The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Eighth Lecture

[ 1 ] From yesterday’s discussions, you could see how, in our time, the individual is at the very heart of the entire development of humanity. It was shown what, in a sense, comes to the individual personality through the development of humanity itself, and how this development of humanity absolutely requires that the impulse to kindle and awaken the inner life of the soul be stirred more and more, so that human beings will increasingly find progress not as some kind of external influence, but will have to appropriate it from within themselves. This is, after all, the purpose of what spiritual science aims to achieve: to enable human individuality to advance further, whereas in ancient times, simply by being born into humanity, a person possessed a certain sum of experiences that brought them to a certain degree of maturity. You will sense that the recognition of such a state of affairs, as we were able to describe it yesterday, is of immense significance and thoroughly illuminates what our time—and the people of our time—need.

[ 2 ] The only way to truly get to the heart of these matters—as a scholar of the humanities ought to—is by looking with open eyes at the way people today relate to the entire development of the Earth. There, one can make discoveries of infinite significance. One must simply make these discoveries in such a way that one is able to evaluate the facts. There are certainly people in our time who feel that something is necessary to lead the soul, so to speak, beyond itself—that is, beyond the age of twenty-seven. But the courage and energy that today accomplish such wonders in external spheres—the courage and energy to truly bring the inner soul forces to fruition—are not so commonly found today. And so it happens that we encounter people who, in their own way, have a certain yearning to find something other than what is offered by contemporary culture and the tasks of our time that surround them. But they lack the courage to approach that mode of action and mindset that seeks something truly new: spiritual science. And so we find that such people do not articulate it clearly, but they feel: In the past, the environment gave people more, so we must once again seek what the world used to give to people; we must reconnect with the gifts of earlier humanity.

[ 3 ] That is why people who are particularly yearning for the spiritual—I would say—out of a sense of powerlessness take refuge in all sorts of things that have actually already faded away in the course of human development. We could cite examples of this everywhere. Let us cite a particularly characteristic one in the writer Maurice Barres, who in his youthful impetuosity once—one might say—wanted to storm the spiritual heavens, but then, because he could not bring himself to join any new spiritual movement, sought refuge in Catholicism, as so many do today. But it is a curious mindset that seeks a path backward rather than a path forward. And the words with which Barres describes his very striving toward Catholicism are characteristic, for these words truly testify to how a timid, listless spiritual impulse—because it does not want to seek the new—reaches for the old. But the way in which he reaches for it is what is characteristic. Just consider the words of such a mind—one that has emerged entirely from the culture of our time, stands entirely within it, and has developed an inclination toward Catholicism out of this very culture—consider these words: “It is a futile effort to seek the hereafter. It may not even exist!” Just imagine: after someone has sought this connection to Catholicism, he speaks of the hereafter in this way: “It is a futile effort to seek the hereafter. It may not even exist; and no matter how we approach it, we cannot learn anything about it. Let us leave all forms of occultism to the enlightened and the charlatans; whatever form mysticism may take, it contradicts reason. But let us nevertheless devote ourselves to the Church”—think about it!—“first, because it is inseparably linked to the tradition of France. And second, because, with the authority of the centuries and vast practical experience, it formulates the rules of that ethics which must be taught to the peoples and to children. And finally, because, far from abandoning us to mysticism, it directly defends us against it, silences the voices of the mysterious groves, interprets the Gospels, and sacrifices the Savior’s magnanimous anarchism to the needs of modern society.” You see the motives of a man characteristic of the present age, driven to seek the spirit in his own way: he reaches for what humanity once possessed without human effort. But he takes it without actually laying claim in any way to the full meaning of what he takes. One might say that such a thing is cynical or frivolous, were it not for the great seriousness of the quest underlying it. But that is precisely the fatal flaw: the seriousness of the quest itself becomes frivolous due to the circumstances of the times. Do not take this word lightly! The great ills of our time are rooted in the fact that people are always inclined to take things lightly. One could cite countless examples like that of Maurice Barres. Everywhere, in the most diverse ways, what is characteristic of our time in the sense just described would come to the fore.

[ 4 ] We ask ourselves: What is the root of this problem? We ask ourselves this because it is important for us to recognize how we need to do things differently. However, we can only truly make sense of this if we have some insight into the plight of our times—into what underlies such a mindset. One must look back a little at the course of human development if one wants to understand what must be understood in the present if we are to move forward. If one looks back at the development of European humanity and the Asian part of humanity associated with it—one need only go back to the first third of the post-Atlantean era— one finds today, even through purely scientific inquiry, that people in those days clearly distinguished the three fundamental components of the human being, and that the ancient—albeit more obtuse and dreamlike—understanding had reached the point where people knew how to distinguish between the three fundamental components of the human being. And this, in turn, is the reason why I have emphasized with particular clarity in my *Theosophy* that these three fundamental components must indeed underlie the entire structure of the human being. If we look back, we find everywhere that people understood how the human being can be traced back to body, soul, and spirit. But just think for a moment about the confusion that has arisen today—even among those who seek clarity—regarding an understanding of the human being in terms of body, soul, and spirit! You can pick up one philosophy after another today; you can study Wundt—who is famous not only in Germany but throughout the world—with the utmost diligence, and you will see that he is unable to distinguish the soul from the spirit, even though distinguishing the soul from the spirit is one of the most fundamental necessities today. When, then, did it actually become apparent that people had conflated the soul with the spirit? As I said, you can find it everywhere: human beings are divided into body and soul, and the spirit is lumped into the soul without any distinction whatsoever. This was expressed quite clearly in the year 869 at the Council of Constantinople, where the spirit was, so to speak—forgive the harsh expression—abolished; for the teachings formulated at that time essentially culminated in making it a dogma that human beings possess within themselves a thinking soul and a spiritual soul. So the spirit was abolished, and the little bit of spirit that was still sensed at the time was smuggled into the soul by saying: It possesses the power of thought and something else spiritual. Then came the Middle Ages with its scholastic research, admirable in many respects; but this was everywhere subject to the forceful constraints of dogma, and the so-called trichotomy was strictly frowned upon. One had to leave out the spirit everywhere. And this also explains the way in which modern university professors—who, by their own admission, pursue science without presuppositions—think about the soul and the spirit—or rather, fail to think about them at all. But they are unaware of the premises, namely the decrees of the Council of 869. The fact that they have no inkling of what they are actually dependent on is the reason why they call themselves “unbiased.” This is how things stand, and they must be acknowledged and vigorously addressed; it does no good to turn a blind eye to these matters. For if anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is to become for humanity what it must actually become according to the laws of human evolution, then such matters must first and foremost be addressed, and humanity must once again be given an understanding of the structure of the human being as body, soul, and spirit. Just as, on the one hand, the body stands as the physical mediator of consciousness between birth and death or conception and death, so must the spirit be recognized as the spiritual mediator of that higher consciousness which the human being must develop between death and a new birth. This, however, is connected with profound inner realities and significant life circumstances of modern humanity. Let us consider some characteristic features of our time. The thinking—which we must acknowledge has become abstract—is in many ways based, in public life at least—even if people have strayed from it here and there—on three abstract ideas. And especially in our time, we see these three abstract ideas being brought into play by the whole world against the heart of Europe. But this heart of Europe will only grasp its spiritual task if it deigns to transform these three abstract ideas into concrete ideas steeped in reality. These three ideas were imprinted with great vehemence into people’s consciousness at the end of the 18th century in the words: brotherhood, freedom, equality. They almost remind us of three quite concrete ideas that are now understood as quite abstract, but which, in their time, when they were incorporated into human consciousness, were meant in a very concrete sense. They remind us of faith, hope, and love. But let us stick to the three ideas of brotherhood, liberty, and equality. It is a form of shadowy thinking to attempt to mentally bring these three ideas to mind throughout the entire modern world. All the efforts the human soul makes in this direction are based precisely on the fact that people do not have the inclination to enter into reality. With these three great, these three cardinal ideas, they do no differently than with the idea of reorientation: that every person should occupy the place that best befits them. They proclaim beautiful ideas, form abstract concepts from these ideas, but have no inclination to engage with reality. And this reality lies in the understanding of spiritual science.

[ 5 ] Just as one confuses mind and soul, so too does one confuse liberty, equality, and fraternity. The idea of fraternity will only be properly grasped by humanity once it becomes clear that human beings stand fully here on the physical plane with only one aspect of their being—the aspect we call physicality. It is through physicality that human beings stand here on the physical plane; but this physicality connects human beings to the entire human race through blood ties and other bonds. Let us reflect on earlier times, particularly with regard to the way the physical human being relates to other physical human beings here in the world. After all, human beings do not merely possess within themselves what they have inherited from their parents; they carry within themselves the immortal part that passes through births and deaths. But this is structured through incarnations within physicality. In ancient times, as I explained yesterday, human beings were capable—through the processes of eating, digesting, and breathing—of perceiving the spiritual in their surroundings, of becoming aware of it; they were capable of this. Through this, there was, so to speak, something instinctive within them that we might call a sum of feelings, sensations, ideas, and concepts, which governed their behavior toward their fellow human beings. This was instinctive within them. We see this instinctive aspect diminishing in more recent times, and the terrible outbursts of hatred we now encounter can only be understood if we grasp their real basis—if we understand how these ancient instincts are waning. These instincts of hatred are far more serious than is currently recognized. We will experience terrible things as a result of this state of affairs. And if that which must be conquered in the course of human evolutionary history cannot be conquered, then the instincts of hatred will grow ever greater and greater. For even if individual people—especially today, in this age of freedom from authority, in this age of science without presuppositions—strive above all to be led by the nose time and again, the feelings welling up from the unconscious will not allow it. Such people today seek out all manner of leaders: the more unnaturally they strive to follow these leaders unconditionally, the more they are exposed to the danger that their so-called love will turn into hatred. This is not something that can be addressed through mere criticism, because it is deeply rooted in the very laws of human development; and the more love for humanity is merely preached as an abstract idea, the more brotherhood is preached merely in the abstract, the more mutual antipathy among people would unfold. This is also a truth that must be taken very seriously and deeply into account if one wishes to understand the present. What must come to pass is that what we call the concept of repeated earthly lives is transformed into a feeling. Merely adhering to the theory of repeated earthly lives is not enough in and of itself!

[ 6 ] But let us take all that has been attempted to be compiled in order to extract from the laws of human development over the course of time that which presents to us—not as an abstract idea, but as a concrete fact—that within every human being there lives something that passes through births and deaths; then the abstract idea is transformed into a feeling—not into instincts like those that existed in the past, but into conscious instincts, into a certain way of relating to other human beings. Even today, the impulse to interpret what one accepts as the idea of repeated earthly lives in a selfish sense is still all too prevalent. And how often have we ourselves witnessed that this or that person is, above all else, eager to know some past incarnation of their own in great detail! This cannot, at first, be the practical consequence of the idea of repeated incarnations, the idea of repeated earthly lives; rather, the true consequence must be that we learn more and more to regard every human being as if there were actually much more within them than they can live out in the one earthly life in which they stand before us right now. Above all, this gives rise to what has often been mentioned—a sense of distance, a properly balanced sense of finding the right relationship with another person: without deifying them, yet seeking within them something ever deeper and deeper that belongs to infinity.

[ 7 ] It is a false form of mysticism to constantly brood inwardly. The mysticism we need is the kind that guides us toward a practical yet intuitive understanding of human nature, so that we do not approach others by judging them from the outset as likable or unlikable, but rather with the awareness that every human soul is, in fact, an infinite mystery. If this idea is taken seriously, something flows forth from our repeated earthly lives, and from this outpouring, that which—in the true sense—should be experienced by modern humanity as brotherhood, as brotherly love, pours into our souls. Such brotherly love will not, in a stereotypical way, seek time and again to help people solely according to the idea that appeals to us; rather, it will seek to respond to the individual so that we may help them in a way that is appropriate for them—that they may be helped as their deeper self requires. Such an idea will also keep us from frivolous criticism, which—especially today—all too often erects a barrier between us and our fellow human beings, preventing us from looking impartially at what lives within another person. Only when the idea of repeated earthly lives is active and practical in our souls will the idea of brotherhood—in regard to what human beings are to one another in their physical existence—be able to take on its proper form.

[ 8 ] A second point that must be addressed in the context of human development is that we do not merely acknowledge the physical nature of human beings—which materialism today seeks to acknowledge exclusively—but that we acknowledge the human soul, that we consciously attribute a soul to every human being. But we do not attribute a soul to them if we seek to violate that soul—even if only in our own minds—that is, if we believe that we are truly respecting the soul by imposing our thoughts, specifically the form of our thoughts, upon it. We must grant freedom to the soul; we cannot grant it to the body. Freedom is the foundation, the essential element, only in the interaction between soul and soul. And the very foundation of freedom is, in fact, freedom of thought. If one truly understands this second aspect of humanity—the spiritual alongside the physical—then one will no longer confuse freedom and brotherhood, but will say: Brotherhood is necessary because human beings must establish a social order in the spirit of brotherhood. A social structure in the spirit of brotherhood must emerge, and until people are inspired by true, practical ideas of brotherhood, they will not be able to find state structures in which people can live together rationally. But if people do not recognize that within the structure of the state, the human being lives not only as a physical being but also as a soul, they will never be able to grasp the idea of freedom in the proper way. For freedom lies in the relationship from soul to soul, not from body to body. The freedom that bodies need arises of its own accord as a necessary consequence when soul-to-soul connection spreads in the sense of freedom of thought. This, however, requires above all that we finally learn to stop trying to impose our own thoughts on others, but rather that we learn to duly respect the unique direction of thought within each soul. To this end, we must especially cultivate a sense of reality, for in no other field can one sin more than in the fields of science and religion.

[ 9 ] I can only refer to the example I once encountered in a city in southern Germany. I was giving a lecture on wisdom and Christianity. It was a city in southwestern Germany, so two Catholic clergymen were also present at my lecture. After the lecture, they said: “Yes, based on what you said today, there isn’t much to object to in terms of content, but we still can’t agree with you.” — I said: “Yes, why?” — “Well,” the two gentlemen said, “the main thing is that you speak about all these matters in relation to Christianity in a way that can only be understood by certain people with a certain level of education, with specific needs, and so on. But we’re looking for a way of speaking that’s accessible to everyone; we shape our thoughts so that everyone can agree. — I replied: Reverend, whether you or I think something is beneficial to all people is up to you or me; you and I can certainly form our own ideas about that; and of course, when we form such ideas, we’ll be fully convinced that they’re correct. We would be strange birds if we formed ideas that we did not believe were suitable for all people. But it does not matter what you or I think—based on our particular development—about whether something is suitable for all people. Ultimately, that is completely irrelevant; we must move beyond it through proper, active, practical self-knowledge. What matters is to study reality and ask: What does reality dictate? What do the times and their context teach us is necessary for people? What do people’s longings teach us? But then a question arises that is different from the one you’re asking—the question: Do all people go to church with you today? If you were to speak for all people, everyone would come to you. — At that point, they could not help but say: “It is true that not everyone goes to church anymore.” — “Well,” I said, “you see, and among those who have been sitting here, most are people who do not go to church, but who also have the right to find the way to Christ, and it is for them that I speak.”

[ 10 ] One must not form an idea of what people need based on one’s own stubborn opinions, but rather on what reality tells us. But it is more difficult to study reality. One must apply one’s sense of observation accordingly, time and again, and have the will to ask again and again: What, in fact, are the needs of the times? What is it that is necessary in our time? — And until this sense—this practical sense, which must underlie freedom of thought—takes root in people’s souls, we will not achieve a proper relationship from soul to soul. Just as the social structure toward which humanity must strive depends on arriving at a correct understanding of physicality in the spirit of spiritual science and on being able to grasp the idea of brotherly love, so too must we learn to gain an understanding of souls and help realize the idea of freedom of thought in the realms of science and education, as well as in the realm of religious sentiment.

[ 11 ] And a third is the Spirit. If we truly succeed in restoring the Spirit to its rightful place—that is, in reversing what the Council of Constantinople in 869 recognized—then the Spirit, too, will experience what, in a practical sense, will guide the lives of future generations. We already see two tendencies today: One tends to move in the same direction as the Council of Constantinople, that is, to abolish the Spirit. A monistic worldview strives to abolish the soul as well, and anyone who believes that scientific monism possesses enough tolerance—as the word is understood today—that it would not go so far as to convene a council and ban the soul is mistaken. The trend is already moving toward abolishing not only the Spirit but also the soul. And those who are today’s “little monists” will want to grow into very great monists, and even if they spurn the idea of holding councils—for they are, after all, free spirits, having freed themselves for the most part from all spirit—even if they spurn the idea of holding councils, they will simply establish a certain practice. And the time will come—and do not take this as a joke!—when the soul will be abolished. Alongside the various remedies, the physical remedies that exist today, a whole range of others will emerge, intended to treat those who speak of such fantastical things as spirit and soul; they will be cured; they will be given medicines so that they no longer speak of the spirit and the soul. One would simply need to abolish the spirit; the soul can only be driven out of people by treating the body medically and correctly. As grotesque as this may seem today, the trend in a certain direction is toward inventing methods by which all sorts of substances are instilled in children, thereby paralyzing their physical constitution to such an extent that a materialistic mindset thrives within them, and it does not even occur to them to treat the old idea of soul and spirit as anything other than something in which the ancients believed and which is a great delight to contemplate.

[ 12 ] Saying such things is, of course, considered madness by many people today; but if one does not have the courage to admit these things to oneself, one will never find the energy to bring spiritual science-based spirituality to fruition and to kindle it in people’s souls. Therefore, alongside this tendency I have just described—which will also drive the soul away because it will be regarded as a disease—another must step forward: the tendency to assert once again with vigor that human beings, in addition to body and soul, also carry the spirit within themselves. For this to happen, however, it would be necessary for an understanding of the spirit to take root, for spiritual science to truly take hold, and for people to recognize what belongs to their very essence once they have passed through the gate of death. And one of the old folk proverbs, which so often carry old, sound views into the new age, is this: In death, all are equal—because there all become spirit, and because the idea of equality is the one that corresponds to the spirit. Equality among spirits! One must not confuse the three ideas—freedom, brotherhood, equality—but must know, in concrete terms and in accordance with reality, what a human being is, and that he should be free in soul, brotherly in body, and that human beings must be equal in spirit. For the inequality that exists among human beings is that specialization brought about by body and soul, in that the spirit specializes itself into body and soul. Pneumatology—the study of the spirit, the contemplation of the spirit—is the foundation for the idea of equality. And so we are faced with the remarkable fact that at the end of the 18th century, the ideas of brotherhood, freedom, and equality were chaotically proclaimed throughout the world; yet it must gradually be understood that these ideas of brotherhood, freedom, and equality can only be realized if one is also capable of recognizing the threefold nature of

[ 13 ] To bring human beings into reality in body, soul, and spirit. This was the underlying principle when my *Theosophy* so vigorously sought to implement this division into body, soul, and spirit: This division is a necessity of our time and of the near future. But it is only by putting these ideas into practice—by learning to view humanity in this way—that we can move beyond the twenty-seven years; otherwise, we remain stuck in those twenty-seven years. And just imagine the prospect: our fifth post-Atlantean epoch will be followed by a sixth and a seventh. In the sixth, humanity as a whole will yield what corresponds to the individual development of the period between the fourteenth and twenty-first years. In the outer world, no matter how intelligent the people directing education may be, one will no longer be able to attain more than what corresponds to individual development up to the age of twenty-one. People will not be able to grow older than twenty-one, even if they do not die at that age. And in the seventh post-Atlantean epoch, people will not be able to go beyond the age that corresponds to the fourteenth year of life in individual development. Unless people grow older through the stimulation of their inner lives, humanity will be gripped by an epidemic of youthful mental weakness. Anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear—and does not live thoughtlessly—can, armed with such ideas, already evaluate many phenomena of the present in the correct way!

[ 14 ] Let us consider just one area: Where has our present-day understanding led us, say, regarding the Christ impulse? How many people are, after all, quite close to Barre’s idea that the Savior’s generous worldview has been adapted by the Church to the needs of modern society, and that this is precisely why we can get along so well with the churches? Who, then—perhaps a few individuals, certainly, but in general—who truly strives to bring to life that aspect of the Gospels which Christ set in opposition to the very thing he had to confront above all else? The most significant, most profound aspects of Christianity—how are they understood today? I would like merely to recall a central idea of Christianity: the coming of the Kingdoms of Heaven. Even Blavatsky mocked the prediction that the Kingdoms of Heaven would come, noting that at the time they were supposed to arrive, no more wheat had bloomed than before, the grapes had not grown larger—in short, the Kingdom of Heaven had not come to Earth.

[ 15 ] One thinks oneself wise; but this wisdom yields nothing more than this judgment, and it does not allow for the deeper question: Could it be that Christ meant something else? — People already recognize Christ today, but in such a way that, above all, they want their own ideas—exactly as they themselves have conceived them—to be found in Christ as well. The socialist makes him a good socialist, the liberal a liberal, the Protestant association member a board member of the Protestant association, and so on. A modern academic theologian constructs him in the same way as Professor Harnack, and people listen as Professor Harnack speaks about the most important concepts of Jesus Christ. It so happened once that I had to give a lecture at an association whose chairman was a man well-versed in the Bible and also in modern “theology.” In the course of this lecture, I said that good old Harnack actually had a peculiar concept of the Resurrection, for in his *The Essence of Christianity* there is this curious sentence: “Whatever may have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane, we can no longer judge it today, because it transcends human understanding and also exceeds the legitimate demands of faith.” But it was from the Garden of Gethsemane that the faith in the Resurrection sprang, and this has become especially precious to humanity. — Whether it is true that Christ was somehow resurrected is irrelevant! One should believe that faith originated in the Garden of Gethsemane. — That is Harnack’s teaching. The man who was the chairman of the association said: “You are mistaken, for in that regard Harnack would be downright Catholic”—the man in question felt so very Protestant and superior—“it would then be just like the Catholics who say: “Where the little piece of cloth that is venerated as the Holy Tunic of Trier comes from, or where certain little bones originate—that doesn’t matter; what matters is that the belief has spread that these things come from a particular saint.” But that is Catholic—the man in question said—and of course we cannot believe in such things. And that would be exactly the same as if Harnack were to say that what matters is not whether it is true that Christ was somehow resurrected, but rather that one believes that faith originated in the Garden of Gethsemane. So, he said to me, you must surely be mistaken. — Then I said: “Yes, you know, but that’s in *The Essence of Christianity*.” — “No,” he replied, “that can’t be in there. Have you read it?” — “Oh, many times,” I said, “I’ll write down the page and line from the book *The Essence of Christianity* on a card for you tomorrow, showing where it says that.”

[ 16 ] The man, who knew theology so well and was so well-versed in the Bible, was apparently not able to read closely enough to know what is written in the book. Yet it is written there. Such is the nature of today’s thinking. There is something quite peculiar about this modern way of thinking in all areas, especially when one tries to make it truly accessible to the general public.

[ 17 ] But it is not only theologians who prove to be sinful; natural scientists are as well. There is a little book titled *The Mechanics of Spiritual Life*. I don’t know if there’s already a book about the wooden nature of iron. The author’s name is—and I otherwise hold him in high regard, like many whom I criticize—Verworn. In this little book, he also discusses dreams and argues that during dreaming, brain activity is subdued and sluggish, that the brain is only partially active. Verworn says that if someone taps lightly against a windowpane with a pin, we might dream that cannon shots are firing one after another. — That’s a well-known dream. Verworn says this at the top of the page; then he says a few other things in between, and finally, further down on the same page, he adds: The dream has its peculiar character because the brain’s activity is subdued. — Now just imagine the logic: When our brain is fully active, we hear the soft taps, the soft jabs of the pin; when the brain is subdued, less active, then we hear the thunder of cannon fire. — This is an explanation that is accepted—like so much of Freud’s work—and readily accepted, simply because a few lines are inserted in between.

[ 18 ] But this is fundamental to our time: the willingness to truly engage one’s thinking with whatever comes one’s way is very rare in our time. And that is why it is not at all particularly incomprehensible that people are reluctant to easily grasp something like the coming of the “realms of heaven,” for this requires quite a bit. Up until then—up until the Mystery of Golgotha—the realms of heaven approached humanity as if in a dream. Before the Atlantean catastrophe, people even absorbed them through digestion. But now they had to come down. They came down, but in such a way that human beings had to strain their spirits to grasp the realms of heaven. This does not mean that the grapes grow larger or that the ears of wheat become fuller, but rather that the kingdom lives right in our midst, yet we must find it around us by preparing our own spirits.

[ 19 ] This, as I have briefly outlined it, underlies the magnificent conception of Christ Jesus. This, however, is a concept that demands energy from our soul if we wish to empathize with it. And so it is with many Christian concepts. With these, Christ confronted the Roman Empire, which had developed in complete opposition to Christianity. This Roman Empire, which evolved into the Caesarian era, subjugated the ancient mysteries through its tyranny. Augustus was the first Caesar who, because of his external power, had to be initiated into the mysteries. And his successors—Tiberius, Caligula, and others—were people initiated into the mysteries. They merely applied the perspective of the mysteries to the external realm of the world; they did not, like the Egyptian temple priests, bring the realm of the spirit into the realm of the world. Commodus even had himself made an initiator, and when he initiated another person whom he was supposed to initiate, he is said to have struck him—symbolically—with such force that he killed him.

[ 20 ] So there stood two powerful opposites facing each other: the Roman Empire and Christianity. This opposition must find a balance. It has not yet found it to this day. We must become capable of recognizing the spirit and of bringing the spirit into our lives as well. I will say only this much on this point, for in our thinking and in our feelings, much of what has become ingrained in people—the logic, the way of thinking and feeling that prevailed in the Roman Empire—continues to live on. Our high school students first learned Latin and, with it, the way of thinking of the Roman Empire, which has been passed down. We do not know how much of this lies at the very core of our lives; even today, we do not yet know how to seek and find the spiritual path to Christ in the true sense. But this path can only be one that involves the will to think—a quality that has particularly declined in our time; one might even say, intelligence itself. Our age, so proud of its intelligence, actually lacks intelligence because it lacks conscientiousness in the realm of thought.

[ 21 ] A widely read little book dealing with “Christianity in the Contemporary Struggle of Worldviews” reproduces lectures that were delivered to thousands upon thousands of people by a leading intellectual of our time, who, of course, has thoroughly studied philosophy and theology. Ideas are developed there—it’s enough to make the walls crawl! Finally, one stumbles upon the beautiful sentence: Goethe himself is said to have said:

Into the heart of nature
No creative spirit penetrates,
Blessed is he to whom she
Reveals only her outer shell!

[ 22 ] We really ought to get to the point where we acknowledge something like this! The man knows Goethe so well that he quotes this saying by Haller as if it were Goethe’s, even though Goethe himself said:

I curse it, but only in secret.
Nature has neither core nor shell;
It is everything all at once.
Just examine yourself most carefully,
To see whether you are core or shell.

[ 23 ] This is what people today are being talked into accepting as Goethe’s view—about which Goethe himself said, “I curse it”! But people listen to it willingly; that is the prevailing mindset of our time. It does no good to gaze longingly at certain ideas that come from spiritual science. These ideas must become fully integrated into the life of the soul; then the other current—the spiritual current—will take root, a current that does not allow today’s way of thinking to dominate humanity, but rather allows people to develop individually, so that they can contribute to the general evolution that which can now emerge from what is already there of its own accord. But much will still have to happen before such things are grasped in the proper, concrete sense—grasped in such a way that thinking grounded in reality truly reaches people.

[ 24 ] A very fine book has been published: *The State as a Way of Life* by Kjellén, the famous Swedish political scientist. I cite him for this reason: he is a man who has shown great goodwill toward our cause—my cause—so that no one should think I harbor any grudges. But precisely for this reason, I may cite him as representative of certain ways of life.

[ 25 ] In this book, he attempts to develop ideas about the state that can lead us beyond various errors. Naturally, he returns to the idea of the state as an organism. He goes further than Wilson. Wilson had sharply criticized the fact that, in Newton’s time, people did not think independently about the state, but allowed themselves to be so influenced by the theory of gravity that they judged the various impulses of human thought in terms of abstract gravity. One must think of the state in the same way as one thinks of an organism. In doing so, he fails to realize that people thought in a Newtonian way, whereas he thinks in a Darwinian way. Kjellén also believes that the state is an organism; individual human beings are then the cells. Now, certainly, one can compare a whole that possesses vital functions within itself to an organism, and its parts to cells. But in truth, one can compare just about anything—even a lizard to a pocketknife—if ideas are unwilling to immerse themselves in reality. Everything can be compared. Only when one has a sense of reality does the comparison naturally lead to the correct conclusion. In Kjellén’s case, this comparison would lead to conceiving one state as an organism and the second as an adjacent organism. But anyone capable of thinking realistically cannot possibly conceive of human beings as cells. The comparison might hold if one were to compare the totality of states to an organism and the individual states to cells; but then the whole human being is not subsumed within the state. In that case, only social life across the entire globe can be compared to an organism. But if one were to insert human beings into this analogy, it would look like this: If we imagine an organism, the cells would have to protrude everywhere. The result would be a strange kind of hedgehog. Only if it were like that—an organism where living matter protruded everywhere—would it be the kind of organism to which we could compare all of social life on Earth.

[ 26 ] But this means that a person’s entire life cannot be subsumed within the state order at all. It must extend beyond the scope of what the state is capable of encompassing, reaching into the spiritual realm. This is all too often forgotten in practice today in every field, and one could cite institution after institution that would prove how this is forgotten—how we forget to establish across the earth, alongside the external realm modeled after the Roman Empire, the kingdom of the spirit that Christ sought to bring. It was very necessary to give this thought its due in all its seriousness.

[ 27 ] You know, when it comes to concrete matters, thinking usually doesn’t go far enough. Consider how, in recent times, every effort has been made to curtail the autonomy of academic education by scaling back all matters associated with academic institutions and placing the principle of the state above them. Today, a medical student must first pass the state examination in order to become a doctor at all; only then can he receive the medical doctorate as a sort of decoration. The autonomy of the institution of the humanities as such has been completely curtailed. We could cite many examples where there is a genuine enthusiasm for moving in this direction. People cannot do enough to nationalize all titles. The term “engineer” has been conflated with “ingenium.” Now people no longer strive to embody that quality, but rather strive for the diploma. If it states that one is an engineer, then one may call oneself that; otherwise, ingenium is of no use. This follows a path that leads away from an intellectual understanding of the world. People do not think about this. On the contrary, they are enthusiastic about this battle against the spirit in all areas. To make this point clear—since people today are so fond of swearing by words—one might have to invent a new word and say: People are “delighted” with this de-spiritualization. Then perhaps some individuals would begin to pay a little attention to the direction they are taking! But the very fact that people do not pay attention is proof of the thoughtlessness of life, of the outright hatred they harbor toward the very will to think.

[ 28 ] There you see how necessary it is to truly integrate spiritual science into the most everyday aspects of life. Spiritual science is a serious matter. That is why, in addition to the important points from yesterday, the immediate current issues also had to be mentioned. For what spiritual science aims to achieve must not be compromised by becoming philistine or cliquey, or by the Anthroposophical Society creating obstacle after obstacle to what spiritual science aims to achieve. Among reasonable people, of course, one will always find understanding for the fact that it is precisely those people who have, in some way, come into conflict with life—and so strongly that they have lost their balance—who join the Anthroposophical Society. The question then always arises: Should we accommodate these people, or be firm with them? — Sometimes such people change in such a way that they lose their balance even more, or they change in such a way that they later recount things—as is being done now—that are likely to turn a sacred cause into gossip, slander, and denigration. If what I said yesterday—that, fundamentally, little attention is paid to what I say—has been deemed unfair, then that is, of course, the individual’s right. I merely said: Out there, people speak of “blind followers.” This is unnecessary when it comes to the teaching, for it can be tested. Only for certain matters relating to institutions is trust sometimes necessary. But it is precisely in such matters that the opposite of what I myself intend usually occurs. And so what I presented yesterday as a necessary measure may be perceived as unfair. But this measure will certainly be upheld, while at the same time care will be taken to ensure that those who wish to undergo esoteric development with determination can do so. Let us just give it a little time. How many things will come to light precisely through the way the Anthroposophical Society is currently managed, and how much will be exposed to the world’s misunderstanding and slander precisely because of this! People who know full well how much time certain matters have taken will come to realize that books which have not yet been published will appear once this measure has been in effect for some time. At the time, the publication of the Cycles—which I cannot review—was wrested from me. It was not my will; it was the will of others who wish to read them. Certainly, one need not insist on one’s own will—it has been yielded to—but you can read the accusations that are being made, claiming that it is a trick, and that the Cycles are written in a style that can only be criticized. In the end, everything is turned upside down by ill will. But, my dear friends, if spiritual science is to stand in the right relationship to the Anthroposophical Society, then the Anthroposophical Society must also feel connected to the life of spiritual science as such. Yet how many feel connected only to their own personal lives!

[ 29 ] There really are—and always have been—numerous people in the Anthroposophical Society who have simply stated, in one form or another, that they actually join the Anthroposophical Society only to be able to discuss this or that esoteric topic with me, and who refuse to place their trust in people in whom I myself place my trust. In this regard, particularly terrible experiences are encountered. It does no good at all that I place my trust in this or that friend in the Society here or there; people do not want the person in question, and they try to ignore him or her. Well, all these things have their origin in the fact that so much—so countless—personal baggage is brought into this Anthroposophical Society. Do you know which word I’ve actually heard most often at the so-called esoteric meetings? Don’t think that I’ve most often heard people talk about matters such as freedom, equality, human evolution, and so on. What I heard most of all was the word “I” from each and every one of them. People come there with their most personal matters. This was gladly taken into account, but it simply cannot go any further, for the reasons stated yesterday. And that must be understood.

[ 30 ] I know that this is best understood by those who truly collaborate with the anthroposophical development in a devoted and understanding way, who are able to see in the anthroposophical development a task for humanity, who do not merely seek relief for their family matters or other personal affairs through their membership in the Anthroposophical Society, who do not merely seek a loophole that is illegal under the law, because they would constantly back down whenever it came to publicly opposing the materialistic medical establishment; but they are seeking a loophole to be cured, apart from this materialistic medical establishment! — There is no other way to counter all the things that have emerged from society as harms to the anthroposophical movement than through these measures, of which I spoke yesterday, and from which we will certainly not deviate in the near future. Only in this way will it be possible to truly combat what has become so deeply entrenched. It is precisely through this that the Anthroposophical Society will be able to flourish more and more. And the esoteric life as well—I will see to that—will be able to flourish more and more precisely through this. Those fabrications—and this is what matters—to which I alluded yesterday may yet be somewhat undermined, provided that the two-part measure mentioned yesterday is vigorously implemented. Please understand this, for by understanding this, you demonstrate an understanding of the unique character and mission of the anthroposophical movement. There are enough people out there today who do not feel capable of [objectively] opposing anthroposophy as it is understood here. That is too inconvenient for them; after all, it requires that one first be familiar with anthroposophy. This is an inconvenient matter for many who wish to oppose it. But to accept slander and denigration and spread them provides a means of opposing anthroposophy without understanding it. For our contemporaries are, after all, quite susceptible to slander and denigration. Nothing is read with greater pleasure than slander and denigration. If we take the task of anthroposophy seriously, if we grasp the gravity of the situation, then we will also be able to cope with this challenge. Let us conclude in this spirit. May we remain united, working together in the appropriate manner with all our strength.