myself, as the little boy—who I was—believed in the correctness of the calculation, so too do I believe today in the correctness of the objections to theosophy that I raised. Objections and refutations have a certain characteristic, namely, that they can very well be correct without the matter itself necessarily being wrong. Perhaps one might reproach me for one thing, namely, that I present certain things in a vivid manner and, in doing so, speak for and against them with the same passion.

[ 4 ] But even if things are correct in and of themselves, they can still be presented with the same vigor. After all, it is generally easier and more convenient to criticize than to justify. I would also like to illustrate this with an example.

[ 5 ] The editor-in-chief of a major newspaper intended to publish an interesting weekly as a supplement. However, he could find very few suitable editors for such a publication—people who could write with enough wit and interest to truly captivate the audience he had in mind. But since he was a clever man, he knew how to solve the problem. A number of talented young men were hired with the task of doing nothing all week but sitting in coffeehouses and reading newspapers, and then they simply had to refute every article that interested them. With the material they gathered, the man filled his weekly, and it was widely read and sold well, for witty criticism is something that appeals to people. Such commentary from a critic stirs something in every soul. Through this occupation, the young gentlemen all became brilliant polemicists, and some of them now hold prestigious positions.

[ 6 ] This is meant to show that it isn't really that hard to refute something or criticize it if that's all you want to do.

[ 7 ] Our task today is more difficult, since we want to show how to establish the foundations of theosophy.

[ 8 ] Let us first address the objection that it is amateurish to assume that an etheric body should be superimposed on the physical body. I recall what was said about the theory of vital force, which science has long since discarded. Once it became possible to assemble material structures in the laboratory, the way was clear for the rejection of vital force. And one can say that a time may yet come when even higher and highest organic structures can be chemically produced in laboratories. Therefore, it can only be described as ignorance when Theosophy, in the face of these scientific advances, still speaks of a completely superfluous etheric or vital body.

[ 9 ] One point, however, deserves attention. Many people certainly regard the great Gotthold Ephraim Lessing as a particularly enlightened thinker. Furthermore, people today would certainly agree with the statement: No one can be considered enlightened who is not opposed to belief in ghosts. Yet Lessing himself once said the following:

Do we no longer believe in ghosts? Who says so? Or rather, what does that mean?

[...] In this matter—about which there are almost as many arguments for as against, which has not been decided and cannot be decided—the currently prevailing way of thinking has given greater weight to the arguments against; a few hold this view, and many seem to want to hold it; these are the ones making the noise and setting the tone; the vast majority remain silent and indifferent, their minds wavering from one view to another—listening with pleasure to mockery of ghosts in broad daylight and recounting tales of them with horror in the dark of night.

[ 10 ] There is no evidence against it; only the way of thinking has changed. The same is true of the theory of vital force. The way of thinking about it has changed. However, this does not constitute proof against it.

[ 11 ] And the same applies to the scientific objection: We do not need an etheric body. That, too, is merely a shift in thinking habits, which can just as easily swing back in the opposite direction, as we have seen often enough. In the past, people even believed that a whole, tiny human being—the so-called homunculus—could be created artificially. Yet the objection mentioned above would apply all the more here, since we see that it is precisely those who believe in the homunculus who are the ones who fully believe in a supernatural world. In a room where there is quite a lot of dirt, there are usually also a lot of flies. In the past, this was explained by the assumption that the flies originated from the dirt. Now we know that the dirt merely creates the conditions; it makes it easy for the flies to get in.

[ 12 ] In the past, too, because of different ways of thinking, it was easy for the supernatural to enter the sphere of human activity.

[ 13 ] By chance, I recently bought a freethinker’s calendar, in which I found an essay by a freethinker. This man is not, however, speaking out against theosophy—he hopefully knows nothing about it—but rather against the practice of teaching children to believe in a supernatural world from an early age. Before going to sleep, people pray with them that a divine spirit will protect them, and so on. This is nonsense, against which the man seems to be very strongly opposed. He rails against it and says that today we shouldn’t try to instill in children things that they don’t already possess on their own. — One can only advise drawing the logical conclusion from this. Children don’t learn to speak on their own either. This man should therefore actually be opposed to teaching children to speak. But why hasn’t he drawn such conclusions? The reason is that this man is simply extremely prejudiced against everything supernatural. He wants to prove the fallacy of the supernatural everywhere and therefore pays no attention at all to logical arguments. Condemning everything supernatural has become a habit of thought for him, one from which he cannot break free even if he wanted to—but he doesn’t want to at all. This is often the case in life. Ultimately, it is not logical reasons that determine one’s stance, but habits of thought.

[ 14 ] This raises the question: Is it even possible to develop habits of thought that can be cultivated into ones that are legitimate in and of themselves? True science establishes the principle that scientists should present only those things that can be verified by anyone at any time. According to modern science, theosophy simply cannot do this. For theosophy draws upon sources that the soul develops from within itself through the practice of meditation. Intimate inner processes transform the soul, and then the eyes and ears of the spirit awaken within it. One therefore no longer judges using the ordinary sensory instruments accessible to everyone. Strict science, however, must exclude precisely that which has merely subjective validity.

[ 15 ] This is an objection that can only be resolved through experience. We must therefore determine, first: Is it true that science makes only objective judgments? Second: Is it true that the humanities make subjective judgments?

[ 16 ] Well, the first requirement certainly does not apply to all areas of scientific research. In mathematics, for example, not everyone can verify the matter at any time. Everyone knows, of course, that the Pythagorean theorem is correct. But not everyone needs to be able to verify it. However, those who cannot verify it because they do not understand mathematics well enough do not thereby prove anything against it.

[ 17 ] Mathematics, however, yields only those truths that relate to relationships. But whether the results of mathematical science also relate to the objective world and hold true within it [...], that depends on other factors as well.

[ 18 ] Mathematical objects do not occur in nature. There is neither a triangle in and of itself, nor a mathematically perfect circle, and so on. These can never be represented externally, but they can be calculated and conceived internally.

[ 19 ] Doesn't this correspond to clairvoyant experience? [Only the lowest levels of soul life appear subjective. Those who go further always arrive at the same experiences. Mathematics is regarded as a living factor in the supersensible worlds; this is how Plato and others perceived it.] One might say that the human organism is “ego-ified,” just as one might say that God “geometrizes.”

[ 20 ] I would like to give you an example of the effect of the supersensible on the physical body. When we observe a person who strives for knowledge—not merely a scientist, but a searching, struggling, introspective soul—and when we see such a person again after not having seen them for ten years, we notice a change in their features. We see, then, how even relatively minor supersensory activity leaves its mark on the body. Such a change can even reveal a certain kind of inner struggle to the psychologist. However, there is a limit to the body’s elasticity. When the external transformation of the features can go no further, the solutions to the riddles that have plagued the person begin to emerge. This can certainly be observed. The inner experience first manifests itself in the person as if working on the external sensory world; only then can it enter their consciousness.

[ 21 ] How does this compare to the experiences of a student of the humanities?

[ 22 ] Clairvoyant training must induce conscious states of sleep. By making consciousness possible even during sleep, it can bring powers into consciousness that would otherwise be too weak to do so. In other words, only mental images arising from the will, unstimulated by any external factor. Such training can, under certain circumstances, take quite a long time. But once it becomes effective, a specific experience can be observed. The student then begins to have inner experiences, at first like a dream that one cannot quite grasp. One then feels resistance from one’s own brain. This gradually subsides. Then comes the time when one can transform what has been sensed into concepts. At first, it is like with a child—one is not quite aware of it—but then it gradually intensifies into a conscious experience. The clairvoyant then experiences things that present their very being through themselves internally as immediate certainty, as an inner objectivity. And all clairvoyants experience the same thing in this regard.

[ 23 ] So what is spiritual science based on? Not on something that is universally verifiable by everyone, but on the fact that there is a possibility to grow into spiritual existence itself and thereby draw truth directly from within ourselves. Once one has come to realize that a supersensible realm exists, the objections to it take on a completely different character. They are objectively valid objections that cannot be refuted at all.

[ 24 ] Let us take, for example, the objection that the theosophical explanation for the state of sleep is unnecessary because the self-regulation theory explains the processes much more simply. But aside from sleep, there are other self-regulators as well. The clock, for example, is an excellent example of such a self-regulator, but—as no one will deny—it can only come into being through mental activity, through the mind of the clockmaker. Why should the same not apply to human beings as well? We see, then, that while the objection is valid in itself, it is not applicable here, since it does not resolve the issue.

[ 25 ] But there are, of course, also ethical and moral objections to theosophy. What about those? The objection to the doctrine of karma—that it could lead to selfishness because good deeds are followed by reward and evil deeds by punishment—is, in a certain sense, valid. It can lead to someone doing good not for the sake of goodness itself, but for the sake of the reward. Now, Schopenhauer once said: “Preaching morality is easy; justifying it is difficult.” Generally speaking, one will not achieve much with a mere moral sermon urging people to do good. It is much like someone saying to a stove: “Dear stove, it is your purpose, your moral duty, to heat the room; so please, be so kind as to do so.” If nothing else happens, the stove will likely remain cold. But whoever takes wood and lights a fire in the stove will achieve the stove’s purpose more quickly and effectively.

[ 26 ] With human beings, preaching does help a little more than it does with a stove, but usually not much more. Justifying morality—igniting the inner fire within a person—is more important. So let the law of karma first quietly take effect on human selfishness and thus inspire people toward goodness. The main thing is that the goal is achieved. One could also say of a couple that they raise their children well solely out of selfishness. Should they therefore refrain from doing so? The main thing is that, through a good upbringing, the children grow up to be decent people. Even if the parents thought only of themselves and the personal comforts that well-behaved children can bring them while raising them, love for the work of raising children will naturally follow. Goodness can thus initially arise from selfish motives; through the habit of doing good, selflessness will then naturally emerge from that selfishness.

[ 27 ] Let’s take the case where someone says: “We’re going to come back anyway, so why should I bother myself now?” “I want to enjoy my life now; I’ll have plenty of time in my next life to become a decent person.”—If we believe in the law of karma, we must realize that such an attitude will have consequences for the next life. The consequence will be that his current behavior—even his intention to become a decent person—will make it difficult for him to do so.

[ 28 ] We also have other objections. It is said that the clairvoyant, just as with hallucinations, derives his visions solely from the physical world. These are merely reminiscences of ordinary sensory objects, but clothed in a fantastically convoluted form—just as, for example, primitive religions derive their concept of God from human beings, and so on.

[ 29 ] However, a spiritual connection between three people—one of whom is dead—can be demonstrated through clairvoyance. There are many such well-documented experiences. In what follows, as I always do, I will recount only a true event that took place exactly as described and can be verified.

[ 30 ] A couple lived with their son; the son fell ill and died after one day. This was a heavy blow for the parents. As a result, they spent a great deal of time thinking about their son. Then, months later, both parents had the same dream. Their son appeared to them and told them that he had been buried alive. They shared the dream with each other the next morning, and it turned out that they had both experienced the same thing in their dreams—that they had both had the same dream. They now wanted to be certain and had the grave reopened. Unfortunately, the authorities prevented the exhumation, but the fact remains that both had had the same dream. Now, a dream is not yet reality, but in such cases, dreams are a manifestation of what shines into consciousness from the supernatural worlds.

[ 31 ] How this is to be understood is evident from the well-known dream of the farmer’s wife, who, in her dream, believes she is hearing an edifying sermon from the pastor and, upon waking, hears the rooster crowing—which had awakened her and thereby evoked the recurring conscious image of a sermon as a dream image, since she had been thinking of the pastor’s edifying words before falling asleep. Dream images are shaped by one’s state of mind and experiences. From this, it becomes clear that even clairvoyant descriptions, despite being presented in images drawn from everyday life, can still contain genuine, extrasensory experiences. Otherwise, one might just as well say: “I see nothing in a book but black letters and printer’s ink. I cannot find what you are reading aloud from it at all.”

[ 32 ] While this is true for someone who cannot read it themselves, it does not apply to those who have learned to read when it comes to the content.

[ 33 ] We now turn to the religious objections: the deification of humankind through theosophy. By placing God within oneself, whereas true religiosity requires devotion to an external God—this leads to arrogance, tempting people to say: “I myself am a god.”

[ 34 ] This, too, is not an unfounded objection. But we can set aside what theosophical truth says out of a living sense of feeling. You have a divine spark within you, undeveloped, in its embryonic state. You must develop it more and more. It is therefore a dereliction of duty toward the God within you if you do not strive ceaselessly for perfection. [For the theosophist, passive devotion to God—as is the case with some devout Christians—is not enough; rather, he must demand active devotion, as the Pauline saying goes: “Not I, but Christ in me.”]

[ 35 ] Thus, deification takes on a somewhat different form, for it constantly leads to impulses toward perfection; it transforms human self-righteousness into an eternal imperative.

[ 36 ] Here, too, you can see once again: The objection need not be refuted; nevertheless, what Theosophy has to say stands on solid ground. For it is true: The seeking soul need not deny itself when it longs for immortality, but rather finds outside itself that which lives within it.