The Rudolf Steiner Archive

2. Anthroposophy as a Source of Knowledge and Life

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! When, in the fall of last year, the Goetheanum in Dornach—even before its actual completion—held fall courses on the various sciences and on different aspects of human life, the aim was not to highlight spiritual science as such in these courses, but rather to allow the individual sciences themselves to speak in such a way that what they themselves can experience as enrichment through spiritual science would come to light. For this reason, great importance was attached to ensuring that experts from the various scientific fields had the opportunity to speak and express their views at this event, as well as figures from practical life—from the commercial, industrial, and other such spheres—that is, from thoroughly practical life. The idea behind this was that those people who, on the one hand, are deeply immersed in science itself, or those who have come to know the hardships and challenges of life and who, at the same time, have truly delved into what is to be revealed as spiritual science at the Goetheanum in Dornach—that they might share their experiences with the integration of spiritual science into their respective fields. But this has also served to highlight where the true origin of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science represented by the Goetheanum is to be found. What is to be presented here is not something that even remotely intends, for example, to found some new religion. Nor is it a matter of seeking to launch some kind of sectarian movement; rather, the starting point of spiritual science is drawn entirely from the scientific life of modern times and, in particular, the present.

[ 2 ] I would like to use a comparison to illustrate how what is to be represented as anthroposophy from Dornach is connected, in particular, to scientific life in modern times and the present. When I make such a comparison, it is solely for the purpose of clarification. Please do not think—though I hardly need to mention this—that this comparison is intended in any way to pit spiritual science itself against the world-historical event I am referring to. That could be left to some cheap jokes and the like. But I would like to draw your attention—merely to illustrate a point—to the views held by the discoverers of America, those who found the courage to sail across the ocean that no one had yet crossed at that time. They believed, after all, that they were arriving in India—reaching India, so to speak, from the other side—hence the name “West Indies” and so on. So what did they predict? They predicted that, through this daring voyage across the world ocean, they would reach something familiar.

[ 3 ] So, I would also like to say that within modern science, as it has developed over the last three to four centuries, one can try to go further and further. You are surely aware that serious, conscientious researchers strive for this ever-greater advancement of science, and that it is precisely the most conscientious researchers—and this should be acknowledged—who then speak of reaching insurmountable limits of human knowledge. But on the other hand, when one reaches these limits, all sorts of assumptions are made about an atomic world, a molecular world, and so on and so forth. It is assumed that when one works methodically in the laboratory, when one conducts research in the clinic, or when one seeks to fathom the mysteries of the universe at an astronomical observatory, one must somehow, by navigating the sea of the scientific method, arrive at something that is either an insurmountable limit or that is, in a certain way, similar to what is already known. Just as Columbus, in a sense, predicted that he would have to find something already known, so too in science it is assumed that one must find something familiar. After all, molecules and atoms are ultimately nothing other than—I would say—a way of making sense of what one sees even with the naked eye by delving into the smallest details.

[ 4 ] But this experience of the scientist seems entirely understandable to anyone who is immersed in scientific life—understandable because, as one continues to work further and further using modern methods, one does not, as one might expect, arrive at a solution to important mysteries of life and humanity. If one believes that, one is succumbing to an illusion. On the contrary, those who approach science with a completely open mind—or, I would say, conduct research methodically—especially those who do not limit themselves to, say, the natural sciences, but who perhaps wish to apply the scientific method of inquiry to history and the so-called humanities, will find that solutions do not simply emerge, but rather that the number of mysteries grows ever larger. One actually begins to realize just how enigmatic the world around us is only when one comes to know it through the methods of modern science. But there is one thing one must acknowledge when, so to speak, reflecting on oneself within the context of research: What is it, then—let’s say—regardless of whether we are conducting research in the laboratory, at the astronomical observatory, or in the clinic—what is it that we are actually applying there? Well, ladies and gentlemen, no matter how much some people—I would say, due to a radical materialism—may delude themselves about this, it is nevertheless not even a very profound truth, but rather a trivial one: that if one wishes to conduct scientific research, one must use the mind; that in some way, the mind must be at work within the human being.

[ 5 ] And now it is a matter of attaching some real, scientific meaning to these words—that the spirit must be at work within a person when he investigates the external world through the senses and science. This can only be done by investigating what this spirit actually is. It cannot be found in the external world. One must, in fact, apply it precisely to the understanding of the external world; one must draw the spirit forth from within oneself. Whenever we wish to express what science actually is, we are constantly speaking of the spirit. But we must also be able to arrive at an answer through some special mode of cognition: What, in fact, is this spirit? And as one now attempts to make the journey—I might say—across the sea of modern scientific thought, one ultimately discovers that one does not arrive at anything familiar, but rather that it is precisely [through] that which previously lay in one’s consciousness when one utters the word “spirit,” or by saying: “The spirit investigates,” [one does not] arrive at something familiar, but rather at that unknown, and in fact experiences something similar to what Columbus experienced when he discovered America between Europe and India.

[ 6 ] On the journey toward the mysteries of the world, one actually experiences what the spirit is. But natural science has, in a certain sense, lost sight of it. And this is evident—I would say quite bitterly—in life: that natural science has lost sight of it. This modern natural science recognizes the spirit only in thoughts, in ideas, in abstractions. And millions upon millions of people have adopted this view and call everything that springs forth through the spirit within life—morality, religion, science, law, and so on—an ideology, that is, something that, as it were, rises only as smoke from what is either sensory truth or what are various material production processes or the like. But this is precisely what one discovers—not through any kind of belief, but through genuine scientific observation within anthroposophical spiritual science—namely, that the spirit is a reality, that the spirit is as alive as that which one perceives in all its liveliness through the external senses.

[ 7 ] Well, ladies and gentlemen, in order to arrive at this perspective, one needs a certain starting point. And I would like to call this starting point “intellectual humility.” First and foremost, a moral quality—albeit an intimate moral quality—is necessary if one is to find the correct starting point for the spiritual science referred to here.

[ 8 ] To characterize this starting point with intellectual humility, I would like to offer the following comparison. Suppose a five-year-old child were handed a volume of Goethe’s poetry. What would the child do with that volume of Goethe’s poetry? It might tear it up or play with it in some way, but in any case, it would not do with it what the volume of Goethe’s poetry is actually meant for—namely, what one can do when one is in a different state of mind than the one the child will be in when it is ten or fifteen years older. Then it will do something different with the volume of Goethe’s poetry than it did at age five. What is the reason for this? The reason is none other than that the child has since developed emotionally—emotionally developed from within. The child is now capable—because it has developed qualities that it simply did not yet possess at age five—of discovering something that was already present in the volume of poetry even before, when the child was five years old. Externally, it appeared exactly the same to the child’s eyes as it might when the child is twenty years old. Simply because something has taken place within the child—because something has been drawn out from within the child—purely because of this, the child now approaches everything it does with the volume of Goethe’s poetry in a completely different way.

[ 9 ] Today, especially in academia but also in other areas of life, the prevailing view is that one should cultivate those qualities in a person that are—let’s say—inherited or that can be acquired through ordinary education; and then, as a rule, one is prepared for life today as well as for academic life. This is precisely the perspective from which one proceeds, especially in the scientific world. Based on one’s ordinary inherited traits and upbringing, one considers oneself, in a certain sense, complete at some point in life and views the world, so to speak, from this “complete” perspective. One combines what the intellect and the sensory facts provide, and does not proceed further inwardly; rather, one merely fills in, I might say, the gaps in what one is currently seeking to investigate. One expands one’s horizons; one expands them, too, by perhaps equipping the eye with a telescope or microscope or [spectroscope] or X-ray machine, in one way or another. But in this way one gains nothing other than—I would say—viewing, albeit indirectly through the spectroscope, the X-ray machine, or the telescope, the very same thing that one otherwise perceives with one’s physical eyes and the other senses. But what one must have for spiritual science is intellectual humility. That is to say, one must simply tell oneself at some point in one’s life: A person can develop abilities from the age of five to the age of twenty. In a sense, one draws out from within oneself what is innately present. And it is only because one has drawn something out from within that the world now appears different to them. If one merely describes the external, sensory world: that is no longer there, but there is now more for them because they have drawn abilities and qualities from the deepest recesses of their soul. So one says to oneself: There could be other abilities lying within this soul—abilities that do not emerge through the natural development of ordinary inherited traits or through ordinary education, but that perhaps emerge only by taking one’s inner soul life—albeit with the appropriate humility, since it is, after all, merely a sensualization— deep within oneself, and by guiding it beyond the perspective that one might otherwise be granted in life and in conventional science.

[ 10 ] This is precisely what must naturally spring from the intellectual modesty just described—from the view that there may still be something within the soul that has not yet been developed, but that can still be developed. It is from this point that what is known as anthroposophically oriented spiritual science originates. From this point, it truly seeks to bring forth from the soul that which is latent within it. The methods it employs in this process cannot truly be compared to any external measures. They are methods that are intimately applied to the inner life of the soul itself. But one must not believe that what is achieved through the development of these intimate inner soul capacities is in any way easier than research in a laboratory, a clinic, or an astronomical observatory. Rather, what I now wish to briefly outline to you in principle requires years—years—of inner, serious, and devoted soul work. This devoted soul work is not at all appreciated by some people who know very little about the subject. And that is why they believe that what is said in the field of spiritual science is simply something fantastical, pulled out of thin air. But that is by no means the case.

[ 11 ] What I would now like to briefly touch upon here is described in greater detail in my book *How Does One Gain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?*. Of course, I cannot go into all the details here, but I would like to point out, in principle, that what is at stake in the exploration of the spiritual worlds—as understood in anthroposophy—is by no means something brought about by a miracle or the like, but rather a continuation and further development of ordinary human soul faculties. Please forgive me, therefore, if I explain in a somewhat elementary way how one progresses from the ordinary faculties of the soul to those through which science can look more deeply into the foundations of existence than is possible with the ordinary external senses and the reasoning intellect.

[ 12 ] You are all familiar with two human abilities. When I speak to you about a development, perhaps not so many people will take offense at the first ability, because they will at least concede that what results from such an ability can still be called science, at least to some extent. But when I speak to you about the development of the second ability, then of course—and this is entirely understandable—the objections will multiply. The objections—ladies and gentlemen—are well known. In particular, scientists will initially rebel against such a thing today, but they will only do so as long as one does not envisage the complete transformation of the relevant abilities.

[ 13 ] These two faculties—there are, of course, many others, but these are the two main ones I wish to characterize—these two faculties of the human soul, which must, so to speak, be taken up at the point where they are in ordinary life and developed further from there, just as the soul faculties of a five-year-old child must be developed further. These two faculties are, on the one hand, the human capacity for memory and, on the other hand, what we call love in everyday life and also in social life. The capacity for memory and the capacity for love—we use them in science, at least, as aids. Memory and love play an immense role in everyday and social life. Both capacities, however, can certainly be developed further than they are naturally present in the human soul in everyday life.

[ 14 ] The ability to remember—as you know—is what brings coherence to our lives. To begin with, we possess this ability to remember in such a way that, at a certain later point in our lives, we can conjure up before our minds an event that we may have experienced many years ago. At that time, we were fully immersed in that event with our whole being. At that time, we came into contact, so to speak, with what in the outer world gave rise to a particular experience. At that time, our senses were exposed to that experience. In later stages of life, we summon from within our soul itself—perhaps triggered by an external event, or perhaps by an inner impulse or something similar—an image of what was once an experience. And if we possess healthy soul powers, we know quite precisely—simply inwardly, through what takes shape for our soul life within the context of our life experiences—whether we are deluding ourselves with some fantasy, whether we are merely imagining something, or whether what arises in our soul is merely the image—the imagination, so to speak—of what we have experienced in the external sensory world.

[ 15 ] Those who have examined in some depth what the capacity for memory actually means for the human soul know that our “I” is never truly healthy if something is amiss in this memory—all the way back to the point we can usually recall as being in the first years of life. If there is a period—I would say a segment—of one’s life that one cannot recall, where, so to speak, the thread of life is broken, then something emerges that disturbs one so deeply that the “I”—this very center of the human soul—cannot feel healthy. And you also know how pathological conditions can affect the “I,” and how, precisely through the severing of memory, truly terrible mental illnesses can take hold there. There are people—you have surely heard of them, my esteemed audience—who boarded a train somewhere and rode off to some destination. Then they got off. They don’t find their bearings again until later. They have completely severed the thread of life. And afterward? They cannot remember what they went through. This thread of memory is what holds our “I” together.

[ 16 ] What, then, is actually underlying our recollection of any event? Well, as we go through these experiences, they are, in a sense, right before us in the moment. What we experience in them—we can continually re-experience it inwardly. And what we have then continually re-experienced becomes an image that can come alive within the soul. I don’t need to go into detail today about what actually takes place within a person; you can find that in my writings on spiritual science. The fact of the matter is that we can bring forth images of experiences we have had, and that through this, the experience becomes a lasting one in our soul. You see, we must hold fast to this quality of permanence and—I would say—learn to experiment with it, just as one experiments with external substances in a chemistry laboratory. One must indeed learn to think about these inner matters in the same way one has learned to do so in science—in modern science, whose merits should not be overshadowed by spiritual science. Just as one—let’s say, in order to think in the manner of this modern science—sets out to investigate certain things, one arrives at a different synthesis of what one can only observe in nature. Just as one turns observation of nature into an experiment and thereby arrives at certain things that could not be deduced from observation alone—things that are derived only from this experiment, which is an artificially structured form of observation—so, too, certain human soul faculties cannot be developed unless one, in a sense, engages in inner work on the soul faculties themselves.

[ 17 ] What is characteristic of memories is duration, and that is what one takes in. One forms easily comprehensible mental images—images that cannot be confused, that cannot, therefore, arise from some sort of subconscious; those would be the complicated images. No, one forms easily comprehensible mental images whose individual components one can see quite clearly. One brings these into consciousness, just as a memory would normally be present there. One now dwells on such ideas over a sustained period. But do not think for a moment that it is enough to do this twice. Such exercises must be continued for years—just as one must conduct years of research in serious science. For one must first gradually bring to the surface the abilities lying deep within the soul that can enliven such ideas and sustain them in this way over time.

[ 18 ] And this must also be accompanied by a certain training in—I would say—inner life experiences. For, my esteemed audience, you will surely have heard that there are all sorts of mystical traditions and the like that also strive toward inner vision. What is meant here by anthroposophical spiritual science is by no means such nebulous mysticism. Quite the contrary! Those who work in this way on the inner life of their soul set themselves a very conscious ideal in this work. In this work, they also set themselves the kind of ideal that one can acquire in a science, but only if one truly devotes oneself to that science with complete clarity, independence, and inner freedom.

[ 19 ] This, in fact, is the methodology Goethe employed in his research: although he was not actually a mathematician, he sought to conduct his research in the natural sciences in such a way that he could account for his method to any rigorous mathematician. The humanities scholar proceeds in the same way. In mathematics, one operates within transparent concepts. One does not describe the Pythagorean theorem in nebulous mysticism; one has before one everything that one wishes to bring together in order to ultimately arrive at this Pythagorean theorem. The concepts that one continually forms must stand before the soul in such inner, luminous clarity. I call this resting on such concepts “meditation,” and I ask you to imagine nothing else by this term “meditation” other than, first of all: this resting on easily comprehensible concepts that can contain nothing nebulous. The more one acquires, through a certain inner spiritual experience, the ability to immediately recognize such nebulosity and subconscious elements when they arise, the less nebulosity these concepts will contain.

[ 20 ] Modern science, too, has dealt extensively with this subconscious, which rises from the depths of the soul and then lives within us. We do not fully understand its origin, but it is part of the life of the soul. It is precisely these things that anyone who wishes to become a true scholar of the spiritual sciences must first understand.

[ 21 ] Let me give you an example that you can also find in general literature. A professor of zoology is walking down the street. He passes a bookstore, looks into the window, and sees a book about lower animals. The book’s title is something about lower animals. And look, it happens to the good professor—just imagine: a professor of zoology! It happens to him as he looks at this book title—it’s a very serious book title about earthworms or the like—that he can’t help but start laughing. So, a professor of zoology who has to laugh at what might be a very serious book title! He can’t believe it himself. Then it occurs to him to say to himself: Maybe I’ll close my eyes, so that I might figure out why I have to laugh at this serious book title. He closes his eyes. And lo and behold, by not seeing, he hears better. And he hears, far off in the distance, a melody being played by a barrel organ player. And now it occurs to him: Decades ago, he had danced his first little dance to this very same melody that the barrel organ player is now playing. What he had experienced back then had not come back to his conscious mind since; it had been leading an unknown existence deep in his subconscious. But now, as he looks at a book title—hearing and not hearing at the same time, in a sort of liminal state between hearing and not hearing—that memory comes flooding back to him through this melody. And he can’t help but smile, just as he had smiled back then, when his dance partner stood before him and he danced his first little dance to that very same melody.

[ 22 ] You see, by becoming acquainted with such things—and there are an immense number of them in human life—one comes to realize how many so-called reminiscences can lie deep within the soul, and thus how easily illusions and fantasies can arise when one gives oneself over to any kind of imagination. This is also the case with some mystics. They believe—by constantly emphasizing that they are looking into the innermost depths of the soul and finding all sorts of things there, which they then often describe with lofty words—that they are discovering these things within the soul. But what one has once taken in this way into the soul does not always have to resurface in the same way. It can also be transformed. And for some who recount all sorts of great experiences—experiences they claim to have had themselves—and speak of them, these are merely the transformed notes of the barrel organ melody they heard decades ago. Please forgive this comparison, but you will understand what I mean.

[ 23 ] So whatever may actually be present in the soul—whatever the potential limitations may be—anyone who wishes to be a spiritual researcher must first gain a thorough and clear understanding of these things. He must have these experiences. Only then will he be in a position to perceive correctly. I would now like to characterize this—provided these words are not misunderstood—based on my own use of language.

[ 24 ] This inner experimentation, this resting on clear and distinct ideas—which cannot be reminiscences, for one knows that only what is currently present in consciousness is at work within them—finally brings certain powers to the surface from the depths of the soul; these powers develop through such practice just as muscular strength develops through physical labor. The soul’s powers develop, and one acquires an ability that goes far beyond mere recollection. Mere recollection brings before the soul, in images, experiences we have gone through in this physical life. But what one now cultivates as a soul capacity through the further development of the power of memory truly teaches us that human beings, as they stand in the world, are indeed born out of the totality of nature and the universe. This teaches us that everything that is spread out in the world—and everything that has ever been spread out in this time, in this world that surrounds us and in which we ourselves exist—is connected to human beings in some way through the process of evolution.

[ 25 ] It is certainly never my intention to rehash old ideas, but one can use expressions—even if doing so makes one prone to being misunderstood, especially by those who want to misunderstand—but one can use old expressions to describe something one has in immediate view.

[ 26 ] For example, it is an ancient concept that a human being is a small world—that is, a microcosm. This means that within a human being, everything that exists in the external world in some form is contained according to its own laws. It is quite interesting that recent researchers have repeatedly pointed out that even in our machines—when we consider them in terms of their underlying principles—we are actually looking at nothing other than transformed human sensory organs or other human organs. In almost every machine, one can demonstrate how its basic design corresponds to something found within the human being. What is observed externally can—when truly viewed from within—become fully conscious.

[ 27 ] When this developed power of memory comes into play, one brings forth, as it were, effects from the human soul that are different from those one can draw from this soul through ordinary memory, which conjures up images before our minds of what we have experienced. Through that power of memory I have just spoken of—the further-developed power of memory—what is in fact unknown to the soul itself comes before it: that which precisely represents the human being’s connection with the entire environment, with the wider world, with the macrocosm. And what actually shapes this physical body from within—since it is nothing other than the soul’s instrument—also appears before the soul. We need only look.

[ 28 ] And when we have a sense of what is at work within a person, I would say, is at work in terms of inner plastic power—even after a person is already born—one need only observe the developing child with the necessary devotion, seriousness, and impartiality, seeing how, day by day, week by week, year by year, his movements become increasingly articulated, and how the marvelous happens— it is something marvelous for those who observe it with an open mind—that language develops. When one first observes this work of an unknown force—yet as if guided by a formative, chiseling principle—at work in the child, [one investigates] further. And that which works within a human being from within, which was already at work before he was born or conceived, which shapes his physical existence from the spiritual world—that is what now shoots into our soul just as, in later years, a memory of experiences [we] have gone through does.

[ 29 ] The spiritual researcher, my esteemed audience, cannot, like a spiritualist, present before your physical eyes what he has investigated. He can only hint at how, through the development of the soul—starting from a point of intellectual humility and proceeding through the ever-wider unfolding of faculties such as memory—one comes to perceive that which at first passes through life as a great unknown.

[ 30 ] One simply views things with this inner awareness, with which one otherwise only looks into one’s physical life through the power of memory. Just as mathematical images appear before the soul—though they have no existence—so too, as the soul works from within itself and thereby brings forth not something empty or fantastical, but rather something through which it recognizes reality when the image is present—as the soul works this out from within itself and recognizes reality just as in ordinary memory, where it also knows you are not imagining anything—there is something in this image that is connected to reality—so one knows that through this developed capacity for memory, one also has images in the soul that are connected to realities, which are structured just as inwardly and spiritually as the images, let us say, of geometry appear, but which, as mentioned, lack being, whereas one now immerses oneself in an inner, soul-level experience that, through its very nature, reveals how it relates to being—specifically to spiritual being, from which the human being is born just as from physical being. This is truly not a matter of fantasy, but rather of developing—through the same efforts by which one gradually comes to penetrate the secret relationships of mathematical structures, though these efforts go much further—such inner capacities that, in a sense, [provide] a picture of the world—an internally constructed picture of the world—that yields knowledge of the world.

[ 31 ] This is simply a fact that one arrives at by starting precisely from a position of intellectual humility. And one must simply deny humanity’s capacity for development if one is unwilling to admit, first of all, that such a thing is possible. What happens next depends only on whether one actually tries it. Everyone is free to try things out. The others prove this by placing people under the microscope, and it is said that this is not based on blind faith in authority, because everyone can convince themselves.

[ 32 ] It is no different with spiritual science; it simply has to demand something else. Anyone can verify for themselves what spiritual science asserts. But just as one must actually look through a microscope in the physical sciences, so too in spiritual science one must actually undergo the process that the spiritual researcher shows must be developed if one wishes to look into the spiritual worlds. Then one does not merely acquire a belief in the spiritual worlds; one actually attains true knowledge—a knowledge gained through direct insight—of the spiritual worlds. Then one beholds what might be called the eternal aspect of human nature; for one beholds not only that which is produced in life—what stands before our physical eyes as the human body—but also the creative spiritual-soul aspect: that which shapes this human body, and also that which, at the very moment the physical body is formed, simultaneously brings about its dissolution. For, indeed—my esteemed audience—one sees that as well! From such starting points, one actually penetrates certain mysteries of our brain’s structure in a way quite different from that of external anatomy or physiology.

[ 33 ] Above all, through inner observation, we come to understand how thinking and imagination are connected to the structure of our brain and our nervous system. Materialists believe that the ordinary growth process, which otherwise builds up our body, continues into the brain as well, and that such an organic process of development—which, for example, underlies our growth or our nutrition—also underlies our brain when we think. One can believe this only as long as one fantasizes about these things. This ceases to be the case the moment one examines these things inwardly. Then one knows that the brain must indeed be nourished. But why? Because it is constantly destroying itself. And what we call thinking and imagining is connected to this process of destruction, not to the process of building up. We could not think if the brain were constantly growing, constantly just nourishing itself and building itself up.

[ 34 ] What the process of development is—you can observe it when you observe states of twilight or sleep, where the growth processes become too intense. That which constitutes growth and development processes leads to unconsciousness, not to conscious mental images. Conscious imagination arises precisely during the breakdown of the brain, during the breakdown of the nerves. And what constitutes the building up of the nerves is precisely the reverse process. This, in turn, forms the nerves; it shapes them out of the organic processes. But if thinking is to take place, if the soul in human beings is to develop, then a breakdown must occur. In a sense, the brain must first make room for the soul so that it can unfold. If one understands this process, then through such a true science one can never arrive at the view that the brain thinks. The brain thinks only insofar as it destroys itself as a brain.

[ 35 ] The brain doesn’t think any more than that, so to speak—let me explain with an analogy: When someone walks across a muddy road or a car drives across a muddy road, the footprints or tire tracks become visible—they’re imprinted into the ground. Now someone comes along and says: There are all kinds of shapes in the ground; I must assume that beneath the ground there are forces acting in such a way that shapes—footprints—are formed there. Anyone who looks for these forces inside the ground is, of course, searching in vain. They must assume that there is something entirely different—something that has nothing to do with the ground itself, other than that the ground must be there, at most, because otherwise one would sink into the abyss. The ground must indeed be there, but it is merely the substrate. However, whatever caused those shapes in the ground is something that has nothing to do with the ground itself. Likewise, thinking and imagining have nothing to do with the brain other than that the brain provides the physical foundation upon which the spiritual-soul aspect—which one does indeed observe through spiritual science—develops by forming its impressions. No wonder, then, when the physiologist or anatomist comes along and says: “Yes, everything that takes place in the soul can also be observed in the brain.” — One sees it, but it is the soul that brings it about in the first place; the soul leaves its imprint there. And the soul needs the brain for nothing other than to provide a kind of support, just as I need the ground when I walk across the street. This is expressed through a comparison.

[ 36 ] But what can now truly be perceived through spiritual science—as one sees, I would say, the emergence of the human being from the spirit through the developed faculty of memory—I cannot elaborate on this further at the moment; as I said, the methods are described in *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?* — so one comes to say to oneself: Essentially, one begins to die the moment one is born, for this process of decay is constantly at work. And what occurs at death is nothing other than the body—which can no longer sustain itself—being torn away from the spiritual-soul aspect. This spiritual-soul aspect then seeks out other worlds. One learns to recognize the passage of the spiritual-soul aspect—the eternal aspect of human nature—through the fragile body by observing, I would say from hour to hour, the process of death itself in thought; by, I would say, continually dying on a small scale whenever we think. Thus, everything one encounters in life appears in such a way that one sees it in its true form precisely through spiritual science.

[ 37 ] I must first explain [this] to you—my esteemed audience—in very basic terms, because this is the only way we can communicate. In any science, one must start from the first principles. I would just like to mention, as an aside: I have said that what constitutes a developed memory is a tableau—comparable to a mathematical tableau—that appears before our soul, but that this tableau introduces us to the [spiritual-soul life] from which we are formed.

[ 38 ] Names are not important—my esteemed audience—but what one can perceive there must, of course, have a name. In my books, I have called this the “Akasha Chronicle,” because it does, in fact, have something to do with a chronicle. Just as memory itself has something to do with a chronicle, so does that which leads us out—whereas memory otherwise leads us only into ordinary life, into the life of the world. Therefore, I would say that if one simply refers to the spiritual as “ether” or “Akasha,” one can speak of an “ether chronicle” or an “Akasha Chronicle.” This term is by no means meant to imply anything mystical or the like. Nor is this term meant to be mystical in any way, any more than the entirety of geometry is meant to be mystical. It can certainly be compared to the entirety of geometry, which, however, applies not to time but to space. Therefore, one cannot call geometry a chronicle. But this can certainly be understood in this way. The concepts referred to here must not be taken out of context but must be considered only within their broader context. If one views them in this way, one will find that they actually mean something quite different from what might appear to be the case when taken out of context. Nowhere is there any nebulous mysticism; rather, it is everywhere a matter of emerging from the sources of spiritual existence, which one can trace piece by piece—and indeed trace in such a way that the individual pieces stand before the soul with mathematical clarity.

[ 39 ] The second faculty of the soul—my esteemed audience—that must be cultivated, so that one does not merely have images; for everything I have described to you so far is, in essence, merely images. One knows, as with memories, that they deal with life, but one does not possess that life. One knows full well that one does not live in some fantastical world. One has imaginations—imaginations of reality—but one does not stand within that reality. In order to live within this reality, to now also have this direct experience of the spiritual-real, it is necessary to experience precisely that power which is otherwise bound only to our human constitution—a power that, by confronting us in life, always endows us with a good dose of egoism—that we develop this ability further and further, so that we indeed come to gradually view things in such a way that we can completely forget ourselves in the process, can immerse ourselves entirely in every single thing, and in every single being. It is necessary to cultivate this very ability more and more.

[ 40 ] This training is based on something very simple: human attention—taking an interest and directing my attention toward a particular thing or process. I can become aware of what I am actually doing internally by turning my attention away from other things and toward a new object. I must become aware of how this attention works. And by cultivating this—which, in turn, must be cultivated over many years—I, in a sense, grasp the capacity for attention within myself. I transform this into the power to incline myself toward a thing, to become completely absorbed in a thing or process. In short, what one otherwise experiences within oneself only as an abstract capacity for attention can rise to the level of devoted love.

[ 41 ] By cultivating this love more and more, one comes closer to what I described in my *Philosophy of Freedom* as early as 1893, when I showed that only the person who truly possesses this love can be free—a person who does not act out of desire but out of a loving immersion in the things of the world. He senses that something must happen. He is completely indifferent to what his desire is. Through objectivity, he recognizes that something must happen. This development of the ability to realize that something must happen leads, on the one hand, to true human freedom, and on the other hand, to the power of love.

[ 42 ] And then, once one has developed this ability—my esteemed audience—one can not only receive such images that arise from within and depict something real, but one can also, in turn, remove these images from one’s consciousness at will. Just as in physical matters one must have the ability, when looking at an object, to look away again—otherwise one would not have a healthy inner life—so too must one develop the ability, when one possesses this inner vision, to have these images and then to let them go. One must become completely inwardly master of this having of images. And by being able to alternate between the things that live in the soul and the completely empty state of the soul—by learning this alternation within the soul—one also learns to have an image and then to let the image disappear from the soul. Then one continues to live. The image is gone, but one has the experience within the things themselves. One experiences the spiritual. One experiences it through the strength one has acquired, through the cultivation of love. Just as one relearns the spiritual through the cultivation of the capacity for love, so does one learn to experience the spiritual through the growth—through the ever-increasing growth—of the power of love.

[ 43 ] I know how much stands in the way of the scientist when he is to regard the capacity for love itself as a faculty of cognition. The scientist practically demands that whatever is to be considered objective in science must be attainable only by excluding love. But it is precisely through this that he reaches the limits of knowledge. These limits of knowledge arise because one does not enter into the inner nature of things through soul experience; instead, one stops short and imagines all sorts of things—all sorts of molecules and atoms. If one experiences, through heightened power of love, what meets one on the surface of things, and then experiences what one can perceive in images through heightened capacity for recollection, then one knows where images rise up from the [heightened] depths of existence. For one can compare what one sees in the image with that into which one then immerses oneself through the experience. And one practices, so to speak—if I may use these terms in such a simple way—constantly in being, just as one otherwise inhales and exhales. This is what truly leads one into the spiritual world, what allows one to come to know what actually underlies the human being.

[ 44 ] Well, my esteemed audience, what develops in this way within the human being as specific abilities—the ability to look into the spiritual world—can now be applied in every single scientific discipline. We by no means disparage what takes place in the laboratory, at the observatory, and so on, or in the clinic. But one now learns to view it in such a way that one can consider every detail simultaneously with that which reveals itself as spiritual. And one does not fantasize, as the German natural philosophers, for example, did, but rather one investigates just as objectively as one investigates with one’s eyes, just as one combines facts objectively with one’s external intellect—though, of course, one can still err in doing so. But in inner contemplation, those things simply appear before the eye of the soul that otherwise could not possibly appear to one, just as what is contained in Goethe’s volume of poetry cannot appear to the soul of a five-year-old child. And so, in every individual science, one arrives precisely at what is currently lacking in that particular science. This is by no means something that merely needs to be spoken of in abstract generalities. One can, in fact, shed light in this way on precisely the science that lies closest to human life—medical science, for example. And we are now in the process of establishing institutions in various locations that address the science of therapy from a spiritual-scientific perspective. Our primary concern is, in fact, a deepening of scientific life. This is what is at stake in Dornach as well—not meddling in the sphere of any religion, not engaging in anything sectarian, but pursuing serious science, just as this science can be pursued with deepened powers of insight that are as profound as I have described.

[ 45 ] I myself lived through that era—my esteemed audience—that era of science, specifically at what was then one of the most prominent medical schools, where the leading authorities were simply teeming—Oppolzer, [Rokitansky], and so on. I witnessed firsthand how that peculiar therapeutic movement emerged there, which was called “medical nihilism” at the time. This medical nihilism no longer prevails today to the same degree as it did back then, when I was young—that was a long time ago—but what emerged back then as medical nihilism denied medicine the ability to move from the pathological examination of the clinical picture to the healing process, to therapy. People did not want to find a bridge between pathology and genuine therapy. Nor can one find such a bridge if one proceeds solely on the basis of external natural science. One can explain in very simple terms why this bridge cannot be found.

[ 46 ] Isn’t it true that the healthy human organism undergoes certain processes that we refer to as natural processes? And we can say: Let’s consider the healthy human being in terms of his or her physical constitution. We perceive natural processes. But isn’t the sick person—that is, what takes place during illness—also a natural process? Don’t we have a natural process in both the healthy and the sick person? Do we have two natures? How does one natural process relate to the other? If we speak of causality in one natural process, [we must] speak of causality in the other as well.

[ 47 ] Spiritual science shows us that whatever enters the world spiritually always triggers the opposite natural process. The natural process of human growth is, at first, a constructive one. The process that must occur simply for the spiritual to intervene is a destructive one. As we delve into spiritual science, we come to understand processes that are, of course, of different directions. We learn to look into this remarkable structure of the human organism and come to realize that these two opposing processes do indeed exist. And we then learn to recognize the human being in his or her connection with the rest of nature, and to recognize how the rest of nature works upon the human being. And from all of this emerges a spiritual view of the world, namely that there is a connection between certain healing processes or substances and what takes place within the human being, who is connected to the entire world. One can say: Through spiritual science, one can indeed arrive at a true science of healing. I am citing this merely as an example; I could just as easily cite another science. That is what matters.

[ 48 ] One comes to realize—especially once one has been immersed in this modern scientific world—and truly experienced, level-headed scientists already admit this today—that science today does not offer solutions to mysteries, but rather, on the contrary, piles up more and more of them. The further one looks through the microscope, the more mysteries one discovers on the microscopic level, but one uncovers just as few real mysteries through the telescope. These mysteries can, however, be resolved to a certain extent through calculation.

[ 49 ] But it will be necessary not to assume that one will find something familiar, but rather to open oneself up to finding that which is unknown—just as America was unknown between Europe and India back then—that which the spirit finds as its own essence when it turns its attention inward. We apply the spirit in the individual sciences. Even a materialist must do the same. The researcher of the spirit seeks only to reflect. He applies the spirit, seeks to discover what this spirit is, and actually comes to realize that this spirit is not connected to the processes of formation — with which it would have to be connected if the materialist view were correct — but that the spirit is connected with the processes of dissolution, that the spirit represents precisely that which runs directly counter to material processes, wears them down, and undermines them. These are the significant experiences gained, for example, in spiritual science.

[ 50 ] That is how it is with the science of the spirit. Other sciences essentially act upon the human mind, but only in such a way that the human being can develop what intelligence is. Already, many people—particularly those involved in contemporary education—are saying that what has emerged from recent scientific developments as school education actually trains the intellect too much and not the soul. It does not seek to engage the will or the whole human being. But for this to happen, it is not enough merely to declare that this is how it should be, that the soul must once again be cultivated. Rather, just as modern times have ultimately developed external science, we need a spiritual science that does not merely speak to the intellect but could engage the whole human being.

[ 51 ] This is also evident from the fact that we have recently been able to introduce this spiritual science into everyday life as a component in specific areas. One such endeavor is our Waldorf School in Stuttgart, which was originally founded by Emil Molt for the children of his factory workers. But since then, it has already doubled in size! Students from all walks of life and from all directions have flocked to this Waldorf School. This Waldorf School is not an ideological school; it is simply a slander to claim otherwise. The aim is not to instill an anthroposophical worldview or any new religion in the children. When this school was founded, I myself agreed to serve as its director. It was established from the very first moment that whatever religious instruction was to be given to the children—to the Catholic children by the Catholic priest, and similarly to the Protestant children by the Protestant pastor—should be provided by them as the instructors. We completely refrain from any kind of worldview whatsoever in this school. Only those children whose parents are non-denominational or wish to be so—that is, who do not want to send their children to religious instruction—should be given the option to attend a religious instruction class that we ourselves can provide. Otherwise, these children would have no religious instruction at all if this were not provided to them. However, those who wish to receive religious instruction rooted in the life from which they have grown will receive such instruction from their religious education teacher.

[ 52 ] This should serve as proof to you that we have absolutely no intention of founding a new religion based on anthroposophy, or of somehow imposing a worldview on people. Rather, what should guide us in this endeavor, for example, is this: Anyone who possesses a science such as anthroposophical spiritual science has something that touches the whole human being—something that makes them skilled, that above all makes their soul skilled, that makes them a connoisseur of human nature, including a connoisseur of children, a connoisseur of the developing human being, of the child. [And that is why, in the Waldorf school, we have managed to ensure that we [work] through the method, through the didactics, through the art of education], which can be developed from anthroposophy, in the way we teach—and that is what matters, not the indoctrination of some religious creed that is supposed to be somehow new compared to the others. We take great care to ensure that it is precisely through the art of education that the child is treated in the way one can only treat them if one is truly able to take into account the entirety of their spiritual and soul life—I would say, in each year, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth—and recognize their specific abilities.

[ 53 ] Now—my dear friends here present—it is precisely because the teachers are imbued with what spiritual science is, and carry this atmosphere into the classroom, that there prevails—I would even say—an atmosphere of love. Of course, people may not take what I’m saying all that seriously. But every time I come to Stuttgart to inspect this school, I ask the question—either in the individual classes or in the auditorium: “Dear children, do you love your teachers?” One truly does not judge based on any outward declaration by the children, but rather on the whole manner in which the children behave, on the way their eyes sparkle. And that is something that always fills one with joy, confirming that something has indeed come of having developed such a pedagogy based on anthroposophy: when the children then respond in unison, truly with their whole soul, with a “Yes” that comes from the depths of their soul, one that is not rehearsed.

[ 54 ] Ladies and gentlemen! When we handed out the report cards after the first school year, they contained nothing at all of the usual sort. Normally, they would say: “satisfactory,” “almost satisfactory,” “less than satisfactory,” “nearly satisfactory,” and so on. Instead, for every child—even though some classes are quite large—there was something written that was entirely suited to the child’s individuality, so that the children pick up these report cards again and again and, I would say, see themselves reflected in them time and again. Time and again, they read what the teacher gives them there as a source of life—that is, a single phrase or the like—not something formulaic and generic, such as “less than satisfactory” or the like. Of course, this is put rather radically, but it is certainly possible—if one enters the classroom with some knowledge of the children—even in large classes, to proceed in such a way that the child’s individuality comes to the fore.

[ 55 ] This is an example that shows you how anthroposophy can indeed become a part of daily life—that is, how it can be applied in human life. And after all, school education and classroom instruction are a very important part of human life. [But that is only one part—namely, what the more intellectual education of modern times has brought us.]

[ 56 ] Let us look—my esteemed audience—at what has become great. Certainly, it is precisely those who wish to deepen science into a spiritual science who will not underestimate the great triumphs and the significance of modern science—on the contrary! As I speak to you here, I fully acknowledge precisely this significance of modern science for external life. But on the other hand: it develops only the head; it develops only that which springs from the head in social life. And so, in recent times, we have developed from this scientific approach that which we know as the great, significant technology that surrounds us everywhere. But in this modern era, in which technology has developed to such an extent that it has become an external, mechanical technology throughout the global economy and global commerce, what we call the social question has simultaneously become an integral part of this entire modern way of life.

[ 57 ] It must be said, however, that modern science has come to terms with the external mechanism—with that which can be reduced to external, sensory natural forces, and which can serve human life. But we see this in the chaos that has developed up to the present day, and which has led to millions of people being shot dead and maimed in recent years. There we see that this modern science fails as soon as it attempts to play any role in social life. It cannot keep up. It goes as far as the machine, as far as the mechanism—and it can go that far with what it borrows from nature. But just as the machine has been inserted between the ledger in the office, the cash book, and what is produced on the shop floor, forming an intimate connection, so no such inner connection has formed in recent times between those who have been leading figures over the course of the last [decades] and those engaged in manual labor. We have found our way to the machine, but we have not found our way to people.

[ 58 ] The relationship to the human being can only be found through a science deeply rooted in humanity, one that grasps the essence of the human being as profoundly as the spiritual science referred to here, for this will also become a science grounded in life for social life. [That which is based—as an idea, as a theoretical conception—solely on the destruction of the human organism, on projecting and transferring it into the external world, becomes destruction itself.] You need only look today at how the people who are currently establishing something so devastating in Eastern Europe—something that would inevitably lead to the downfall of civilization if it were to continue as it is in Russia—how these people who are doing this act in good faith and believe that, through Marxism and the like, they are merely extending modern scientific methods to social life. But it becomes the death of social life. It must be a different kind of science—a science that does not arise solely from the human mind, but from the whole human being; a science that does not merely stem from an observation of the physical world and derive its methods from there, but one that is drawn from the human-spiritual being itself, as spiritual science is. If one immerses oneself in this spiritual science, if one attempts to build something—as I have attempted to do, however open to criticism the details may be—in these two books, *The Key Points of the Social Question* and *On the Threefold Social Order*, and if one seeks to derive a social perspective from this spiritual science, then it is a thoroughly constructive one. This is then demonstrated by social thinking, which can truly lead human beings back to their true humanity, as a source of life.

[ 59 ] And so I could cite many examples—such as this one in general, and the school system in particular—where this spiritual science proves to be a source of life. It is absolutely necessary that, in order to cope with social life, we first and foremost help people to gain a deeper understanding of themselves, enabling them to gain an overview of what lives within them spiritually and emotionally.

[ 60 ] Once one has characterized the humanities in this elementary way, one has grasped what they aim for and what they strive toward. Their specific details can only be assessed by entering into their broader context. I could go on at length, but I’d like to say just one more thing in conclusion today. Just as people believed centuries ago, in response to Copernicanism, that the emergence of Copernicanism into the world would endanger religion and Christianity, so too do people believe today that spiritual science—as it now seeks to engage with the world in a more intensive way through the Goetheanum—would endanger religion and Christianity.

[ 61 ] Ladies and gentlemen! Whenever I encounter something like this, I am always reminded of what a friend of mine did many years ago. I was very close friends with Professor Müllner, who, at the time we were friends, was a professor of Christian philosophy at the Vienna Faculty of Theology. When he began his term as rector, he spoke about Galileo in his inaugural address as rector of the university. And this Professor Müllner—who passed away quite some time ago—spoke in such a way that his final words were that he would die as a faithful son of his church. And yet, what did he say back then, when he delivered his inaugural address on Galileo? He said: “Today, within Christianity, if we look at the things of this world with true impartiality, we view Galileanism differently than the Church did during Galileo’s lifetime.”

[ 62 ] The Church must recognize today that no new scientific discovery can in any way detract from the profound human forces of Christianity. On the contrary, the Church must view these things today in such a way that it says to itself: Through every new scientific discovery, the glories of the divine-spiritual life become visible and manifest to humanity only to a greater degree. This is what Professor Müllner said back then—I cannot quote him in full today—this is what this professor of Christian theology, a Catholic at the Catholic Theological Faculty in Vienna, said; before his death, he declared that he wished to die as a faithful son of his Church. It was still during the pontificate of Leo XIII. Today, people look down upon Galileo’s grave differently than his contemporaries in Rome did when they viewed Galileo during his own time.

[ 63 ] Now—my esteemed audience—when Professor Laurenz Müllner spoke in this way, he knew that he was using these words not to endanger Christianity in any way—a faith he himself represented—but rather he spoke in this way [in order] to establish an even firmer foundation for Christianity precisely through scientific inquiry. Such were the words of a Christian priest. I often find myself recalling them. I, too, had many private conversations with him and with other theologians who were frequent guests at his home.

[ 64 ] Ladies and gentlemen! I will not speak today about the relationship between anthroposophy and Christianity, but I would like to say just one thing in conclusion: that one can trace the development of Christianity through philology, and one can trace the development of Christianity through history. One can also trace the development of Christianity through anthroposophical spiritual science, and through this one arrives at certain truths about Christianity that can only be discovered through this spiritual science. But the truths about Christianity that one arrives at in this way are truly not capable of endangering Christianity in any way. And anyone who believes that Christianity as such could be endangered by any new truths—whether in the physical or spiritual realm—I would say has no opinion of Christianity that is high enough. The person who holds a high regard for Christianity and for the mysteries of the Mystery of Golgotha will say to himself, when he recognizes what Christianity is in the sense of spiritual science: Christianity and the Mystery of Golgotha have given the development of the Earth its true meaning.

[ 65 ] I have often said that this is meant to be merely a comparison; it is not intended to say anything about the inhabitants of any other worlds. If an inhabitant of Mars were to come down here, he would see many things about our world—this is my deepest conviction, which I have gained precisely through spiritual science—many things that would be incomprehensible to him. But if he were to see what has been preserved for us as Leonardo’s painting *The Last Supper*—Christ among his apostles—if he were to see only what is there—he needs nothing more than this image—then he would say to himself: I have come to a foreign realm. What is depicted in this painting points to those deeds within earthly life that are not merely earthly facts, but a fact of the entire world, and without which the whole of life on Earth would have no meaning; the meaning of the Earth lies in this fact. One comes to recognize this more and more precisely by delving into Christianity and the mysteries of Golgotha through the lens of spiritual science.

[ 66 ] Truly, one must have a very low opinion of Christianity to believe that it could in any way be endangered by a new discovery. Truly—even if it is not written in the Bible—just as Christianity was not endangered by the discovery of America, neither can it be endangered by any physical or spiritual truth, be it the Galilean theory or the concept of repeated earthly lives, which I have not discussed today but which you can follow in the literature as lying directly in line with what I have spoken about today—just as little can Christianity be endangered in any way if it simply remains true to its inner truth, even if millions upon millions of physical or spiritual insights were to pass through the world. On the contrary, through all these insights, Christian truth is deepened and more accurately understood, and brought more thoroughly to the human soul, provided these truths are truly drawn from the Spirit of Truth itself.

[ 67 ] But—my esteemed audience—each era, drawing from its own spiritual essence, must form its own views on all things in the world, views that arise precisely from the spirit of that era. That is why I can’t help but recount this story again and again: I once spoke on the topic of “The Bible and Wisdom” in a city in southern Germany that is no longer located in southern Germany. There were also two Catholic theologians present at that lecture. There was nothing in that particular lecture that they could in any way take issue with. They came up to me and said: “Well, what you said—we could certainly agree with it, but the way you put it, we cannot accept it. For that is not for all people; it is for a select few who are prepared. But we speak for all people.” All I could say at the time was: Reverend, that you believe you speak for all people—that goes without saying. It corresponds to that natural feeling we simply must have as human beings. But through what spiritual science is, one gradually works one’s way toward a different point of view. One detaches oneself from one’s own perspective. One no longer believes one can shape things the way one wants to shape them within one’s immediate surroundings. One learns to look at what the times demand, what the objective facts demand. And so I ask you now: what do the objective facts demand, and how do you address them? It remains true that you believe you speak for all people, but that doesn’t decide anything. It only determines whether all people still come to your sermons. And you see, you cannot answer “yes” to that. Among those who do not go to church, there are also those who seek the path elsewhere. I am not speaking to those who attend your church, but to those who also wish to find the path to Christianity and who do not come to you. This follows from the facts. However, the fact that this is by no means something that detracts from religion is proven by the fact that, under the current circumstances, we have the relevant pastors teach religious education to the children at the Waldorf School, and have established religious education classes only for those who would otherwise have no such instruction. Thus, we are not detracting from [what is desired given the circumstances of the times, but rather, on the contrary, imparting to the “dissident children” something] that can lead them to a genuine [religious life], whereas otherwise they would hear nothing about religion during the most formative years of their development.

[ 68 ] All of this might lead one to point out that this Goetheanum and this spiritual science are not merely something fanciful, conjured up out of human caprice, but rather something that would stand as a truly scientific understanding of the spiritual in an age that would otherwise remain skeptical, at least where science would have to remain confined to the mere external perception of things, while human beings seek to evolve further. For if the current chaos seeks to drive civilization ever deeper into decadence, then from the circumstances of the times themselves will emerge that great teaching which, in essence, calls to be followed by this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. And the truth will prevail, no matter how many obstacles are placed in its path. Temporarily, one can hold back what spiritual science seeks—perhaps even destroy it for a time—but the truth has paths that can be found through everything. And one can, in a certain sense, be convinced that these paths can be taken if the methods through which the spirit is perceived are sought in an honest and sincere manner.

[ 69 ] For whoever truly engages—not merely with the intellect, but by feeling and experiencing with their whole being—with all that is human, with the unique human condition, with individual life, will inevitably find themselves having to say, time and again: Science must not remain merely at the surface; it must also, as science, as a form of knowledge, advance toward the spirit. For

[ 70 ] To achieve a renewed upward development, people need precisely what is being sought here—they need the spirit! And without the spirit, humanity will not move forward. Spiritual science does not pursue an abstract spirit filled with ideas and fantasies, but rather the living spirit that is to enter the souls as a living force. And let it be said once again: If humanity wants to progress, it needs the spirit. Therefore, we must seek the spirit.

[ 71 ] Discussion and Concluding Remarks

[ 72 ] Ulrich [Dikenmann]: Esteemed speaker, ladies and gentlemen! Dr. Steiner has made an effort this evening to present anthroposophy in a way that is easy for us to understand and to inspire confidence in us. And we are deeply grateful for the additional insights presented to us this evening, which go beyond what would have been covered in the lecture [delivered] eight days ago. I would now like to ask a question regarding what Dr. Steiner has presented and what might still be touched upon from his perspective.

[ 73 ] Dr. Steiner spoke of two different paths to higher knowledge and spiritual experiences, which many in our circle may only be superficially familiar with. He spoke of a deepened capacity for recollection that yields results for spiritual science, and he spoke of love. I now see a gap in that there is something inherent in these two methods that we still need to understand before we can place deeper trust in them. As far as I can recall from his books, it is written there that, before reaching the goal in these spiritual insights, light phenomena appear before the eyes of those engaged in anthroposophical science—there may also have been color phenomena, though I do not recall it exactly—at a certain stage of spiritual science. I would now be grateful if Dr. Steiner could tell us a little more about this.

[ 74 ] For you see—distinguished audience—when we or younger friends of ours turn to anthroposophy, it may become possible for us to determine, perhaps through in-depth empirical psychology, what the spiritual-scientific nature of the situation is when someone, after a long period of self-reflection, begins to experience such visions of light. Is what they are experiencing ecstasy, or is it something like a spiritual intuition that still lies within the realm where we can conduct scientific inquiry, where logic, understanding, and reason can be applied?

[ 75 ] Second: From Dr. Steiner’s remarks, we have learned that anyone who wishes to ascend to the highest levels must devote themselves to a spiritual guide to a great extent, since they cannot draw entirely from within themselves. From my perspective as a Protestant theologian, this strikes me as a somewhat serious matter. For, as is well known, excessive devotion to a single individual always entails two dangers. Either the person who devotes himself too much to his guide becomes spiritually dependent and complacent, no longer certain of what his own convictions are or what has truly been placed in his soul—as opposed to what has been implanted there through suggestion. On the other hand, for the one who enjoys the deep trust of another, there is a powerful temptation that only highly developed, spiritually mature individuals can resist: namely, the temptation to take pleasure in the power he has gained over the other person, and then to easily exert an excessive influence over him in every way. This is by no means meant to imply that I harbor any mistrust in this regard toward the speaker, who has addressed us so excellently. But world history—even if one merely surveys it in a certain way, as I do—proves that there is a certain danger here, one toward which we must be cautious and of which we must be mindful if we wish to encourage this or that acquaintance of ours to take an interest in spiritual science. Incidentally, I am pleased to note that what Dr. Steiner said this evening regarding his religious views had a highly beneficial effect on me personally.

[ 76 ] Roman Boos: Dr. Steiner, would you like to have the final word, assuming there are no further questions?

[ 77 ] Rudolf Steiner: Ladies and gentlemen! Of course, I would have been very pleased to answer any question. The two questions posed to me today are particularly dear to me, and I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to you this evening specifically about these two questions.

[ 78 ] It is simply necessary that what lives in the soul—once one has advanced to what I have described today as “contemplation”—must, if one wishes to describe it, be named in some way, and that one must use entirely different words, a certain terminology. If you follow my writings—some of which have already been published in very large print runs—you will see, as you track the individual editions, how I have strived, from edition to edition — or at least over the course of several editions — to formulate the sentences in such a way that what must be expressed in a subject matter that is, after all, very difficult to put into words at first, is nevertheless brought to a certain clarity and distinctness.

[ 79 ] For one must not forget that our language—especially as it has developed among civilized peoples today—already has, to a great extent, an extraordinarily conventional character, and that, above all, it has been shaped by the meaning that has entered our worldview through the materialism of the past centuries. Consequently, when using words today, it is already extremely difficult to strip these words of their materialistic meaning and to imbue something intended in a spiritual sense with the appropriate meaning. Nevertheless, I have tried again and again, and especially in the foundational books you will find a struggle with expression. By which I certainly do not mean to say that in the latest editions this struggle has led to an ideal everywhere—of course not! But now, the specific characterization I have given of what one perceives—by [using this to characterize color perceptions]—isn’t it true that I say we are dealing with imaginations? These imaginations are completely different from what one can experience in the sensory world. Now I would like to use the following analogy so that we can understand one another.

[ 80 ] If you study Goethe’s Theory of Colors—perhaps some of you here today, my esteemed audience, are aware that for forty years I have been striving to demonstrate the significance of Goethe’s Theory of Colors in relation to modern physics. Well, at the end of Goethe’s Theory of Colors, you will find an extraordinarily significant chapter on the sensory and moral effects of colors. This chapter will perhaps encounter the least opposition from physicists, and when read, it makes for an extraordinarily stimulating read. One can find what is written there elsewhere as well; but one can really only find it compiled so wonderfully beautifully in Goethe’s work.

[ 81 ] What do we find here, as the external colors are characterized? We also find the psychological experience of color described here. We find the experience described that one has, for example, with yellow—that peculiarly aggressive quality of yellow, its stimulating effect, similar to that of red. We then find the balancing quality of green and the devotional quality of violet. We have these spiritual experiences when we allow the sensory colors to take effect upon us. If you ever visit Dornach, you will see that there, in the Goetheanum, an attempt has been made to paint entirely from color—to draw the image out of the color itself. In the small dome, in particular, you will find, for example, how an attempt was made—entirely from the experience of color—to shape what then leads to the transformation of the image.

[ 82 ] Well, on the one hand we have the sensory experience of color, and on the other hand the inner, psychological experience, which, however, quite clearly belongs to the experience of color. If we are fully developed human beings, we cannot have the sensory experience of color without also having the corresponding soul experience. Goethe described this in his Theory of Colors.

[ 83 ] When one enters the spiritual world, one has experiences that are truly not ecstasy—just as life within geometric concepts is not ecstasy. If one were not fully aware, in a state of full wakefulness, that one’s state of mind is exactly the same as when engaging in mathematical imagination, then one would not be on the right path. So, one experiences something that is entirely in the pattern of mathematical experience within the soul, but one experiences a real spiritual world. And in experiencing this real spiritual world, one does not initially perceive colors, but rather those experiences that we inwardly associate with sensory colors. Of course, one must have developed one’s soul to the point where one is even paying attention to these experiences.

[ 84 ] You see, spiritual experience requires a certain presence of mind. So, one must have this inner experience, which is otherwise experienced through color. The best way to describe this experience is by recalling the color—by truly having the color right before one’s eyes. Just as one—let’s say—has the experience of a triangle by drawing it inwardly, so one best has before one’s eyes what one experiences inwardly—not by drawing a geometric figure, but by painting a colored image. This colored image is then as adequate to the soul experience as — let’s say — when one draws a triangle with its 180° and angles, which is identical to the experience of the triangle, even though one must recognize that it is a kind of sensualization; similarly, to put it in Goethean terms, it is also a supersensual-sensual representation of what is actually experienced.

[ 85 ] This, of course, alludes to what I would call subtle experiences—ones that must not be reduced to the gross, but rather must be truly engaged with. But then one will find that, in fact, something real has come to light through the use of color in the description. I have tried to articulate this very precisely in the latest editions of my foundational books. One has no choice but to describe what one experiences in precisely this way; otherwise, one would become even more materialistic in the description and would rely too heavily on symbolism.

[ 86 ] This is how one describes it, by truly revealing, through the experience of color, that which is inner experience. One is always aware of this—that one proceeds in a certain way, just as when representing mathematical concepts—and there is no trace of ecstasy whatsoever.

[ 87 ] I am extremely grateful to the previous speaker for raising this issue. For I have indeed had to experience being told by some quarters that what is experienced in these imaginations consists of pent-up ideas and pent-up nervous energy that then rise to the surface and manifest as something fantastical and unhealthy. You see, if someone were to maintain such a claim, the most that could be done is to provide proof that the person speaking of such things is not capable of speaking in a strictly scientific sense, just as the person accusing him of such things is not. If, on the one hand, one has not lost one’s scientific sensibility but is firmly grounded in it, and then consistently ventures into something else, then such an accusation cannot be made.

[ 88 ] Nor can it be argued that this is merely a matter of suggestion. As I have already indicated today, an essential part of spiritual training is being able—I would say—to address all the specific processes of the subconscious soul life, so that one can compensate for and eliminate any source of error that arises. You will see—if you read through my book *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?*—how an attempt has been made to describe all the precautions that must be taken in this regard.

[ 89 ] Now, I have often been asked: How can one easily distinguish suggestions from non-suggestions, from the truth? For example, it can happen in life that someone need only think of lemonade and immediately tastes it in their mouth. I readily admit this, since these things are well known. But—my esteemed audience—anyone versed in epistemology knows that a real experience can only be ascertained through life itself. It is only through life and the context of life that we can determine whether anything we imagine corresponds to reality—but even then, we can only ascertain it with certainty within the context of life. The same is true with regard to the higher worlds; there, too, one can only ascertain it from the context of the whole. If, in the case of the suggestion of the taste of lemonade, one wishes to move on to the totality of the experience, then the comparison no longer holds. One must now say: Well, if one arrives at the sensation of lemonade in one’s mouth through suggestion, then the fundamentally legitimate question arises: Has anyone ever quenched their thirst with such a mental image of lemonade? You will not be able to claim that. Therein lies the transition to the totality of phenomena. And that is what must always be kept in mind: Reality cannot be determined by remaining with the partial phenomenon; rather, the phenomena of life always contain something that signifies their transition to totality.

[ 90 ] I would like to draw your attention to something else that may seem more remote, but which can nevertheless be quite useful in helping to visualize the concept. You see, if you have a salt crystal, a cube of salt: in a certain sense, it is a self-contained reality. It can persist through a certain period of time—a very, very long period in Earth terms—just as it stands before you as a cube of salt. Take a rosebud. A rosebud is not actually a reality as we see it before us, for it can only truly be conceived as a reality in connection with the totality of the rosebush, the roots, and so on. Realities do indeed have quite different degrees and different meanings. If we do not address this, we will not arrive at clear, luminous concepts.

[ 91 ] And so it is also necessary to bear in mind, with regard to descriptions such as those cited by the esteemed speaker who spoke before me, that the underlying premise is that the totality of the experience is taken into account. Then one will already realize what is meant by such color phenomena. One by no means loses touch with ordinary consciousness or descends into folly; rather, the opposite is true of the paths chosen to enter into anthroposophy. This lies precisely on the opposite path to the pathological; these paths lead away from the pathological and serve to consolidate the human being internally. Therefore, the individual is then able not only to create drawings—particularly in mathematical forms—but also to perceive certain drawings in colors, which constitute a supersensory experience. I do not know if this satisfies you? That was in response to the first question.

[ 92 ] Regarding the second question, I would like to say: You are entirely correct on both counts, but I must emphasize that wherever I have the opportunity to speak about these matters, you will find that I myself have pointed out that these two dangers can indeed arise, but that they must also be recognized and avoided in genuine spiritual research. If one does not avoid them, one cannot achieve what spiritual research is intended to achieve. They are avoided precisely when one keeps them in mind, when one knows that such dangers may be present. And if, in addition, one has a sense of responsibility, then one will certainly try to avoid them.

[ 93 ] As for what concerns the so-called student, I must say that, in fact, what can be described as the relationship between student and teacher is, in spiritual research, essentially nothing other than the transposition—merely to a different realm—of the same relationship that otherwise exists whenever someone learns something from another person. It is true, of course, that guidance in spiritual training, in a sense, intervenes somewhat more intimately in human life, but, you see, there is a counterbalance to this, I would say. After all, it is by no means correct to say that, in external life, there are no dangers for the student even within the framework of current science.

[ 94 ] Just think [for a moment] how little students are actually immune to the belief in authority—and especially to that which initially appears as a form of coercion but which, over the years, becomes deeply ingrained—[the compulsion to conform] and so on. There are certainly dangers here as well to the independent development of the student or listener, which can be described in the same way as those faced by anyone who wishes to make progress in the humanities.

[ 95 ] But besides that, there is a corrective factor at work, especially when one engages with spiritual science—I would say, when one strikes a more intimate chord within the human soul by seeking to learn something. In this way, an extraordinary sensitivity to independence also develops, precisely when one awakens the soul’s faculties. And experience shows that the kind of deference to authority sometimes found in the external sciences—this blind adherence to the master’s words, this act of taking notes and swearing by what one has written down after hearing it—simply does not occur when the method of spiritual training is applied in a truly responsible manner.

[ 96 ] A sensitivity born of experience shows one—especially when one must deal with matters that penetrate very deeply into the inner life of the human soul—that this actually intensifies the longing for freedom. And for my part, at any rate, I have found that those who qualify as serious students of spiritual science soon come to accept things not on the basis of good faith, but only after a process of examination that is sometimes very thorough; so that one can say that it is precisely the sense of freedom that is awakened to a special degree.

[ 97 ] Now, of course, there is the other point, on which I must once again agree with the esteemed speaker who preceded me: there is a very real danger that someone who is to take on such a leadership role—let’s just say, based on their own experience, since there’s hardly any other way—might have to advise someone: ‘Through this or that, you will be able to develop your memory or your love.’ A temptation may then arise for the teacher—as we know, this temptation can indeed arise. And if I may share my own conviction with you—my esteemed audience: When one is immersed in what spiritual research is all about, there is actually nothing more repugnant than what one might call personal worship or the like. Even though the people who want to slander you constantly point to such things, this does not correspond to reality at all; it is, in fact, something that is fundamentally very repugnant to one. If one has only advanced a little on the path—which spiritual science, after all, points toward—then the truth can reveal itself. One cannot fail to recognize the truth that, to the very extent that one exercises unwarranted power, one loses one’s capacity for insight. That is simply the way it is; it is an objective fact, and one recognizes it when one walks the path of spiritual science, through direct experiential knowledge.

[ 98 ] Isn’t it true that the path into spiritual science is a subtle one—one that must be kept alive through the soul’s continuous inner experience? To the very extent that one engages in activities that correspond to the power of desire, to vanity, or to the sense of power, to that very extent one obscures precisely those forces that are striving to unfold. Just think for a moment that it takes an immense amount of effort to develop what I have called the capacity for love. It is the greatest lack of love into which one can fall when one develops a sense of power. I do not know whether you will grant me this connection, but it is indeed the case: the sense of power actually obscures the true feeling of love.

[ 99 ] And so opportunities arise everywhere to see clearly how one should resist such temptations. And although it is absolutely true that this temptation—I would say—can arise countless times for anyone who has to provide guidance, he also knows that succumbing to it—this temptation—is what can bring him down the most. For it can only be explained by vanity, by a hunger for power. But these are things that lead one astray from the paths one must follow if one truly wants to achieve something.

[ 100 ] I do believe that the distinguished speaker who spoke before me, drawing on his deep experience, pointed out precisely these matters in his remarks. Such things have, of course, occurred and will continue to occur from time to time—that goes without saying. But there is no reason—my esteemed colleagues here—to conclude that, simply because dangers exist somewhere, one should abandon the path of development; rather, if dangers exist somewhere, that can be a reason to avoid them, provided one recognizes the necessity of the matter in a sound manner. Is this perhaps a sufficient answer to the question that was posed? If not, I would be happy to elaborate further.

[ 101 ] Well—ladies and gentlemen—since no other questions have been asked, I have nothing in particular to add on this matter. I would just like to point out very briefly once again that spiritual science, as it is understood here, does not claim to be a religion.

[ 102 ] The question is this: It might shed light on anthroposophy’s stance toward religious denominations if you could tell us what you teach children of non-denominational parents in religious education classes.

[ 103 ] You see—my esteemed audience—my opinion is this—but in the sense that I have arrived at it entirely through spiritual science—that something as intimate as religious instruction can only be conducted within the framework of that which one’s own soul is completely filled with. I am referring here to religious education for children of non-denominational parents or those who are, for example, required to be considered non-denominational [at] school. In this intimate realm, therefore, only that which one carries within one’s soul to the extent that one is completely filled with it can be considered. And that is also what is taught. And what this is all about is that the anthroposophical approach I follow is, first and foremost, actually a method, a path—it is living life itself. And that is why it can also influence all the individual sciences, why it can also influence the art of education—indeed, art itself—as the Dornach Building demonstrates in its artistic conception. But beyond that, after all, what is being explored there is the living spirit, and that can only lead to a deepening of religious life.

[ 104 ] Now, of course, we are very much dependent on intangible factors, and I prefer to clarify things through concrete details rather than speak in abstract generalities. You see, we try, first of all, to show the children the path to Christ in such a way that this path leads them out of the rest of human life. No matter how much it may be claimed by some denominational circles—or rather, by representatives of certain circles—it is simply not true that anthroposophy seeks anything other than to show, in its own way, the path to Christ in this religious realm to precisely those who need to find it in this manner.

[ 105 ] It is certainly possible to be a follower of anthroposophy and want nothing more than a deeper understanding of the sciences—biology, psychology, and so on. There is no need whatsoever to establish any kind of connection between anthroposophy and religion. However, there are in fact a great many people today who, coming from anthroposophy and spiritual science, seek a deepening of their religious life just as—though by a different path, of course—people coming from materialism have sought a deepening of their religious life, even if perhaps in an older religion—such as David Friedrich Strauss, the author of *The Old and the New Faith* and similar works. Isn’t it true that just as a number of such people in the past attempted and sought a kind of materialistic religion, so too does one find a truly spiritual religion and also the path to Christ—among many other things—on the path to spiritual science? Alongside medicine, psychology, philosophy, biology, and so on—which one can study in depth—one then also gains, I would say, a certain insight into those unique paths that must be taken.

[ 106 ] Suppose we need to teach children, first of all, the concept of the immortality of the soul. We try to do that—as I said, I’m using an example; it could certainly be explained differently—but let’s assume we’re trying to teach this to a child using an image. We point to a butterfly chrysalis. The butterfly emerges. We then try to show how the human soul, too, leaves the body at death and enters [another] world—albeit an invisible one—and so on. Isn’t that right? You can come up with something like that. But if you merely think it through—and this does require pedagogical experience, but if you have it, you’ll notice—if you’ve only conceived of this perspective—I’m so smart and the child is so stupid, I have to present this image to them—then in reality, you’re not actually teaching the child anything. You teach it to the brain, to the ability to recognize words, but not to the heart. You teach the heart only what you yourself can believe in; then you teach it—I would say—with joy, if there is truly something real in it, if you can say to yourself: Yes, I find a resonance there; I believe in it. That is precisely what takes shape in our spiritual science, but not in a nebulous, vague way. For that is something that is specifically rejected by spiritual science as it is understood here.

[ 107 ] It is yet another slander to accuse us of fantasizing. What we seek is not an abstract spiritual reality, but rather the concrete spirituality that lies within the details. And so, for those who recognize the spirit in nature, this process of the butterfly emerging from the chrysalis is, on a lower level, the same reality as death is for the immortal human soul on the highest level attainable at first. It is not I who create the image, but the phenomena of the world themselves that create it. And when I stand within this, judging the phenomena of the world in such a way that nature, so to speak, becomes for me the living vision of what I can draw out of the whole world as an understanding of the divine essence, then I am also able to teach this to the child. For then it is not merely—I would say—the ordinary relationships with the child that are formed. There is, after all, something of the imponderables at work here—forces that act from person to person. And it is these imponderable forces, which lie within, that make it possible for one to teach another only that which one can believe in with all one’s strength. And these fundamental truths that emerge for us—this awareness of fundamental religious truths—through the path that can now be taken via spiritual science—that is what also enables us to provide religious instruction to children where it is needed.

[ 108 ] We have gone to great lengths to find a method specifically for religious education. And I must say, it’s actually working very well. And time and again at various school celebrations, I’ve been able to emphasize what now seems to me to be a truth: that here at the Waldorf School, the Christian spirit isn’t confined to religion class—it’s present the moment you enter the school or step out of the classroom. It is present in everything, without one always having to say “Lord, Lord” or constantly point out with words what religiosity actually is. What the religious spirit is, after all, is something quite different when the rest flows out into objectivity.

[ 109 ] That is what underlies it all. And when I say that our paths lead to Christ, then perhaps—despite all the hostility coming from various quarters—I may also recall a Bible verse that has become truly valuable to me, not merely because it has been handed down, but because it proves true anew every day. It is the one attributed to the Savior:

I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

[ 110 ] So he is not only present in the one in whom he walked on earth, but he is always present. And one can always, if one so desires, experience what the living Christ wills among humanity. This living perception of Christ is what is particularly important—this ever-present existence of Christ—which, of course, does not preclude our accepting the Mystery of Golgotha as a historical event. And, to avoid any misunderstandings, I expressly emphasize that it is understood as a supersensible event, and that it has even already been possible to lead Protestant clergy—who were dissatisfied with the existing exposition, which has become entirely rationalistic (as journal literature already shows today)— precisely through anthroposophy to return to a genuine, supersensible understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha.

[ 111 ] All of this can show you that our religious education is, in fact, seeking a method that connects it to every other way of understanding the world, to every other form of human action, and to human life as a whole; and, on the other hand, that this approach by no means leads away from Christianity.

[ 112 ] And as you can see—my esteemed audience: We do not force anyone out of any religious community or any other community, but we have nevertheless managed to ensure that, in our Waldorf school—and this is by no means extraordinary—there are Jewish children who listen to teachings about Christianity with complete inner devotion and genuine religious fervor.

[ 113 ] Education can, of course, take such a form that—for example, here at our Waldorf School—the following occurred; but that was not due to the Waldorf School; the boy had already been doing that before he came to the Waldorf School. A Jewish boy who was later sent to the Waldorf School had received Jewish religious instruction before the school was established. Once he was with us and heard what was taught at the Waldorf School, he compared it to how religion was understood in his parents’ home. And he simply walked out—just walked out the door—and went into the other classroom, where free Christian religious instruction was being taught, and stayed there. So, if the claim is that Christianity is not being upheld here, that is not true. Although we must say: We are not a sect; we do not compete with any religious community; our sources lie primarily in science, as I have explained today. It would therefore be a completely unfounded accusation to claim that Christianity is not being upheld.

[ 114 ] And if you look at real life, you will see how far we have already been able to advance in a wide variety of fields through the anthroposophical method of understanding the world. It will become clear to you how unfounded are the arguments that have already been raised—albeit in a somewhat indefinable way—by some quarters against anthroposophy. But that is not really what is worthy of discussion; rather, it is absolutely important to know that this very spiritual science does not wish to remain confined to the sphere of mere theoretical development, to the sphere of mere theoretical knowledge—for that is, after all, something that alienates people from the world and keeps them distant from it— but rather that it seeks to penetrate everywhere into the sphere of the will, into the whole of human life, and that it is thereby entirely removed from any nebulous mysticism, any mysticism that seeks to withdraw from life.

[ 115 ] There are, of course, people who sincerely believe that this world is simply too bad and that one must retreat into another, mystical world. I have met many such people; they were quite good people, but they were not the kind of people that today’s difficult times need. Today’s times need people who do not merely believe in the spirit through knowledge or abstract theories; rather, today’s difficult times need people who absorb this spirit within themselves in such a way that they can carry it into matter and into life themselves.

[ 116 ] Ladies and gentlemen! We have experienced it—and the deeper connections reveal this to a deeper understanding—these things have led us into catastrophe. We have seen that, on the one hand, people considered themselves religious, yet throughout the entire week their outward actions showed no trace of religion, except that the first page of the general ledger still reads: “With God.” I do not know whether what is written there is actually true. But in any case, something has indeed come about that I would like to call a kind of double life: one can, on the one hand, be a follower of some creed, and on the other hand, nothing from that creed can be carried over into one’s life. Similarly, there are already a great many scientists today who pursue their science in such a way that they handle it on the one hand, while on the other hand they approach life in an entirely different way. They make two distinct things out of these matters, which should actually be one. But we must arrive at a way of life that is unified—not merely a view of life, but a way of living.

[ 117 ] This is what anthroposophical spiritual science strives for: Not merely to recognize the spirit through abstract, mystical contemplation and absorption, and to believe that one possesses the spirit by withdrawing from external life, but rather, true penetration into the spirit occurs when one takes the spirit into the soul in such a way that one can then carry it into matter—into external matter—and thereby be able to deepen external life. Human beings must act not only as those who recognize the spiritual world order, but as those who bring the spiritual world order to fruition. And this is the impulse that underlies spiritual science: Not merely to recognize the spirit in abstract ideas and be able to speak of it, but to take this spirit into oneself in such a way that one is able not only to carry it in concepts, but to carry it in one’s heart and will, so that one oneself belongs to those forces in the world that realize the spirit, and so that one can become a servant to the realization of the spirit in the world order.