The Rudolf Steiner Archive

10. The Forces That Oppose the Spirit: Fundamental Truths of Christianity

[ 1 ] I have often mentioned, particularly in these reflections, that it is necessary to consider, from our own perspective, the relationships that exist between what we come to know through Spiritual Science and that which is today generally regarded—in relation to science and knowledge—as the only correct view. One could have a mental image of the course of spiritual development in Central Europe over the past few centuries taking a somewhat different path than it actually did. Now, it is not a violation of the universal law of karma to hold the view that anything that has happened in the world could also have happened differently. For the law of karma—and we will speak of this again next time—by no means precludes the existence of freedom in the world. Those who, in the spirit of Spiritual Science, speak on the one hand of karma and on the other of what takes place in the external world—and who do so in the sense of Spiritual Science—cannot become fatalists who have a mental image of everything in the world having to happen exactly as it has unfolded, as observed by the external senses and as has become accessible to that observation. For whatever takes place in the external world is always accompanied at the same time by a spiritual process. The two currents run parallel to one another, and the law of karma relates to both of these currents together, so that events in the external world could very well unfold differently from how they appear in the external world, and yet what is necessary would still come to pass. I mention this in advance simply because I wish to elaborate further on the idea that it would, at least, be conceivable for the spiritual development of Central Europe—the spiritual development that relates specifically to knowledge—to have taken a different course than the one observed from the outside.

[ 2 ] Certainly, my dear friends, Schiller and Goethe are revered in most circles today, and in very recent times, some have even gone so far as to to revere Fichte as a great mind—though most people spare themselves the trouble of learning even the very first of Fichte’s fundamental ideas, limiting themselves instead to what one can indeed take in but cannot understand if one attempts to do so without these fundamental ideas of Fichte’s. But in the broadest circles, we revere Goethe, Schiller, Fichte, and others as well. We revere them, in essence, in the very best way one can revere someone—without ever truly getting to know the individuals we revere. This applies to Goethe and Schiller as well. For to truly get to know Goethe and Schiller—to understand what lived in their spirits—the time for that has yet to come. And we can only hope that it will be born out of the gravity of our time. The desire to understand Goethe, for example, already exists. The people’s sensibility, in the broadest sense, is directed toward this desire and longing for the spiritual; I said this in one of my recent lectures. But the question is how those who are spiritual leaders fulfill this role of leadership. “Faust” is now even said to be among the most widely read books! One can be certain: when those who read “Faust” today—amid the difficulties of the times—reflect on what they have read in “Faust,” they will yearn for an explanation drawn from those worlds that were open to Goethe’s spiritual vision. But they will find it appalling if, in response to this explanation, they are presented with what those who seem to be called upon to offer such explanations have theorized. We do, after all, have famous philosophers: Kohler and Eucken. But the very same people who would find such “Kohlerian” or “Euckenian” musings appalling would certainly listen—if only it were accessible to them—to what Spiritual Science has in common with Goethe and the world from which he drew his inspiration.

[ 3 ] The intellectual development of the nineteenth century could just as easily have taken a course that incorporated the principles underlying the overall worldview of Goethe, Schiller, and others who were associated with them and shared their outlook on knowledge. But things turned out differently. All one needs to do today—and I am stating a fact—is go into a bookstore, and as soon as the sales clerk begins to assist you, ask for Goethe’s Natural Science Writings, and he will tell you that you should take Bölsche instead, since Goethe is, after all, outdated today! — Why, then, did things turn out differently than they should have, if the seeds lying dormant during the great era of classical knowledge at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had developed into living reality? From these seeds, Spiritual Science would have emerged as a direct continuation. I will demonstrate this in particular in the work that is soon to be published, which will bear the title: “The Enigma of Man. Thinking, Seeing, and Feeling of German and Austrian Personalities.” Why has what lies in the seeds of the Goethe-Schiller worldview not been accepted? Because people are afraid of it—afraid for the following reason: It is convenient to acquire knowledge today, because one need only take in what is presented to one—yes, what do you call it?—and then perhaps expand on it a little, and one becomes an “authority”! Spiritual Science, however, demands a more thorough and intense kind of thinking than most of today’s scholars are capable of mustering. And the fear of having to learn something—that is what constitutes the obstacle. The fear of more difficult concepts and ideas—that is the real motive behind these obstacles. The current way of venerating Goethe and Schiller is more likely to obscure what Goethe and Schiller gave to humanity than to explain it. Why? Because a mindset has spread that refuses to engage with what must be understood from the spirit that these personalities possessed. This mindset was already present during the time of Goethe and Schiller themselves—that great era when Goethe’s spirit reigned in Jena, when Schiller taught, Fichte taught, Schlegel taught, Schelling taught—when those very thinkers taught, of whom we have spoken so much this winter, and whom I will also discuss in my forthcoming book.

[ 4 ] What these minds had to say about certain details of life is, of course, always set within a certain context, and one must understand it within that context, in light of the overall spirit of their essence. What has endured from Goethe and Schiller, from Fichte, Schlegel, and so on for the present day could only have endured because, fundamentally, the like-minded followers—so to speak—of that man who emerged during Goethe’s time and dared, in one of one might say, the very worst pamphlets to portray those who had entered the school of Goethe, Schiller, Fichte, and Schlegel as fools, fantasists, and dreamers who are harmful to life. It is always possible to achieve such a thing: to ridicule that which stems from a serious search for truth. Certainly, some things, even when they appear here and there as a serious search for truth, will exhibit a certain one-sidedness. But if one then singles out precisely those one-sided aspects—picks them out, as they say in Berlin—in order to cast suspicion on the attitude in question, the attitude toward knowledge, then one has “a large audience.” The man—I mean Kotzebue—has been forgotten; but the Kotzebues—they’ve gotten rid of the evil one, but the evil ones have remained—are very much present in our entire intellectual life. In many of the statements made by Schlegel, Fichte, and even Goethe and Schiller, one can find various elements that already echo our Spiritual Science. But one can also take certain things out of context and cast suspicion on these thinkers, as if they were fools who had spoken nonsense in order to harm true human progress—namely, that which the complacent philistines, who cling only to the sensual and the real, have in their mental image of progress.

[ 5 ] Kotzebue—let us remember him today—he has been forgotten; but the Kotzebues have remained. Let us remember this Kotzebue today. He wrote a pamphlet—a dramatic one—in which he portrays a student who returns to the philistine world of his family—I mean no harm by this—after having—as is explicitly stated—absorbed the pernicious teachings of Goethe, Schiller, Fichte, and Schlegel in Jena. He is portrayed as a sort of fool, and at the same time as a “Hyperborean donkey.” The pamphlet is titled: “The Hyperborean Donkey, or Education Today.” It is explicitly stated—I’ll mention it again—that the person in question, who returns home, is Karl von Berg, a student of Goethe, Schiller, Fichte, and Schlegel. I would like to present just a few scenes to you, to bring them to your mind’s eye. The student, Karl von Berg, returns home after having absorbed the teachings of Goethe, Schiller, Fichte, Schlegel, and others in Jena during the heyday of modern intellectual development. He is first greeted by his mother. One can hardly blame her for not being entirely at ease, for fearing that her little son might have become godless in such company, given all the rumors that must have been whispered in her ear. And so Mrs. von Berg says to her son Karl after he has come home:

[ 6 ] “Mrs. von Berg: Once again, I press you to my motherly heart! (She embraces him.) Thank God I have you back! You, my hope, my pride, my everything! — Are you still the man you used to be? — Oh yes, you will be! Whether you have learned much or little, this grieving mother would rather see you return pious than learned. You left me a virtuous boy, and you return to my arms a virtuous young man, don’t you?

Karl: Dear Mother, there is no virtue other than consistency.

Mother: What? Could even the worst villain be virtuous?

Karl: If he acts consistently. — Mother: Oh dear! What is that? Karl! You still believe in God, don't you?

Karl: “Religion is usually just a supplement—or even a substitute—for education.”

I would like to point out explicitly that this literary swindle has gone so far that everything Karl says is taken verbatim from the writings of the men in question—or at least taken out of context.

“Mother: Is that all?

Karl: “Nothing is religious in the strict sense that is not a product of freedom.” — Just think, what a beautiful sentence! —

“Mother: I can’t argue with you about this; all I want is some peace of mind. I’ve heard so many things about the current religious movements. (She places her hand on his shoulder and speaks anxiously.) Karl! You do believe in God, don’t you?

Karl: “I myself am God.”

The God dwelling within one's own heart.

“Mother: Woe is me! He’s turned out just like poor Wezel in Sondershausen!”

Poor Wezel in Sondershausen was, in fact, a poet of that era who had gone mad.

“Karl: Every good person becomes more and more like God. Becoming God, being human, and developing oneself are expressions that all mean the same thing.”

It's all taken out of context!

“Mother: What is this! I’m afraid he doesn’t want to believe in any God at all, and yet he believes in millions of them!”

Karl: If every infinite individual is God, then there are as many gods as there are ideals.

Mother: So much for his Christianity!

Karl: The scientific ideal of Christianism is a characterization of the deity with an infinite number of variations.

Mother: Are you talking about a rondo?

Karl: God is not merely a thought, but also a thing, just like all thoughts that are not mere figments of the imagination.

Mother: Tell me, what religion do you actually follow? Karl: It is a very natural—indeed, almost inevitable—desire to want to unite all forms of religion within oneself.

Mother: All of them? —

Karl: Everyone.

Mother: Oh! I can't answer that. But I beg you, talk to our pastor; he's a brave, sensible man.

Karl: “I don’t like it. Religion is as vast as nature itself. Even the most excellent priest has only a small part of it.” All verbatim!

“Mother: I assure you, he has it all.

Karl: Besides, I'm a priest myself.

Mother (surprised): Both God and priest?

Karl: The relationship of the true artist and the true human being to their ideals is, in every sense, religion. Whoever makes this inner worship the goal and purpose of their entire life is a priest, and consequently, I, too, am a priest.

Mother: Son! Son! What will become of you in this world and the next!

Karl: Modern thinkers are always talking about this world and that world, as if there were more than one world.

Mother: “Woe to you! You are caught in Satan's snare!”

I can assure you: that Protestant pastor in Hamburg—I read the letter myself—who wrote to one of our members saying that I myself was Satan—he was not alone!

“You are caught in Satan’s snare!”

Karl: Satan is a German invention, because the German Satan is more satanic than the Italian or English ones. He is a favorite of German poets and philosophers, so he must have his good points as well.

Mother: Satan's good?!

Karl: What I don't like about Christian mythology is that it lacks Satanic elements.

Mother: Oh my God! Isn’t one Satan enough for us? — Karl: Mother, I beg you, spare me these elegies of the heroically pitiful sort; they are feelings of wretchedness at the thought of the absurdity of the relationship between banality and madness.

Mother: How fortunate for me that I do not understand your insults.

Karl: You want to stop me from following my path? It’s no use. Anyone who has ever, whether foolishly or nobly, sought to interfere with the course of the human spirit—

Mother: Intervene? In a gang? What does that mean?

Karl: He has to come along, or he’ll be no better off than a dog in a roasting spit that won’t put its paws forward.

Mother: Oh, for heaven’s sake, back up a bit! Your severe mental confusion could one day lead you to despair and suicide!

Karl: “Suicide is merely an event, rarely an act.”

Taken out of context!

“Mother: Oh, that would be a terrible ordeal for me!

Karl: If it is an act, then there can be no question of law at all, but only of propriety.

Mother: It is neither right nor proper.

Karl: You are mistaken; it is never wrong to die voluntarily, but it is often indecent to live longer.

Mother: What am I to make of this! Woe is me! How bitterly my hope has deceived me!

Karl: Don't worry, Mother; you'll soon see things my way.

Mother (with disgust): Never again!

Karl: Perhaps you mean, like Rousseau, that a certain kind of good and beautiful free-spiritedness is less becoming to women than to men?

Mother: Neither you nor us.

Karl: But that's just one of Rousseau's countless platitudes that are generally accepted.

Mother: You silly person! It's outrageous to speak of Rousseau that way.

But good heavens! If only you were just being insolent! — I take my leave of you, bowing deeply. I am but a woman and can offer you nothing but my feelings. Your uncle is a man; he may speak to you like a man (exits).

Karl (alone): “The shallow person judges all other people as human beings, but treats them like objects, and fails completely to understand that they are different people from himself.”

And now, from a subsequent scene: Karl, who is now facing his uncle, the baron.

“Karl: Man is a serious beast.

Baron: A beast? Shame on you. I can tell you’ve studied too much and been too lonely. I’ll introduce you to some good company.

Karl: German societies are serious; their comedies and satires are serious; their criticism is serious; all of their fine literature is serious.

Baron: Oh, there are plenty of fools among the Germans, too.

Karl: Folly is the absolute reversal of the proper direction, a complete lack of historical spirit.

Baron: Listen, cousin, spare me all that nonsense about

Halse, let's talk sensibly. I have a project for you.

Karl: A project is the subjective seed of an object in the making.

Baron: Anyway, you have to make a living.

Karl: “There can be nothing more presumptuous than to exist at all, let alone to exist in a certain independent way.” So now we come to the great question of existence, don’t we!

“Baron: Well, for heaven’s sake! How do I exist, then?

Karl: You? You don't even exist.

Baron (recoils): Not at all?

Karl: Most people are merely equal pretenders to existence; there are few who truly exist.

Baron: Good heavens! You're either a fool or a madman.

Karl: “Foolishness differs from madness only in that it is as arbitrary as stupidity.” Now just a little more. It’s a scene between Karl and Malchen.

“Karl rushes toward Malchen and pulls her furiously to his chest.

Karl: Oh, my Amalie!

Malchen: Slow down! Slow down, dear cousin! You're crushing me.

Karl: It is in a man’s nature to have a certain clumsy enthusiasm that is almost divine, even if it borders on rudeness (he wants to embrace her once more).

Malchen (ashamed and resisting): Not so impetuously, dear Karl.

Karl (looking at her with a smile): It really is a funny situation, being an innocent girl.

Malchen (surprised): What? A strange situation?

Karl: True, but women will probably have to remain prudish as long as men are sentimental, foolish, and wicked enough to demand eternal innocence and a lack of education from them.

Malchen: So you're not demanding that I be innocent?

Karl: You are a blossoming young woman and, therefore, the most charming symbol of pure goodwill.

Malchen: What a strange compliment!

Karl: We're going to get married.

Malchen: Maybe.

Karl: It is true that women lack a sense of art, a aptitude for science, and the capacity for abstraction; it is true that malicious malice, combined with naive coldness and laughing callousness, is an innate art of their sex. —

Malchen: What a flattering description!

Karl: Nevertheless, I am determined to give it a try.

Malchen: Want to give it a try? That would be lovely.

Karl: Almost all marriages are merely concubinages, provisional attempts at a real marriage.

Malchen: Mr. Vetter, I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

Karl: We could also, if anything, take the experiment to the next level—for example, a marriage à quatre.

Malchen (almost speechless with astonishment): What? Karl: “It’s hard to see what a serious objection one could raise against a marriage à quatre.”

Everything torn out!

“Malchen: Would you really be able to share your lover?”

Karl: I will strive to possess you as if I did not possess you.

Malchen: What a pleasant view!

Karl: “That is the duty of the true cynic.”

Just a little further. The prince is coming now and is also talking with Karl.

“Prince: I love that story.

Karl: The historical style must be distinguished by its unadorned solidity, sublime grandeur, and magnificent cheerfulness.

Prince: What bombastic language! Have you perhaps devoted yourself to public administration?

Karl: If only there were not so often instances of arbitrariness in the actions of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches—actions for which they do not seem to have any inherent justification.

Fürst: What would need to be done?

Karl: Isn't that authority derived from the constituent power?

Fürst: Maybe.

Karl: Which would therefore necessarily have to have a veto as well?

Fürst: Now I see where you’re going with this, and I advise you, with the best of intentions, not to meddle in government affairs—at least not in my country, where peace and morality reign.

Karl: Morality? I hardly think so. For the first impulse of morality is opposition to positive legality and conventional lawfulness.

Fürst: “That sounds very much like those newer, destructive principles.”

[ 7 ] Even if the boundaries within which one opposed what could have emerged from the great intellectual upsurge of that time were not strictly adhered to, the spirit that rebelled against it certainly prevailed. And so it is indeed the case that the seeds sown back then must first sprout. And they will not sprout unless people lose the fear—arising from complacency and superficiality—of what Spiritual Science can reveal from the spiritual worlds. The first condition will be recognizing how necessary—as I have often said—it is in life to be true, thoroughly true, and to truly have the courage to face—forgive me for the word, but it’s right there—the consequences of what one recognizes as true. Truth does not lie merely in the way one makes one’s assertions; rather, truth or falsehood lies already in the very way one uses words. One can see this clearly when one considers the resistance coming from the outside world today in the very field that ought to lead to an understanding of Christianity and the Mystery of Golgotha as it must be understood in our time, so that human beings can bring everything they are capable of feeling about the Mystery of Golgotha in harmony with the full scope of our understanding of the times. One might say: Certain people out there are most furious at what has been revealed through Spiritual Science regarding the coming to Earth of the figure of Christ Jesus.

[ 8 ] My dear friends, we had to draw upon all three worlds to comprehend the appearance of Christ-Jesus. First, we have that Jesus who bears within himself the individuality of the great Zarathustra. He grows up until his twelfth year. Then he leaves that body and passes into the body of the other Jesus-boy, who has formed a soul that has not undergone the entire earthly evolution—but I have explained this — which has, as it were, remained behind in the substance of the Earth human soul, in that one part descended into human bodies and another part remained above, which only then entered the body that the second Mary gave birth to as the second Jesus-child. And I have pointed out to you that Spiritual Science shows us how this Jesus-child, right at his birth—something a human being in the present age cannot do—spoke, declaring who he is. Growing up with the soul of Zarathustra, this Jesus-child reaches the age of thirty, and the Christ Individuality incarnates within him and lives in this body, which has been prepared by the spirit of the great Zarathustra, prepared by that soul which did not participate in Earth’s evolution but remained behind from Earth’s evolution at that time when the Earth had not yet descended to its present materiality. The Christ Individuality now lives in this body for three years. We had to call upon three worlds to comprehend this great figure, this greatest figure, and this greatest event in human evolution: The highest spiritual worlds from which Christ descended, the world that existed before there was an Earth, and the world through which human beings have developed—to which Zarathustra belongs, albeit as an exceptional incarnation, yet still as an ordinary human incarnation.

[ 9 ] If one—as I mentioned in my short treatise, which is also being published now: “The Task of Spiritual Science and Its Structure in Dornach”—listens to those people who judge such things, one sees how afraid they are of having to understand them. And they call such things “unchristian,” and then substitute what they themselves believe about Christ. And if one thinks they should be satisfied when one comes to them and says: “Yes, what you believe, we believe as well; but we believe something else in addition!”—they are not satisfied with that, but rather they do not allow one to know anything else besides what they presume to know. This shows that these people are not at all concerned with the knowledge of the truth, but solely with the exercise of their power. They do not want to allow a mental image of Christ to be presented in his highest glory if that glory can only be attained through the understanding of something that is inconvenient for them to learn,

[ 10 ] While certain people—who not only call themselves Christians but even officially represent Christianity as priests or pastors—oppose the Christian nature of Spiritual Science, there is another fact to consider on the other hand. That fact is that there are people today who claim they are entitled to serve as Christian pastors and do not need to consider that Christ—or, as they put it, Jesus—entered human evolution in a different way than any other human being. There are already Christian priests and pastors today who are firmly of the opinion that they need not consider a special kind of birth for Jesus, but who view him as a kind of higher Socrates—indeed, as one of the noble human beings, perhaps simply the noblest of all. Yes, there are people who are renowned theologians and who speak of the Resurrection in such a way that they say: Whatever may have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane, the belief in the Resurrection emerged from it; let us hold fast to this belief in the Resurrection. — Many years ago, at a Giordano Bruno Society meeting, I once remarked on what a baroque way of thinking it is when someone says: “Whatever may have happened there in the Garden of Gethsemane, we don’t concern ourselves with that, but the belief that the Resurrection took place there—that is what we should hold fast to.” I pointed out the baroque and paradoxical nature of this way of thinking, because it is the way of thinking espoused in Adolf von Harnack’s The Essence of Christianity. At that time, the chairman of the Giordano Bruno Society—not the Giordano Bruno Federation, but the Giordano Bruno Society—a professor, approached me and said: “But Harnack couldn’t have said something like that! That would be just like the Catholics, who also claim: “Whatever that rag hanging in Trier may be, it is considered to be the robe of Christ, so we hold fast to it!” That can’t be in The Essence of Christianity! — Of course, it is in there. The man has read The Essence of Christianity, but he skimmed right over it because he is completely oblivious to what is actually written there.

[ 11 ] These are the experiences one has today with people and the way they relate to the spiritual world. There will surely be plenty of people who keep coming back again and again and saying: “Oh, what an abstract concept!” We want a simple, unassuming Jesus of Nazareth, and you give us three Jesuses!” — The “unassuming man of Nazareth” has, after all, already become a favorite subject even among the most enlightened theologians. Well, the question must be posed to us: Can we still call people Christians who actually rebel against understanding Christ in the way he must be understood in our time?

[ 12 ] Let’s suppose someone came along and said: To believe in Jesus as Zarathustra, and then again in Jesus as the one who took in the substance of the human soul before it descended to Earth—to believe all of that contradicts the convictions I once formed based on my worldview. But there is one thing I hold fast to—this is precisely what my worldview gives me: that the being who lived in Jesus entered the world in a supernatural way, not as other human beings do; that this being spoke immediately upon birth—something others do not do—and also foretold that he would not die in the same way as other human beings. — Let’s suppose someone came along who said they could believe that. We would say: Well, Christianity has indeed spread across a wide variety of ideological currents; this person has taken from Christianity only what is hinted at in the Gospel of Luke—namely, the boy Jesus, who descends from the Nathanic line of the House of David. Suppose such a thing were expressed in a religious document; we would say: Well, the faith of the one who says this is influenced by a tradition that has become obscure, a tradition that can only be clarified again through Spiritual Science’s insight into the second Jesus-boy. — I will read to you such a religious document that deals with Jesus, and I ask you to judge for yourselves what this religious document might be worth:

“A mention of the mercy of your Lord toward His servant Zacharias”

You know the character of Zechariah from the Bible!

“As he called upon his Lord in secret,

He said: “My lord, behold, my bones are weak, and my head is gray with age,”

And my prayer to you has never gone unanswered.

And behold, I fear for my clan after me, for my wife is barren.

“So give me a successor from among you who will inherit the throne after me and the house of Jacob, and make him pleasing to you, my Lord”—that is, make him pleasing to you.

“O Zechariah, behold, we give you the good news of a son named John,

As we have not yet mentioned any.

He said, “My Lord, how can I have a son when my wife is barren and I have grown old and weak?”

He said, “So be it! Your Lord has spoken: ‘This is easy for Me, and I created you before, when you were nothing.’

He said, “My Lord, give me a sign.” He said, “Your sign shall be that, even though you are well, you shall not speak to the people for three nights.”

It's just like in the Bible!

“And he stepped out of the alcove to his people and signaled to them —”

He gestured because he couldn't speak.

“Praise the Lord in the morning and in the evening. And we said”

That is to say: the believers:

“O John, receive the Scripture with all your strength; and We gave him wisdom while he was still a child,”

And mercy and purity were his; and he was pious and loving toward his parents, and was neither arrogant nor defiant. And peace be upon him on the day of his birth and on the day he died,

and on the day of his resurrection to life '» That, then, is the teaching of John. Now let us continue.

“And remember also the story of Mary in the book. When she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east

And she veiled herself from them, so We sent Our Spirit to her,

And he appeared to her as a perfect man.»

Just like in the Bible! A strange document, isn't it?

“She said: ‘Behold, I seek refuge from you with the Most Merciful, if you fear Him.’

He said, “I am only a messenger from your Lord, sent to bestow upon you a pure son.”

She said, “How can I have a son, since no man has touched me and I am not a prostitute?”

He said, “So be it! Your Lord has said, ‘That is easy for Me’; and We will make him a sign for mankind and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.”

“And so she received him and withdrew with him to a secluded place.” They refer to the spiritual conception of Jesus.

“And labor pains came upon her as she was leaning against the trunk of a palm tree. She said:

Oh, if only I had died first, and been forgotten and lost!

And someone among them called out: “Do not worry; your Lord has caused a stream to flow beneath you;

Just shake the trunk of the palm tree toward you, and fresh, ripe dates will fall on you.

So eat and drink and keep a cool head, and if you see a person,

Say: “Behold, I have vowed to the Most Merciful to fast; therefore, I will not speak to anyone today.”

And she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have indeed done a strange thing!”

O sister of Aaron, your father was no villain, and your mother was no harlot.

And she pointed to him. They said, “How can we speak to him, a child in the cradle?”

He (Jesus) said: “Behold, I am a servant of God. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. And He has blessed me wherever I am, and commanded me

Prayer and almsgiving, as long as I live,

And love for my mother; and he did not make me arrogant and wretched.

“And peace be upon the day of my birth, the day I die, and the day I am raised to life!”

You know, I described it this way: I said, “He said something that only his mother could understand.” — And then the book went on to say:

“This is Jesus, the son of Mary—the Word of Truth, which they doubt.

It is not befitting of God to beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a matter, He merely says to it, “Be,” and it is.

And behold, God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him; this is the right path.

But the sects are at odds with one another; and woe to the unbelievers on the Day of Testimony!

Let them hear and see for a day when they come to us.

But the unjust are clearly in error today.»

[ 13 ] This document speaks of Jesus, of whom, in this instance, only this one aspect is recorded. Can we not say of this document: That whoever believes in it believes far more than many who, in our time, not only call themselves Christians but also teach Christianity in an official capacity? Does not the one who firmly believes in this document believe much more in Christianity than someone who today often calls himself a teacher of Christianity? And do you not think I have read to you a document—I do not know if you are familiar with it—that is regarded by a few people, by a small sect, as the true testimony of their faith! I have read to you from the Quran! I have read to you the 19th surah of the Quran, and every true Turk believes in Jesus to the extent described in this 19th surah of the Quran. This, however, provides us with proof that many of those among us who call themselves Christians do not even know or believe enough about this Christianity to justify calling themselves Turks. Even in our time, one must look the truth in the face. Anyone who cannot believe that this is an event that can only be understood through the spirit is not even a Turk, much less a Christian, and is not telling the truth when he calls himself a Christian. He must realize that a Turk believes more in Christianity than he himself does.

[ 14 ] I do believe, my dear friends, that these are serious, truly serious matters, and it is indeed the responsibility of those who devote themselves to Spiritual Science to examine these matters in the spirit of truth. For what is untrue is not only what one senses as the next falsehood in a statement, but it is also untrue when one assigns a name to oneself or to a matter that, in the context of historical development, gives rise to false mental images. We must be truthful not only in what we assert, but we must be truthful with our whole personality, with our whole being.

[ 15 ] It is often the case, on the one hand, that those who deny the Christian nature of Spiritual Science are people who do not even have the right to call themselves Turks. But on the other hand, Spiritual Science is universally opposed by inadequate knowledge—truly inadequate knowledge. Let us point out one more case today. We speak of how our Earth developed out of the ancient lunar existence. What we today call the mineral kingdom did not yet exist in the ancient lunar existence; it has, so to speak, only crystallized out since then. As human beings, we have within us the animals and the plants. They all contain the mineral kingdom within themselves: they are permeated by it; on the physical plane, they are perceptible to our present-day senses only because they contain the mineral kingdom within themselves. We must look back to the ancient lunar era. There we must imagine the predecessor of humankind, who was not yet permeated by a mineral kingdom. Read in Occult Science what this Lunar realm looked like, in which the mineral kingdom had not yet been realized. Read how everything was a soft, watery substance, so to speak, and how that which grew out of the water merely floated, as it were, in the water. One would therefore also have to assume: That which developed from the Moon—I have mentioned this in earlier reflections, how our main organ developed from the Moon— must have developed in such a way that it would, so to speak, have floated in the water on the Moon; and then, on the ancient Moon, another kind of perception must have existed in human beings, who had not yet developed the rest of their bodies to such an extent, but rather—as I explained in one of my recent reflections—had their brain, which was, so to speak, still quite different in its mobility, floating on the water as an appendage. But even on the ancient Moon, the sounds of the music of the spheres—the ringing and undulating of the music of the spheres—were still perceptible. Well, what would it have been like there? Sounds from outside, these sounds continuing in the lunar waters, being transformed through an apparatus from which our present-day larynx has developed, so that this ancient lunar brain, floating on the water, resonated along with them. So imagine the music of the world rippling through the ocean of the world, being transformed into images of the imagination through an apparatus from which our larynx has developed, and coming to life again as imaginations of the ancient lunar dream-consciousness.

[ 16 ] If that had really been the case on the ancient Moon, then one would have to notice it now; one would have to be able to see, so to speak, that human beings have evolved from something like that. Yes, my dear friends, can you see it in human beings? Isn’t it true that today the music of the spheres has fallen silent? What developed from the organ that received the music of the spheres on the Moon is our larynx, which is surrounded by the lungs. Our brain is enclosed within a solid shell. Does it still reveal anything about how things were on the ancient Moon, floating on the water? I want only to sketch out the most fundamental thoughts. What people usually learn about the human brain does not at all draw their attention to what is actually at stake here. But people could, for example, consider the following—some have indeed considered it, so no one should be wronged—: This human brain weighs 1,350 grams. Now imagine, if you were to place 1,350 grams in your hand, how you would feel it! So that’s what’s in there—1,350 grams—and beneath it are the arteries that supply the brain, the blood vessels. The fact is, my dear friends, that these blood vessels would be crushed by 1,350 grams. There’s no question that if you were to lay those blood vessels out and place the 1,350 grams on top of them, they would remain undamaged. Inside there, they remain undamaged. Why do these blood vessels remain undamaged? Because they aren’t being pressed down by 1,350 grams at all! Why aren’t they being pressed down by 1,350 grams? Yes, I remind you of what you may have read in those physics textbooks you set aside long ago—that the ancient Greek researcher once cried out “I’ve found it!” while in the bath when he realized: in water, he becomes that much lighter. Every object becomes as much lighter in the liquid or gaseous medium in which it is immersed as the weight of that liquid or gas, otherwise a balloon could never rise into the air. It loses as much weight as the weight of the displaced air. And in water, every object loses as much of its weight as the weight of the displaced water. — And the brain floats in cerebrospinal fluid! In addition to the fact that the brain is contained within it, the brain actually floats in cerebrospinal fluid, which also flows down through the spinal canal. The brain floats in water, and because it floats in water, it loses so much of its weight that it exerts a pressure of only 20 grams. So the brain, which weighs 1,350 grams, exerts a pressure of only 20 grams because the weight of the water is so great: 1,350 grams minus 20 grams. The brain truly floats in water. The brain is still capable today of what it was on the ancient Moon. Inside, it still mimics the form it had back then; it has merely transformed and been enveloped by the rest of the human shell, which arose from the laws of the Earth.

[ 17 ] And even communication with the outside world is still there. When we inhale, our diaphragm rises. But the diaphragm doesn’t just rise; as it rises, it presses on the entire venous system here and on the ganglion system, and as a result, the water that has accumulated in the spinal canal is forced all the way up into the brain. So when we inhale, the water moves from the spinal canal up into the brain. When we exhale, the process is reversed: the diaphragm descends again, and the water flows slightly from the brain down into the back, into the spinal cord. Just imagine: we are, in essence, still in constant interaction with the wave-like movements of the environment. With every exhalation, the cerebrospinal fluid descends; with every inhalation, it rises—a rising and falling of the cerebrospinal fluid in which the brain floats. Therein lies that complex process through which human beings today are more than they were on the ancient Moon, through which they—as people of mechanical tools—are now capable not only of having imaginings but also of thinking. What is constantly happening to us has been pushed down into the subconscious. Yes, my dear friends, it happens constantly: We have imaginations all the time; they are simply drowned out by our mental images, just as a stronger light drowns out a weaker one. The imaginations are constantly present, and they are in a constant relationship with exhalation and inhalation. And it is only because the denser, mineral-infused brain opposes these imaginations that—through the impact of the solid brain matter on the imaginative cerebrospinal fluid—a sublimation of the imaginations occurs, an extraction of our conscious mental images, our thoughts, from within the imaginations.

[ 18 ] There is no scientific truth which, when considered in the proper sense, does not fully confirm what Spiritual Science asserts on the basis of spiritual foundations. But one must think in a completely different way than is currently the case among natural scientists and, in particular, among their followers. There is no contradiction between Spiritual Science and natural science; rather, the facts of natural science fully confirm the findings of Spiritual Science. But those whose profession it is to know are afraid—they have a hopeless fear of complex ideas, indeed of thinking itself. And it is solely because people today can learn in a convenient way and, once they have read a little, can become an authority—and not just an authority, but even a great discoverer on the path of science—that so many foolish theories arise. For once they have acquired a few concepts and know a few facts, they can present themselves today as reformers of science. A person need not know anything at all about real natural science or about the actual mental processes. Precisely because he knows nothing, he can end up compiling a few facts he has observed according to “strictly scientific method,” that is, according to the method I recently demonstrated to you in connection with the psychology of the marriage ad—which, as you know from our last discussion, has now emerged within the Psychological Society as a genuine chapter of modern science—and whether it’s the marriage ad or the human soul, one can apply the same “strictly scientific method” to everything. And then, after all—well, I believe the German saying goes: “Jacket or pants”! Whether one takes the jacket, right, and becomes a psychologist of marriage advertisements, or whether one takes the pants and becomes a psychoanalyst—that’s really just “jacket or pants.” But our believers, who of course reject all authority, hear: “The Psychology of the Marriage Advertisement,” presented at the Psychological Society—so, naturally, something strictly scientific!

[ 19 ] This is what creeps into people’s souls as subconscious impulses. This is how it is in this realm, and this is also how it is in the realm of higher spiritual life. If people were to see through what Spiritual Science has to offer specifically regarding the Mystery of Golgotha, and everything connected with it, they would see how, through the invocation of the three worlds, this Mystery of Golgotha is illuminated in such a way that it can truly become the center of all our present-day feelings that strive toward the spiritual, in a manner appropriate to the spiritual needs of our time. But because there are far too many people working within Christianity today who do not even have the right to call themselves Christians—as we have rigorously demonstrated—it is no wonder that the official representatives of Christianity actually reject a true understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. But we may hope: The serious signs beckoning into our time will awaken longings in many, many people that can only be satisfied by what a true spiritual science can offer. And they will cause the number of those who no longer listen when the spirit is discussed in a sensationalist manner—as Eucken does, for example—and who do not submit to the authority of those who, when an authority says that what matters is not the Resurrection but rather believing in the Resurrection, they read it, but do not even realize that they have read it.

[ 20 ] To live in truth, to strive to be true as a whole human being—that will be the watchword of the future. And then, within a humanity that wishes to live in this way in truth, the Mystery of Golgotha will shine so brightly that even a spirit from distant stars might look down: it would see the meaning of Earth’s evolution in what the Mystery of Golgotha was. But it would also say: Human beings have grasped the meaning of the Earth, for that is what it means to grasp the Mystery of Golgotha.

[ 21 ] More on that next time.