The Rudolf Steiner Archive

9. Errors in Spiritual Research

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! In the field of spiritual research, which was discussed here yesterday, it is even more necessary than in any other field of knowledge about life to investigate the sources of error. This is particularly necessary because, on the paths to truth that we spoke of yesterday, error lies in wait at every turn, so to speak; and because the nature of error in the exploration of the spiritual worlds is actually quite different from that in the exploration of the sensory world in which human beings initially live. One might say that, in a sense, an ancient saying by the great philosopher Aristotle can serve as a guiding principle on the seeker of truth’s path into the spiritual worlds. At first glance, this saying sounds simple, but putting it into practice is quite difficult. It reads:

Only those who have stopped loving their own opinions can recognize the truth.

[ 2 ] This saying applies to everything that constitutes life experience and wisdom; but it applies to a very special degree in the area we are dealing with here. In everyday life, what this saying conveys is, so to speak, ignored everywhere. What do we hear people emphasize more often than: “This is my point of view on such-and-such a matter; this is my opinion.” And especially in our time, it is emphasized again and again that it is, after all, justified—and indeed the only justified course of action—for every person to assert, so to speak, their point of view, their opinion on any given matter. Of course, one can certainly concede such a demand of life up to a certain limit, but such a perspective cannot lead to the real truth—namely, to the truth in the spiritual realm. For one’s own opinion—one has formed it in life entirely according to one’s personal upbringing, the personal circumstances in which one has lived, and the part of the world that one has encountered—and it does not actually take much to realize that this opinion, which an individual has formed, can under all circumstances have, at the very least, only a narrowly limited validity.

[ 3 ] However, in the realm of spiritual life, the situation is such that—in a way entirely different from any sensory realm—what we bring with us as our opinions, our outlook on life, and our point of view inevitably finds its way into our investigations. In everyday life, where we deal with external things, we can say that error corrects itself at every turn. If we form a false opinion about this or that entity or this or that process in the sensory world, we need only allow the appearance of that entity—the fact itself—to take effect upon us, and the incorrect judgment is, so to speak, dispelled. We cannot approach a thing with an incorrect judgment about it without the thing itself proving us wrong. In the spiritual realm, it is quite different. There, the point is that all beings and all facts take on their very particular character through what we bring to them as our own soul constitution—that which lives within our soul—and we carry a false opinion with us into the spiritual world; it lays itself like a veil over the corresponding observation. And if we wish to cling to this false opinion, then the spiritual fact—which is veiled by our opinion—cannot prove us wrong. It cloaks itself in the garment of our false opinion and appears to us in a completely false form.

[ 4 ] If, on the other hand—without recognizing it as legitimate for spiritual research and without intending to gain anything from doing so—we wish to point to mediumship as the antithesis of true spiritual research, we do so solely for the sake of clarification. Those people who, in the manner already discussed yesterday, wish to receive messages from the spiritual worlds through mediums or somnambulists are usually very concerned about one thing in particular: namely, that their medium does not absorb, let us say, spiritual-scientific truths or any convictions about the spiritual world from specific points of view. For the people who make use of mediums rightly fear that, should the medium have absorbed certain thoughts about the spiritual world into their ordinary consciousness and soul life, the result would be that—when the medium is induced into a sleep-like state—what they have absorbed would emerge again in their revelations; that is to say, the personal would, so to speak, interfere with what the medium is supposed to reveal. And such people believe that they can attain genuine, objective revelations of the spiritual world that lies behind the physical world only if they have eliminated everything personal from the medium—if, so to speak, the medium is not at all predisposed to incorporate anything personal into its revelations.

[ 5 ] What do such people strive for? [They strive] to eliminate the personal—everything that comes from anywhere other than the medium’s subconscious depths. That is why people place the greatest credence in such revelations from mediums when it can be known with certainty that the mediums had no connection whatsoever to the matter in question. When the medium speaks in a language known to be unfamiliar to them, the greatest credence is given to such revelations—and rightly so. What those who make use of mediums strive for may serve to illustrate this point. For even though spiritual research makes no use of what comes from this source, it is nevertheless true for the true spiritual researcher—who makes himself an instrument for penetrating the spiritual worlds—that he must cast aside the personal, that is, that which clings only to his own soul life and is peculiar to his own soul life.

[ 6 ] This is a more difficult task than is generally believed, for it requires something that is, so to speak, extremely difficult for ordinary consciousness to comprehend. It requires [what] is called in spiritual science “the encounter with the Keeper of the Threshold.” The “threshold” referred to here is the one that separates the realm of the sensory world from the spiritual world. What is this “Keeper of the Threshold” when we consider ordinary life and its relationship to truth? For this Keeper of the Threshold is, in essence, the sum of those forces and powers that prevent people in ordinary life from true self-knowledge and that, if they wish to become researchers of the spiritual, lead them to this self-knowledge. But in ordinary life, self-knowledge is by no means an easy matter, and [this] is precisely because the human soul clings to what it has formed from its experiences, from everything that comes its way. And this is precisely what gives rise to the various perspectives and the clashes of opinion, where materialism and spiritualism, realism and idealism, and many other viewpoints—which people defend with devotion—clash, making it impossible for people to understand one another, especially when it comes to the most important matters.

[ 7 ] What is the actual situation regarding these viewpoints? Anyone who considers the life of the human soul in relation to the rest of existence will, upon closer examination, be able to observe that idealism, materialism, realism, and so on arise as human opinions because human beings always have only a limited field of vision and form their opinions based on it; and he loves this opinion of his, and it is actually this love that inspires his enthusiasm for it and causes him to regard it as the only possible one, while combating other viewpoints. This love is, at its core, self-love. What we have attained, what is so intimately connected with us that we actually become the thing itself—it is understandable that we love it. If we give it up, we give up ourselves. That is, after all, the significance of clinging to certain life positions: everyone feels that if they give them up, they give up themselves, for their entire self has taken on the character of that position. A person cannot help but affirm this position.

[ 8 ] There are people who, because of their way of life or the focus of their scholarship—because of their preoccupation with purely external things that exist in their imagination—become materialists; people who are accustomed to fixing their eyes solely on the material aspect of things; their attention is diverted from everything that is not material, and they are materialists not because idealism is wrong. For anyone who truly understands the battles of ideas will soon realize that materialists have many good reasons to support their claims. But idealists have these as well, and only those who are biased in their materialistic outlook actually see bad reasons for idealism. People oppose idealism and insist on materialism only when they adopt the habit of thinking that way—by dealing exclusively with material things. Other people, so to speak, are less affected by the harshness and density of matter. Their dispositions and circumstances draw them more toward the struggles and triumphs of human life. Such people become idealists. They recognize the arguments in favor of idealism, and since they have never learned to consider the arguments in favor of materialism, they regard materialism as the great error that must be combated.

[ 9 ] And this is how one could characterize all intellectual schools of thought; one would always have to trace them back to people’s innate dispositions and circumstances. But those who have attained a broader perspective, such as Goethe, knew—and this is something anyone who can view the various worldviews impartially knows—that all viewpoints have a certain one-sidedness and that, fundamentally, one can present many arguments both for and against every viewpoint. Admittedly, some other people recognize this as well; they then easily come to the conclusion that the truths lie in the middle between the various viewpoints, whereby a balance can be found, so to speak. But the one who wishes to know the truth in this realm is like a person who sits between two chairs. The right thing to do, however, would be—depending on the circumstances—to use both chairs. This is what the person who understands how to relate human opinions to the comprehensive whole of the world will come to do.

[ 10 ] [Goethe says]: The truth does not lie between the various points of view; rather, it is between them that the task—the path to truth—lies. What does this mean? It means that when one considers the individual worldviews, one must say: Materialism is fully justified in the material realm, and anyone who seeks to explain the material world through spiritualism will come up empty-handed. [In] the world of materialism, materialist concepts belong; and the error of materialism is not that the material is explained through materialism, but that one also seeks to explain the spiritual realm through materialism. The opposite is true for spiritualism. The fanciful idealist will speak everywhere of the spiritual and spiritual forces; he is like someone who looks at a clock and does not want to explain its workings mechanically, but instead seeks a demon inside it that moves the hands forward. This is what one arrives at—and must arrive at—if one wishes to arrive at the truth through the various worldviews, which are, after all, merely opinions: that one is able to grasp the validity and limitations of the various perspectives.

[ 11 ] What prevents people from doing that? Depending on the sphere of the world and of life, people love their own point of view with true self-love; they cannot step outside themselves, cannot put themselves in another’s shoes. That is why people take such offense when one considers Haeckel and puts oneself in his mindset—rather than always feeling the urge to oppose Haeckel from a spiritual or idealistic standpoint—and when one turns to other minds and views them just as objectively. The true researcher of the spirit must be able to empathize with both the positive and negative aspects of various points of view. For it is a peculiarity of human nature that when a person applies a method such as the one discussed yesterday to his own soul, his opinions and viewpoints change accordingly. We can observe this particularly clearly in the case of opposing viewpoints—idealism and materialism.

[ 12 ] Someone whose outlook on life is such that he rejects everything spiritual—who is a materialist in the strictest sense—will, of course, not apply any method to his soul as described yesterday; to him, all of that is nonsense and folly. From his materialistic standpoint, he is right. But the person who, as a spiritual researcher, not only sees the material effects in life but can also look into the overall workings of life—into the spiritual forces that lie behind the sensory realm—knows that it is not a materialistic view that prevents this person, who rejects all methods of spiritual research, from coming to these insights. A person can deny the spiritual world if they wish. But this spiritual world does not exist only in a separate realm of spirits; rather, this spiritual world is present everywhere in the sensory, material world as well. Even in matter—which the materialist alone considers—spirit is present everywhere. But this spirit, which manifests itself solely in the material realm—this is the spirit, the force that, above all else, when it works through a person—and it does so when that person has the habit of thinking only in material terms—causes them to become incapable of directing their soul’s attention or orientation toward the spirit at all. There is something in all material existence that affects us in such a way that it draws us away from the spirit and distracts us. There we see how error works.

[ 13 ] In our ideas of spiritual research, as they now seek to engage with the spiritual cultural life of the present, we call this spirit—which lives within matter and acts there as a force that darkens human beings’ perception of the spiritual world—the Ahrimanic spirit. This is the very same spirit that Goethe portrays in *Faust* as Mephisto, who accompanies Faust—who accompanies every human being—because every human being must engage with the material world. This, then, is the force that blinds us to the spiritual world. Materialists may well deny the spirit with their concepts, but it would be a grave error to believe that they can do any harm to the reality of the spirit. It takes its revenge on them and obscures their perceptions. This is the peculiar effect in the soul of the materialist: this spirit erects a barrier so that the human being cannot perceive the spiritual world; thus the materialist denies the spiritual world because the spirit of matter instills this denial in him. One can deny it, but one cannot escape it, and what is circulating in the world as materialism is in fact the inspiration of the [Ahrimanic] spirit. Goethe was right in having his Faust confront the mothers in such a way that Mephisto presents the spiritual realm as nothingness. But Faust says: “In your nothingness I hope to find the universe.” – The materialist should admit to himself that he belongs to a certain little group of people of whom Mephisto says:

This little crowd never senses the devil,
Even if he had them by the collar.

[ 14 ] It is precisely this material spirit that the little people do not sense, and which instills materialism in them. In this way, if one only goes deep enough, it becomes clear to us how materialism negates itself, since it is itself a product of the spirit.

[ 15 ] Let us now consider the idealist’s point of view. He wants nothing to do with materialism; he has formed ideas and sensations that lead him only into spiritual spheres. It would certainly not occur to such a person to apply what has been said to himself, but the one-sidedness of the idealistic point of view is precisely evident in these points. When the idealist, who rejects matter, applies the method mentioned yesterday to himself and gains entry into the spiritual world, he encounters there his own way of imagining and feeling, his entire mindset; he carries them into that world, and the consequence is that although this person can enter the spiritual world, he sees everything through the lens of his own opinions and conceptions, and [he sees] that in the spiritual world there is a great multitude of such beings—called demonic entities—who do not appear in the outer world but live in the spiritual world —they are beings whose substance is too insubstantial for our world—and who distract the human being from the world to which he nevertheless belongs, since he was born as a human being in a physical body; thus, if the idealist is narrow-minded, he will very easily be driven into certain practices in the world that we call demonic. He is so firmly entrenched there that, whereas he previously understood nothing of the material world, so to speak, he now flees from it. People then stray into all sorts of false ascetic paths. He wants nothing more to do with the material world, and his error leads him to an alienation from the world to which he nevertheless belongs. He falls into loneliness.

[ 16 ] This example in particular shows us that errors in the spiritual realm are more disastrous than those in the sensory realm. In the sensory world, errors are corrected; in the spiritual realm, errors are like realities that confront us, even though we ourselves bring these realities into being. We cannot get past them. All errors [in the spiritual realm] affect our personality as if they were realities. In the sensory realm, one can free oneself from errors through refutation; in the spiritual realm, there is no other way than struggle, for one must combat what confronts one as if it were real. In the field of spiritual research, therefore, the struggle will not be merely a logical one, but a continuous spiritual endeavor—a battle against the forces of error, for that is where the forces of error reside.

[ 17 ] The question now arises: How can we find the way to become effective fighters against error in the spiritual realm? We can do this through true self-knowledge! How do we transcend the one-sidedness of materialism, spiritualism, idealism, and realism even in our [ordinary] daily lives? By resolving, at least once in our lives, to examine how we actually arrived at our opinions. This is a serious decision—one that is easier to make than to carry out. When we trace our lives back through rigorous self-examination and ask ourselves how we arrived at this or that line of thought, when we examine the origins of our attitudes and opinions, we, so to speak, piece ourselves back together; then there comes a moment when it may become difficult for us, when our mind feels it is facing great resistance. Whether one has been a materialist or an idealist, or has held fast to some other opinion that one considered the only correct one—one then feels: One has arrived at this opinion solely through one’s own experience. Then comes the moment when one first senses what opinions and worldviews actually are.

[ 18 ] As long as one interacts with the world without prejudice and carries one’s views with oneself, one doesn’t even realize how much one loves one’s own opinions; but once one withdraws from the world and realizes how one has become a materialist or a spiritualist, then one finds oneself saying: “Yes, when it comes down to it, if you no longer have this or that thought, what remains of you? Then you’ll be completely empty, won’t you?”—You feel as if you are cutting yourself away piece by piece. What follows is that dreadful moment in life when you see yourself fading away, when you turn your gaze to the origins of your opinion. But no one can arrive at a worldview without practicing self-knowledge. Only then do you stop insisting on your own opinion, and only then do you truly understand the saying of the ancient sage Aristotle:

Only those who have stopped loving their own opinions can recognize the truth.

[ 19 ] One begins to love one’s opinion all the more when one must abandon it, just as one feels love for a person all the more when one loses them. The moment you recognize the origin of your opinion and learn to let it go, that is when you truly love it. That is what our mind experiences.

[ 20 ] When one finally comes to tell oneself that the many points of view are all valid, one feels for a while as if one were floating in the air between the various points of view, standing without a foundation, with one’s spiritual existence in the world. This cultivates self-knowledge when viewed as a wisdom of life, without crossing the threshold. But a direct path leads from this self-knowledge—when it is energetically pursued—truly into the world that was brought to our attention yesterday. For the person for whom what has been described is not merely a play on concepts—the one who experiences it inwardly, with inner pain; the one who experiences it with all their energy; the one who feels warmth for what happens in the world; the one who cannot remain cold toward the world—such a person will experience, precisely in this self-reflection, one of the meditations referred to yesterday. For such self-observation is an important form of meditation. When it is practiced frequently, something emerges before us that is similar in nature to the imagination demonstrated yesterday, but an imagination that relates to ourselves. And what then emerges as a consequence of self-observation in ordinary life—when one takes this self-observation to that extent—what then emerges is: One sees oneself as one truly is in one’s own being. Previously, one knew only one’s own opinion; now one sees how far one has brought every part of the soul that lies beneath conscious life—the part that passes from life to life—in this present life.

[ 21 ] This then emerges from the spiritual world itself. There one comes to realize what one actually is as a human being; this is something one has never realized in ordinary life. We rarely concern ourselves with ourselves, but when we descend into our inner being, we step forward spiritually before ourselves. This self-knowledge is what we have called “the encounter with the Keeper of the Threshold.” For that which rests in the part of the soul that passes from life to life does not reveal itself in ordinary life, and as long as it does not reveal itself, we cannot enter the spiritual world. In ordinary life, our own nature veils the spiritual world from us; the moment we wish to enter the spiritual world, we must have this encounter with the Keeper of the Threshold, and we must objectively confront our own being, which we now face in a reborn existence.

[ 22 ] This brings us to the point where we can glimpse the depths of our own being—which life has spared us from seeing—and one might say: It is a blessing that this guardian of the threshold remains hidden from ordinary life, for you can easily imagine that human beings are not always strong enough to give up that which they must love most; Fear and dread of oneself, so to speak, would overwhelm a person who is not prepared and mature enough for true self-observation to such an extent that it would throw their inner spiritual life into turmoil. Therefore, all genuine training leading to the path into the spiritual world proceeds in such a way that the student is brought to maturity before encountering the “Keeper of the Threshold.” To speak what has just been said can never instill fear. Only when one has one’s own being before one does one feel that it is precisely what would prevent one—if one did not have it beside oneself and look upon it—from ever truly entering the spiritual world. We truly see the spiritual world only when we have cast this Keeper of the Threshold out of ourselves, when we regard him as another being—that is, when we have been reborn; only then can we judge how what we have been up to now is the source of all errors.

[ 23 ] Then the great, overwhelming fact presents itself to us, which can be formulated as the question: Where do the errors of spiritual research come from? They stem from what we personally are; that is a mixture of truth and error. We can separate these only when we are able to view ourselves objectively. Only when we find ourselves within the world we are observing do we find the way to combat the forces of error. But there is still a difficulty here, for the feeling of facing nothingness intensifies even further when one enters the spiritual world. As long as one is connected in any way to the outer world, that outer world will always be the reason why one still loves one’s own individuality too strongly. But then, when one sees it before oneself—when this sense of self has become something like an object in the external world—a grave temptation approaches us: we are seized by an infinite love for our own self—and never is the spiritual researcher in greater danger of falling into error than at this moment. Therefore, it takes all one’s courage to tear all self-love from the heart from this moment on; one must tear it from the heart if one wishes to combat errors.

[ 24 ] Thus we can say that, fundamentally, moral courage is the decisive factor at a certain stage of spiritual insight, when we rise above errors; and then we see how it becomes possible to combat these errors when we feel we have placed the source of the errors—our personal self—before us. If we can do this, then we will also be able to turn our healthy gaze back toward ordinary life; then we will find that both those demonic forces and those Ahrimanic forces that inspire materialism, as well as the fanatical forces—that all these spiritual forces and spiritual beings are manifestations of the spiritual world. Only then do we face the full reality. Only then do we gain a sound judgment regarding those who fall into errors in spiritual science—those who, in the historical course of human development, do not wish to believe in truly spiritual powers, but speak of ideas that guide the course of history.

[ 25 ] In the nineteenth century, historians emerged who spoke of “ideas” in history. Anyone who understands the facts in this area knows that while ideas do indeed live within human beings, they cannot act on their own. These ideas can have no effect in history any more than a painted painter can paint a picture. And when a view emerges in our age that seeks to dispel a power such as the Christ being—a view that claims one can dispense with a historical, personal Christ and believe instead that the idea of Christ once appeared—this very view is based on the assumption that ideas can have an effect, that ideas are not merely the expression of real entities. But only then does real life become understandable—when one once again acknowledges the spiritual powers that lie behind it.

[ 26 ] If one embraces such a worldview, one does not need to be a spiritual researcher oneself to see whether its teachings are true. A person must undergo the process of self-knowledge to secure and elevate their life. It is certainly true that when the spiritual researcher shapes and forms what they have investigated into human ideas, then anyone who is open-minded enough can understand these images. And that is why it must be emphatically stated that the listener’s proper approach to the spiritual researcher is not to submit credulously to the spiritual researcher’s authority; rather, the listener’s proper relationship to the spiritual researcher is one that arises from the listener’s free judgment. The spiritual researcher himself can only arrive at a correct judgment of what he observes if he applies his common sense and sound thinking, and if this thinking is morally and intellectually sound. This brings us, however, to the point where we can speak not only of the errors themselves but also of the errors that arise in the dissemination of spiritual research, and these are very important. It is not possible to point out individual errors and how to avoid them; rather, it can only be said that whoever advances more and more conscientiously toward true spiritual research will avoid the errors that lurk everywhere. We will combat error when we come to know ourselves. Errors also arise when there is not the proper relationship between those who profess to believe in it and the spiritual researcher himself. After all, we have all manner of viewpoints on this today. A large number of our contemporaries reject everything that comes from spiritual research. The spiritual researcher can understand such viewpoints. That is why he encounters so much opposition: because spiritual research is something new in our culture, and our thinking has not yet adjusted to it. That is one way spiritual research is met today. A number of these people, however, come around once they recognize the errors of materialism and gradually draw closer to the findings of spiritual research. The situation is different with the professed adherents. Just as much as the spiritual researcher experiences criticism [gap in the transcript], they also encounter false adherence on the other side—people who acknowledge authority but fail to see that everything can be examined. The spiritual researcher does not shy away from a thorough examination, only from that which arises from a half-hearted scientific approach rather than precision. The correct approach is to take what the spiritual researcher offers, allow oneself to be inspired, and then examine it through reason, by means of which it can be tested. — But alongside those who reject it, there are many who find it more convenient simply to believe rather than to examine. And it is from these people that the kind of blind adherence arises which, above all, leads to error upon error in the dissemination of spiritual research. Because they do not examine but simply accept what the spiritual researcher provides, the spiritual researcher is regarded by such a devout adherent as something like a higher animal. Because he looks into the spiritual world, he is regarded as a higher being.

[ 27 ] One is correct in not viewing [such] a spiritual researcher as a special being. The value of a spiritual researcher does not depend on their ability to glimpse into the spiritual world, but on their moral and intellectual qualities. This is, so to speak, a field of purely human inquiry, because its findings are connected to all of humanity’s hopes and longings; and just as one is not held in higher esteem for practicing mathematics or geometry, so one should not be held in higher esteem for being a spiritual researcher. When one looks into the spiritual world, one need not yet have a judgment about what one has seen; one can look in and see many things and recount the greatest nonsense and the greatest errors from that world. Only when one regards the spiritual researcher, so to speak, as nothing other than an instrument through which spiritual truths flow into the world—and then examines them for oneself—only then does one have the proper, committed relationship to the spiritual world. How else could charlatans so easily stand alongside genuine spiritual researchers? But those who are unwilling to examine cannot distinguish between what has been gained conscientiously and what has been gained by false means—indeed, by fraudulent means.

[ 28 ] The spiritual researcher can protect himself from his followers only by not allowing himself to be lured into becoming overconfident because of the faith others place in him. There are people who, when they see that they are regarded as something special, will reveal all sorts of things that have been obtained through false means. That is why charlatanism and humbug are often [indistinguishable]. And far less harmful to the spread of spiritual research are the critical opponents—as long as they are not driven by their own longing—than the blindly faithful followers. In no field is blind faith in authority worse or more harmful than in the field of spiritual research, and in no field is this faith so deeply entrenched. A healthy dissemination of spiritual research and spiritual science in our time—one that seeks to avoid errors in what it disseminates—must, above all, be committed to eliminating blind faith in authority from all dissemination of spiritual science.

[ 29 ] However, in many respects we are still far from this ideal due to the complacency of the many, because they no longer examine whether what the spiritual researcher says is actually justified. If they like what is presented to them, they accept it out of blind faith in authority. It is always possible to apply common sense to what is presented in spiritual science, and if one sees that the spiritual researcher strives to present the results of his research in such strictly [gap in the transcript]—if he does not tend toward fanaticism on the one hand or frivolity on the other—but when one sees how he treats all matters of spiritual science in the same logical manner as external matters, only then is he a true spiritual scientist. Then, when he sees more and more souls of the present and the future turning toward spiritual research in this way, then the objection cannot be raised that, for example, [everyone must be a spiritual researcher. Just as not everyone needs to become a botanist to understand botanical research, so too does not everyone need to become a spiritual researcher—although every human being can become one.

[ 30 ] The ideas of spiritual science must spread more and more, because we live in a time when souls yearn for what only spiritual science can provide. Its truths are what souls already long for today and will long for more and more. Anyone who can grasp the spirit of the times knows that certain needs of the soul can be satisfied only when spiritual science finds its way into hearts and souls. But since time itself will ensure that there will be enough spiritual researchers, and since one needs only logical understanding and a sense of truth [to comprehend the findings of spiritual research], then through these spiritual researchers, one will find the path that opens up a perspective—for every human being—into the spiritual worlds, that spiritual world from which a person can draw security, joy, and hope for the life in which they live, and for the life that unfolds when the gate of death closes. That sense of security, which can develop precisely as wisdom grows in old age—when our body withers away—in order to prepare to pass through a spiritual existence, to return to this earth, and to continue one’s work—that sense of security and certainty these souls, these personalities, will find in the spiritual world.

[ 31 ] This perspective will open up for more and more souls of the present and the future: the opportunity to glimpse into this spiritual world. And a time will come when truly every single person—not just the spiritual researcher—will find themselves in a position where they will take a very simple stance against any denial of the spiritual world. These people will grow so great as the force of spiritual research’s arguments [in favor of it] continues to increase. Such souls, now firmly grounded, will behave toward the deniers of the spiritual world much as Goethe once did when that philosophy—which emerged from Greek culture and could not come to terms with the laws of motion—presented itself to his soul. It was said that there was no such thing as motion—that it was only an illusion; that when a body moved, it was actually at rest at every moment; but since motion was not composed of moments of rest, consequently there was no motion at all. Such a philosophical school actually existed! When Goethe heard of this philosophy, he said in particular: “/p”

You may spot something hostile,
Stay calm, remain silent;
And if they deny you the freedom to move,
Go right under their noses.

[ 32 ] That is how the movement becomes evident to the eye when one walks right in front of them.

[ 33 ] If one could delve a little deeper into the certainty of the souls who are bound to come—those who will gradually come to feel the force of the evidence provided by spiritual science— such souls will then confront the deniers of the spirit just as surely as Goethe confronted the deniers of motion—such souls will then perhaps say to those who despise and regard the science of the spirit as folly; these confident souls will then perhaps say:

Hostile events may occur,
but you, remain calm, remain cheerful,
and if they deny your spirit,
oh, do not dwell on it.
Yes, in the end, even agree with them,
for their spirit is indeed in a sorry state.

Question and Answer

Question: Is the soul of the deceased aware of the life that has just come to an end?

[ 34 ] Rudolf Steiner: In *The Secret Science*, an attempt has been made to characterize the nature of consciousness. Anyone who wishes to learn more must allow the description provided there to sink in. [One can answer the question] with [an] unequivocal “yes,” but this “yes” [must] first [be] explained, and that [is] only [possible] through a detailed exposition.

Question: Why are new incarnations always necessary—in other words, why is there never any peace?

[ 35 ] Rudolf Steiner: The question is based on the assumption that the questioner perhaps regards “calm,” as it is meant here, as something desirable. What could be meant by the concept of “peace” here? Peace in the sense of the stillness of death, or some other kind of state? It is impossible to determine exactly what is meant by “peace” in this context. Of course, not all the mysteries of the universe can be solved in a single lecture, and many things must remain undiscussed. Incarnations, of course, do not continue uninterrupted from eternity to eternity; they once began from a purely spiritual existence, and at the end of the Earth we will be in a different spiritual state, no longer returning to earthly existence. But in the meantime, we must go through incarnations. Repeated earthly lives are necessary precisely because only through them can human beings draw nearer to the all-encompassing formation and development of what lies within them [and] approach their goal in an ascending and descending wave-like pattern. This is precisely the course of Earth’s development; the Earth never remains the same after a certain number of centuries; just consider how much has changed—not only in culture—since the founding of Christianity! One experiences great intervals, not short ones, between two successive Earth lives. The soul is therefore able to experience something new each time.

Question: In which incarnation will we be resurrected on Judgment Day—the first or the last?

[ 36 ] Rudolf Steiner: Incarnation is not a fixed concept; one must clarify how the word “incarnation” is meant here—just as one must clarify how “resurrection” is meant. One must first understand the Pauline doctrine of the spiritual body. This has absolutely nothing to do with the physical body. Only then can an answer to this question be given.

Question: What dreams at night—the soul or the brain?

[ 37 ] Rudolf Steiner: That is easy to answer based on what was said yesterday. During sleep, the soul is in the astral world, and a person experiences their dreams inwardly; of course, it is not the brain that dreams, but the soul.

Question: What comfort can a person find in the doctrine of reincarnation if they do not possess clairvoyant abilities, since only those who study spiritual science can see their past incarnations, and others would be bound to despair because they cannot convince themselves?

[ 38 ] Rudolf Steiner: As was said in the lecture: It is not a matter of conducting research in the spiritual worlds oneself, but rather, once these things have been expressed in concepts, anyone can understand them, and the spiritual researcher himself gains no more from them than what he derives from his clairvoyance by expressing them in concepts. The doctrine of reincarnation is something that gives life security and meaning. So this question has already been answered in the lecture. One should also read the booklet “Reincarnation and Karma.” Then one will find what can give the soul security and comfort, and that provision has been made so that even those who are not spiritual researchers have every opportunity to understand this. Question: I have already taken two introductory courses, but I still do not understand how it is possible that some people fare poorly while others fare well; often, more highly developed people fare poorly, while the wealthy libertine faces no punishment but instead continues to lead a life full of joy.

[ 39 ] Rudolf Steiner: The latter does not follow from the doctrine of reincarnation, for it is not the case that life always ascends, but rather that it rises and falls, just as the causes dictate. The idea that a wealthy libertine would find an even more joyful life—such a question stems from a complete misunderstanding of the overall course of human life. When someone observes another person or themselves and finds another person noble, or finds themselves quite noble, or is afflicted by suffering and misfortune, the judgment one makes at that particular moment is by no means always decisive.

[ 40 ] Let me draw a comparison: Imagine a young person who lived off his father’s money until the age of eighteen—let’s assume it wasn’t a bad life. [When] he turns 18, his father loses his fortune. He wasn’t exactly in a bad [financial] situation before, but he finds himself in this dire predicament; now he must first learn a proper trade, whereas he hadn’t learned anything useful earlier. At this stage of his life, he will view this stroke of fate as something quite difficult—and certainly undeserved. When he is 50 years old, he may look back and say to himself: If that hadn’t happened back then, I’d be a good-for-nothing now and wouldn’t know a thing about the world. At 50, he will judge [it] quite differently than he did at 18.

[ 41 ] For the most part, we ourselves are not the best judges of our own clumsiness. Later, however, we will judge more objectively—especially from the spiritual world during the life between death and birth, or in subsequent earthly lives, when we are already able to look back; for everyone will then attain this; humanity is evolving; everyone will be able to look back—something only the spiritual researcher can do now. Then one will say: What at first seemed inexplicable was precisely what compelled me to resist strongly, what unleashed forces that became the most important factors for further development and ascension. In ordinary life, people will already see this; they experience many things. Many an aspiring spiritual researcher, who views life more intimately and deeply, will be able to speak of this. Then one will look back on what brought joy, pleasure, and many other things, as well as on the struggles, evils, and pain that he [the human being] has endured. He looks back on all sorts of things. He will say to himself: I am grateful to fate for the many joyful experiences I have had. But would you rather give up your joys or your sufferings? Then one may have come to the realization: I would rather give up my joy and bliss; for it is to my pain and suffering that I owe my insight. One must first know what becomes of the causes.

[ 42 ] In short, one should not take the assessment of such a question too lightly. The humanities offer a deeply satisfying answer to all such questions.

Question: Would the same result occur if, for example, the astral body were perceived in the same way by several parapsychologists?

[ 43 ] Rudolf Steiner: This question cannot be meaningfully answered with a simple “yes,” because what the spiritual researcher perceives, in a sense, imaginatively as a vision, is based on complete objectivity only to a certain degree; and in higher worlds, the principle that applies in the sensory world—that things can be viewed from different perspectives—holds true to an even greater extent. If two people were to write travel accounts of the same region, there would still be a great difference between them. But that is no reason to doubt at all that these regions exist. And when we look into the ever-changing, fleeting astral body, it is understandable that the external image appears different, even though the reality is exactly the same. Therefore, one can certainly answer this question in the affirmative, even if the external images differ—but they do not differ any more than when two people form an image of a physical, sensory object; the seeing and the representation are, in a certain sense, different. Everything depends on the objectivity of the observer; it is always assumed that true spiritual researchers describe things.

Question: Shouldn't the process of setting aside one's point of view be taken so far that even what is inherent to the human species is eliminated? [...]

[ 44 ] Rudolf Steiner: The first question concerns the generic. What exactly is this “generic”? People often imagine “genus” to be something entirely abstract. But the term “genus” can, in the proper sense, only be applied to the kingdoms of nature that are below the human realm. Within the animal kingdom, the concept of “genus” is fully justified, because—from a one-sided perspective—it cannot be a mere concept. For if people who tend to over-speculate believe that there are only individual dogs—that is, not the concept of “dog nature” or “wolf nature”— ... then it must be replied that if one acknowledges only the sensible, individual being—for example, the sensible individual being “wolf”—and not what reigns within it on a supersensible level, that is, if one recognizes only the material aspect, then the refutation is easily provided. If the material aspect of a wolf consumes no other food than lambs, it becomes clear that the wolf does not thereby become a lamb, even if it eats only the substance of lambs. But in the animal kingdom, we are interested in what lives within the species, just as with humans we are interested in the individual, the ideal. That is why only humans have a biography.

[ 45 ] Some people may find this strange, because one can also have a biography of animals. Nor should it be denied that a mother dog can provide a biography of her puppies, or a mother cat a biography of her kittens. But that is not the point. A teacher might also assign children the task of writing a biography of their writing pens. Yet what constitutes the biographical aspect of an individual is found only in human beings. The concept of “species,” therefore, only makes sense in relation to humans if one lives within the realm of abstract philosophy. In contrast, the ideal in human beings is by no means limited to the species. What is inherent in humans through national or tribal characteristics belongs to a different realm than in animals. This generical aspect is even shed in the face of the ideal; in the true sense of the word, one cannot even speak of it. At the beginning of Earth’s development, humans were certainly generic beings, but even then the idea was already present—that individuals would all become ideal—so that the generic aspect plays a secondary role in humans.

Question: Without a doubt, the one who is to face the Keeper of the Threshold must overcome great dangers of which he is previously unaware; how can he protect himself, or is there no protection?

[ 46 ] Rudolf Steiner: The path is walked in a concrete way when one follows what is set forth in “How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?” Through this, the qualities necessary to face the encounter in the right way are also instilled in one’s soul. Although great difficulties still remain, one has already acquired greater strength.

Question: What can be said about Muhammad and his mission; why did he have to come 600 years after Christ?

[ 47 ] Rudolf Steiner: It is not possible to give a brief answer to this question; it would lead to the gravest misunderstandings. The answer would have to be given from the very foundations. Six hundred years after the Christ impulse, Muhammad provided substance to a human community that was predisposed, on the one hand, toward a spirit that sometimes soared into the realm of the fantastic, and on the other hand, toward the refined elaboration of the intellect. In relation to the Christ impulse, he was something of a setback, an atavism. This shows how development occurs in general: in advances and setbacks; the nature of this Mohammedanism must be understood from the overall nature of development: the Christ impulse, the greatest religious impulse, must gradually become established in earthly development, while the Mohammedan impulse had to oppose it beforehand.

Question: Are theosophists in favor of cremation? Rudolf Steiner: Theosophists do not take sides with this or that party; rather, these matters are a matter of knowledge. One states what is true and right, and from there, each person can form their own view based on the impulses of will they wish to incorporate into their life.

[ 48 ] Such questions cannot be answered in an absolute sense. The various stages of human development are different, and what is best is not the same for all times; rather, people change, and with that, the prominence or diminished prominence of human institutions. On the whole, for the time that has passed—and even for a large number of people looking into the future—cremation is not an important [or correct?] matter, although the advocates of cremation are, in a sense, pioneers of the future. But people must mature; everything has only relative validity, and so does the question of whether to bury or cremate in one era or another. From a spiritual perspective, some things appear differently than they do from an external viewpoint.

Question: How do you reconcile the view that all people have already lived on Earth with the fact that the Earth used to be less and less populated?

[ 49 ] Rudolf Steiner: This is merely a mathematical example, and you will see that what has been said is simply a bold assertion. The question comes up after almost every lecture. The intervals between two lives are not the same for everyone. Sometimes many more people are incarnated in one era than in another that preceded it by a short time. Let us assume that 100 souls were incarnated in the seventeenth century and 100 in the sixteenth century as well, and that the intervals between their incarnations differ; then, in the nineteenth century, the 100 from both groups may have been reincarnated, so there would then be 200. Because the intervals vary due to the souls’ collective karma, an increase occurs during certain periods. The conscientious person cannot speak of anything else. The interval since the last incarnation is, on average, longer than the time that separates us, for example, from the discovery of America. But if it is claimed that the number of people is increasing, then one must first ask: How can this be proven by external evidence? For example: Who has studied the population growth in China? What, then, is the population of the entire Earth? Or what worlds have perished? Or what existed before the discovery of America—and long before America was discovered? Thus, even in the physical world, this claim cannot be made through conscientious research.

Question: What does the speaker say about Adventism—the belief that world history is explained through the books of Daniel and the Revelation of John, and that the time is now coming when Christ will return as He has promised and the world will be transformed socially and politically?

[ 50 ] Rudolf Steiner: It is a well-known phenomenon that sects adopt what is today characterized as the “point of view of all points of view” and are utterly enamored with their own point of view, to a far greater degree than is the case with other people. And to give someone who belongs to a sect an explanation for this or that symbol, or to dissuade them, or to make something understandable, is usually a complete impossibility in this incarnation. But whoever fully understands the Aristotelian maxim: “Only he can arrive at the truth who no longer attaches importance to his own opinion”—that person has the correct standpoint. Anyone familiar with spiritual science knows that, when examined more deeply, these things must by no means be taken so literally or in the manner often assumed from such a standpoint. Nevertheless, nothing is to be said against the piety and the warm, intimate nature of the souls who are caught up in such a standpoint, and one can have the highest regard for them. But in such sects, one does not go beyond viewpoints that constrain the truth. Anyone who looks back at the development of humanity will find that there have always been sects that have said the same thing. They have said: “In 50 years, the Second Coming of Christ will take place.” He did not come, but that did not refute the teachings; and even when refutation occurred through the facts, it did not undermine the viewpoint. Nor was that a means of refuting such a “viewpoint of viewpoints” in any way.

Question: Is spiritual science in any way at odds with positive Christianity?

[ 51 ] Rudolf Steiner: The questioner usually understands “positive Christianity” to mean precisely what he himself understands by “Christianity.” I [cannot] go into this further; [I] would have to speak at length about the Christ impulse, [the] Christ presence.

Question: How should the doctrine of reincarnation be understood from an empirical or philosophical perspective?

[ 52 ] Rudolf Steiner: I must refer you to the literature—*The Occult Science* and so on—because a single lecture would not suffice to answer this question; for even if I were able to give a few more lectures tonight, perhaps some of the listeners would not be able to attend; I do not wish to boast!

Question: Is there a third faculty of cognition?

[ 53 ] Rudolf Steiner: The [three are] imagination, inspiration, and intuition; I am a little surprised that questions are being asked in such a way as to suggest that the speaker has not even listened to the lecture; after all, the lecture is a detailed answer to precisely this question.

Question: Is there a real and practical difference between the soul and the spirit?

[ 54 ] Rudolf Steiner: Well, it follows from theosophy that one should not lump them together. This conflation occurred relatively late in history; a council decreed that the soul and the spirit are [not] two distinct things, and conflated them; since then, they have no longer been distinguished, not even in science—even though science is not aware that it is thereby following a church dogma. There is a real difference in their relationship to the body. The spirit relates to the body differently than the soul does, and vice versa.

Question: Must not someone who matures within the theosophical perspective—who first gets to the bottom of this perspective—become free from it?

[ 55 ] Rudolf Steiner: It is as if someone who has just eaten were to have to eat again right away, because outwardly nothing has changed in that person—at least not in many cases—since they have, after all, just eaten. One attains self-knowledge when one stands outside of one’s personal self; that is, through self-knowledge one achieves liberation. If one then wants to become even more free, even though one has already become free, this is even less justified than in the case of the meal. But then one has already accomplished that liberation; there is no need to become free a second time from that [after which?] one has just become free. This perspective cannot be equated with mere materialism or individualism, for spiritual research makes use of all the various perspectives—not to adopt them, but to characterize them. And the truth does not lie in the middle; rather, through the reasons that can be cited for them, these perspectives [appear] in such a way that they illuminate the true reality from various angles. Only those who remain stuck in abstractions can apply what is applicable to one thing to another as well. But just as in real life one does not merely possess general human qualities in and of themselves, but is first a child, then an adult, then an elderly person—and cannot ask whether one must shed the stage of childhood once again—so the question of self-knowledge arises once and for all, not repeatedly. Insight is then found within the world, and from that point on, self-knowledge begins for the individual; this is the culmination of self-knowledge—the self-knowledge that is acquired selflessly by the individual and thereby possesses a selfless character.