The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Tenth Lecture

[ 1 ] In recent days, we have attempted to gain some understanding of the course of human development. We have sought to trace the deeper foundations of myths such as the Osiris-Isis myth; we have also tried, from a certain perspective, to find our way once again through the Greek pantheon. And we have touched upon the inner meaning of certain views that may not be clearly expressed but underlie the mythological traditions of Egypt and Greece, and have attempted, at least in part, to grasp the connections between what underlies these myths and the teachings of the Old Testament. These Old Testament teachings sprang from a different spirit than the divine teachings of the Egyptians and the Greeks. We have seen that the divine teachings of the Egyptians and the Greeks, as they are structured, stem from certain ancient spiritual experiences of humanity, from a certain awareness that humanity once possessed atavistic clairvoyance and, through this atavistic clairvoyance, stood in such an intimate relationship with the spirit that permeates nature as humanity later stands only in the relationship between birth and death with what is outwardly perceptible to the senses. We have seen that for this ancient atavistic knowledge, the comprehensive view of the world—which was an inner experience—meant more than what the merely sensory perception of transitional humanity, to which we still belong, can be in terms of knowledge.

[ 2 ] Everything that has, so to speak, become established as concepts in Egyptian and Greek theology—or, more accurately, in their conception of the gods—can be found, with its moral foundation, as an actual teaching in the Old Testament. As I told you the day before yesterday, when I spoke of an important difference between Egyptian and Greek theology and the Old Testament: those spiritual-divine beings who stand at the starting point of the Old Testament—the Elohim, Yahweh—can only be conceived as co-creators with humanity; they can only be conceived in such a way that what we call the human race on Earth came into being through their actions, and that the entire development of the human race on Earth takes place only after the foundational act of the Elohim or Yahweh. This is not the case in Egyptian or Greek theology. There, people look back to ancient times and say to themselves: The gods Osiris, Isis, Zeus, Apollo, Mars, and Pallas—who are now associated with the guidance of human destinies—arose from other generations of gods; but human beings have always been there. Egyptian and Greek theology led people back to ancient times when the gods recognized today—who were then creating and ruling—had not yet come into being. Thus, in Egypt and Greece, people attributed to themselves a more ancient origin than the era of dominion of their respective gods.

[ 3 ] This is such a fundamental, such a significant difference that one must first take it into account. In the course of these reflections, we will see what an infinitely important and significant fact this perspective points to. In the Old Testament doctrine of God, the situation is such that the deities who are worshiped are at the same time the gods who created the human race. Only by making the divine human and creative—as Old Testament doctrine does—has it become possible for that doctrine to incorporate the moral element, the moral impulse, into the divine order and thereby into the entire human order; we might say, into the very concept of it.

[ 4 ] This is important for understanding contemporary worldviews. For contemporary worldviews do not derive in any very clear way from a single, unified source; rather, they have very diverse origins, and we carry within us many things that we believe in and to which we profess our commitment as people of the present, things that are directly rooted in the Greek worldview. We carry many things within us; the present age, in particular, contains much that points back to the Old Testament doctrine of God. People’s search—the search of many people—is driven by the impulse emanating from the Mystery of Golgotha, as they seek to find their bearings amid these often contradictory ideas and concepts. All of this is, in a sense, still our agenda, and we will have to develop it further during this time we are still granted to be together.

[ 5 ] Above all, it is important that we can take one thing as our starting point. I already alluded to this yesterday. As we have often mentioned, we have been living in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch since the 15th century; and in a certain sense, I said, certain impulses from the third post-Atlantean epoch—the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch—must once again emerge in the fifth, just as in the sixth post-Atlantean epoch certain impulses from the second—the Zoroastrian epoch, the proto-Persian epoch—will reemerge, and just as in the last post-Atlantean epoch, the seventh, certain impulses of the primordial Indian epoch will reappear. This is a law inherent in the course of human development, which points in a significant way toward what essentially lies ahead for humanity spiritually until the new catastrophe that must come—a catastrophe similar to a natural disaster.

[ 6 ] We have already seen, at least in part, what immense depth of human consciousness in ancient times is expressed in the fact that those ancient times gave rise to the Osiris myth. We have seen that this ancient era sought to convey: There once existed among humanity a worldview through which people could still experience the spiritual in their natural surroundings directly in their atavistic imaginations. — That was the time when Osiris reigned. But the new worldviews—the Typhonian worldviews—those that transformed pictographic writing into alphabetic writing, those that transformed the ancient sacred languages spoken collectively by humanity into individual phonetic languages—these Typhonian worldviews, these views of Typhon—they killed that which lived within humanity as the Osiris impulse, so that since then, Osiris has existed as a being among humans only when they are between death and a new birth.

[ 7 ] We have essentially traced the Osiris-Isis legend, seeing how Osiris is regarded as an ancient ruler of Egypt who brought the Egyptians their most essential arts, who reigned in Egypt for a long time, and who also traveled from Egypt to other countries, and brought the benefits of the arts taught in Egypt to other lands—not by the sword, but through persuasion. So while he was away on his travels, bringing to other lands the benefits through which he had instructed the Egyptians, Typhon, his evil brother, introduced innovations in his own land, Egypt. And when Osiris returned, he was killed by Typhon despite the vigilance of his wife, Isis. Isis then searched everywhere for Osiris. According to legend, some boys told her that the coffin had floated away. She then discovered it in Byblos in Phoenicia and brought it back to Egypt. Typhon dismembered the body into fourteen pieces. Isis gathered the pieces; using spices and other means, she was able to restore each piece to the likeness of Osiris. She then persuaded the priests to take possession of one-third of the land; in exchange for their taking possession of this one-third, they were to, on the one hand, keep the tomb of Osiris a secret, and on the other hand, establish the cult of Osiris—that is, the ritual commemorating the ancient age of Osiris, and the fact that a different worldview once existed among humanity. This memory was to be celebrated from then on. This remembrance was shrouded in all manner of mysteries. It alluded to the time when Typhon killed Osiris—the time when, in the November days of autumn, the sun sets at the seventeenth degree of Scorpio, and the moon, on the opposite side, appears as a full moon in Taurus, among the Pleiades.

[ 8 ] It is then told that Osiris once again journeyed from the Underworld—where he henceforth reigns over the dead and serves as the judge of the dead—to the Upper World to instruct his son Horus, whom he had with Isis. The legend goes on to say that Isis was eventually persuaded to release Typhon, whom she had been holding captive. This enraged her son Horus—who had been taught by Osiris—so much that he quarreled with his mother, Isis, and snatched the crown from her. It is then said that he either placed them on her himself, or—according to another version—that Hermes placed cow’s horns on her head in place of the crown, with which she has been depicted ever since.

[ 9 ] Well, in ancient Egyptian mythology, you see Isis standing alongside Osiris. And for the ancient Egyptians, Isis was not only a mysterious deity, not only a mysterious spiritual being intimately connected with the governance of the world, but Isis was also, I would say, the embodiment of all the profound insights the Egyptians were capable of conceiving regarding the primal forces at work in nature and in human existence. When the Egyptian was to look up to the great mysteries in his surroundings, he was to look up to Isis, who had a statue in the temple at Sais that has become famous. As is well known, beneath this statue was an inscription intended to express the essence of Isis: “I am the universe; I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil.”

[ 10 ] This was a central theme of Egyptian culture, particularly during its late period. And in contemplating the mysteries of Isis, people recalled the other mysteries of the ancient age of Osiris. And in connection with Isis—Isis, at whose sight the Egyptian believer would tremble as he let the words sink in: “I am the universe; I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil”—when the Egyptian let these words sink in, he likely also recalled at the same time that Isis was once united with Osiris, when Osiris still walked the earth. The uninitiated person imagined the matter as a legend. In the Mysteries, the priests spoke of how the ancient age of Osiris was the one in which the ancient clairvoyance connected people with the spirit of nature all around them.

[ 11 ] With these sentiments and feelings that were in the soul and heart of the Egyptians, we must now consider the Osiris-Isis legend or myth as a guide for the present. We have done so, for the time being, by outlining its basic features. And through these basic features, I would say, what should stand before the gaze of our souls is that which once resonated from ancient times into more recent times—something that, while it has lost its meaning through the Mystery of Golgotha, must now be unraveled once more, precisely for a better understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. Before our inner eye must stand all that which is mysterious—which at first can only be sensed—when the Egyptians felt the words that characterized Isis: “I am the universe; I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil.” — For we wish to set against this Osiris-Isis myth another Osiris-Isis myth, a completely different one. And as this other Osiris-Isis myth is recounted, we must rely to a great extent on your lack of prejudice, on your open-mindedness, and we must trust that you will not misunderstand this other Osiris-Isis myth. It is by no means born of foolish arrogance; it is born of humility. It is also of such a nature that it can perhaps be told today only in a highly imperfect way. But I will attempt to characterize its features in a few words.

[ 12 ] For now—though this can only be provisional—it is up to each individual to decide when to set the time period in which this Osiris-Isis myth is told in the way that I can only recount it today—approximately, superficially, I might say, banally. But as I said, I will endeavor to recount this other Osiris-Isis myth, setting aside certain prejudices as much as possible and appealing to your open-minded understanding. This other Osiris-Isis myth has, roughly speaking—and I say “roughly”—the following content.

[ 13 ] It was during the age of scientific profundity, in the heart of the land of Philisterium. There, on a spiritually desolate hill, a structure was erected that was considered quite remarkable in the land of Philisterium. — I would also like to add: The commentator to follow adds a note here that the land of Philisterium does not merely refer to the immediate surroundings. — If one were to speak in Goethe’s language, one might say that the structure represented an “obvious mystery.” For the structure was not hidden from anyone; it was accessible to all, and, strictly speaking, anyone could see it when the opportunity arose. But the vast majority of people saw nothing at all. The vast majority of people saw neither what had been built nor what the structure represented. The vast majority of people stood—to speak once again in Goethe’s terms—before an obvious mystery, a completely obvious mystery.

[ 14 ] A statue was intended to be the centerpiece of the building. This statue depicted a group of beings: the representative of humanity, followed by Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings. People looked at this statue and, in the age of scientific profundity within the land of Philisterium, did not realize that this statue was, in essence, merely a veil for an invisible statue. But people did not notice the invisible statue; for this invisible statue was the new Isis, the Isis of a new age.

[ 15 ] Some from the realm of scientific profundity had once heard of this curious relationship between what was apparent and what, as the image of Isis, lay hidden behind the manifest. And then, in their profound, allegorical-symbolic manner of speaking, they had asserted: this combination of the representative of humanity, Lucifer, and Ahriman signified Isis. But by using the word “symbolized,” they not only ruined the artistic intent from which the work was meant to emerge—for art does not merely symbolize something, but is something in itself—they also completely misunderstood the entire underlying situation. For it was not at all a matter of the figures symbolizing something; rather, the figures were already what they presented themselves to be. And behind the figures was not an abstract new Isis, but a real, tangible new Isis. The figures did not symbolize her at all; rather, the figures were, in and of themselves, precisely what they presented themselves to be. But they possessed the peculiarity that behind them lay the real being, the new Isis.

[ 16 ] Some who, in special circumstances and at special moments, had nevertheless seen this new Isis, have found that she is asleep. And so one can say: The true, deeper statue, hidden behind the outer, manifest statue, is the sleeping new Isis, a sleeping figure, visible but seen by few. Some then turned, in special moments, to the inscription that stands there clearly, but which was initially read by only a few in the place where the statue is being prepared; and yet the inscription stands there clearly, just as clearly as the inscription once stood on the veiled image at Sais. For the inscription reads: I am the human being. I am the past, the present, and the future. Every mortal should lift my veil.

[ 17 ] Once, another figure approached the sleeping form of the new Isis for the first time, and then again and again, like a visitor. And the sleeping Isis regarded this visitor as her special benefactor and loved him. And one day she believed in a special illusion, just as the visitor one day believed in a special illusion: the new Isis gave birth to a child—and she regarded the visitor, whom she considered her benefactor, as the father. He considered himself the father, but he was not. The spiritual visitor, who was none other than the new Typhon, believed that by taking possession of this new Isis, he could thereby gain a special increase in his power in the world. Thus, the new Isis had a child. But she did not recognize his true nature; she knew nothing of the essence of this new child. And she carried him off, taking him far out into the lands, because she believed she had to do so. She carried the new offspring off, and as she had dragged him through various regions of the world, he fell apart—as if by the very force of the world itself—into fourteen pieces.

[ 18 ] Thus the new Isis had carried her offspring out into the world, and the world had torn the offspring into fourteen pieces. When the spirit visitor—the new Typhon—learned of this, he gathered the fourteen pieces together, and using all the knowledge of scientific profundity, he fashioned these fourteen pieces back into a single being. But within this being there was only mechanical regularity, only machine-like regularity. Thus a being had come into being with the appearance of life, but one that possessed only machine-like regularity. And this being, because it had arisen from fourteen pieces, was able to multiply itself fourteenfold again. And Typhon was able to impart a reflection of his own essence to each piece, so that each of the fourteen offspring of the new Isis took on a face that resembled the new Typhon.

[ 19 ] And Isis had to watch all these wondrous events unfold, sensing what was happening; sensing, she could behold all these wondrous things that had befallen her offspring. She knew: she herself had carried him away; she herself had brought all this about. But a day came when she was able to receive him in his true form, in his genuine form, from the hands of a host of spirits—the elemental spirits of nature—and was able to have him returned to her by the elemental spirits of nature.

[ 20 ] When she had regained her true offspring—who had been branded as the offspring of Typhon only by an illusion—a strange, clairvoyant vision dawned upon her; she suddenly realized that she still had the cow’s horns from ancient Egypt, even though she had become a new Isis.

[ 21 ] And lo and behold, once she had become clairvoyant, the power of her clairvoyance—some say Typhon himself, others say Mercury—was summoned. And he was compelled, by the power of the new Isis’s clairvoyance, to place a crown upon her head in the very spot where the old Isis had once worn the crown that Horus had torn from her—that is, in the very spot where she had received the cow’s horns. But this crown was made of flimsy paper, inscribed with all manner of profound scientific knowledge—yet it was still made of paper. And she now had two crowns on her head: the cow’s horns and the paper crown, adorned with all the wisdom of scientific profundity.

[ 22 ] Through the power of her clairvoyance, she one day came to understand the deepest meaning—the one that the age could attain—of what is referred to in the Gospel of John as the Logos; the Johannine meaning of the Mystery of Golgotha dawned upon her. Through this power, the might of the cow’s horns seized the paper crown and transformed it into a real golden crown of true wisdom.

[ 23 ] These are the features that can be identified in this new Osiris-Isis legend. Of course, I do not intend to set myself up as a commentator or interpreter of this Osiris-Isis legend. It is the other Osiris-Isis legend. But it should bring one thing to the forefront of our souls: even if today the ability associated with the new image of Isis is still only weak, tentative, and tentative, it should be the starting point of something that is deeply rooted in the impulses of modern times, something that is deeply rooted in what this age is meant to be and what this age must become.

[ 24 ] Just recently, we have been discussing how the word has, in a sense, become detached from the immediate spiritual experience from which it originally sprang. We have seen how we live in an age of “abstractions,” where words and human concepts have only abstract meaning, and where people are far removed from reality. But the power of the word, the power of the Logos, must be reclaimed. The cow’s horns of the ancient Isis must be transformed into an entirely different form.

[ 25 ] It is difficult to express such things using today’s abstract words. For such things, it is better if you try to bring them before the eye of your soul through these visualizations that have been presented to you, and to process these visualizations as visualizations. It is very significant that the new Isis, through the power of the word—as it is to be regained through spiritual science—transforms the cow’s horns, so that even the paper crown, inscribed with the new, profound scientific knowledge, becomes a genuine golden crown.

[ 26 ] One day, someone happened to come upon the preliminary model of the statue of the new Isis, and in the upper left corner was a humorous figure whose overall mood was somewhere between seriousness—a serious view of the world—and, one might say, even a chuckle at the world. And lo and behold, when someone once stood before this figure at a particularly opportune moment, it came to life and said quite humorously: Humanity has simply forgotten this, but centuries ago something was placed before modern humanity regarding the nature of modern humanity—insofar as this modern humanity still masters only the abstract word, the abstract concept, the abstract idea, and is very far removed from reality; insofar as this modern humanity clings to words and always asks: Is it a pumpkin or is it a bottle? — even when, by chance, a bottle has been made from a pumpkin, always clinging to definitions, always getting stuck on the words! In the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries—so said the giggling being—humanity still possessed self-knowledge regarding this peculiar tendency to take words in the wrong sense, not to relate them to their true reality, but to take them in their most superficial sense. In the age of Wilsonianism, however, humanity has already forgotten what was once set before it as a source of sound self-awareness in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries.

[ 27 ] And the being continued to chuckle and said: What modern humanity should accept as a true prescription for its abstract mind is depicted on a gravestone in Mölln in the Lauenburg region. For there stands a gravestone, and on this gravestone is carved an owl holding up a mirror to itself. And it is said that Till Eulenspiegel, after roaming the world playing all sorts of pranks, was buried there. It is said that this Till Eulenspiegel actually existed. He is said to have been born in the year 1300, to have moved to Poland, to have even traveled as far as Rome, where he is said to have competed with the court jesters in all sorts of matters of wisdom, and to have committed all the other pranks attributed to Till Eulenspiegel, which can indeed be read about in the writings on Till Eulenspiegel himself.

[ 28 ] Scholars—and people who are scholars are, after all, very learned these days; they take everything extremely seriously and view it as deeply significant—have, of course, come to various conclusions; for example, that Homer never existed. Scholars have, of course, also concluded that there was no such person as Till Eulenspiegel. One of the main reasons why the tombstone in the Lauenburg region—on which an owl with a mirror is depicted—is not believed to contain the actual remains of the real Till Eulenspiegel, who would have been merely a representative of his era, was that another tombstone was found in Belgium, on which there was also an owl with a mirror. Now, the scholars have of course said—for that is logical, isn’t it, and they are all logical; as in Shakespeare: “Honorable men they all are, all, all, logical they all are”—they have said: If the same symbol is found in Lauenburg and in Belgium, then naturally there was no such person as Eulenspiegel.

[ 29 ] Otherwise, in life, when you find something a second time that you found the first time, you often take this as confirmation; but logically, isn’t it right to look at these things this way: Well, let’s say, if I have one franc, then I have one franc. I believe it. As long as I know that I have one franc, I believe it! But then I get another one, so now I have two. Now I believe that I don’t have any at all! — That’s the same logic. This logic can be found in our science. If I were to tell you where it appears so frequently!

[ 30 ] But what, exactly, is the essence of Till Eulenspiegel’s pranks? Look it up in the book. The essence of Till Eulenspiegel’s pranks always lies in the fact that Eulenspiegel is given a task to perform. He takes the task at face value and then, of course, carries it out in the wrong way. For it goes without saying that—to put it in a somewhat figurative sense—if, for example, one were to say to Eulenspiegel, whom I am now taking merely as a representative figure: “Bring me a doctor”—he would take the words at face value and bring someone who holds a doctorate from a university, but he might bring someone who—forgive the harsh word—is completely daft; he has simply taken the matter at face value. All of Till Eulenspiegel’s pranks are like this: he takes things at face value. But in this respect, Till Eulenspiegel is the very embodiment of the present age. Eulenspiegel-like behavior is a fundamental tone of our present time. Words today are far removed from their original meanings; concepts are often even further removed from their origins, and people do not notice this because they behave in an Eulenspiegel-like manner toward whatever culture has brought forth. This is why it came to pass that Fritz Mauthner, in a philosophical dictionary, took up every philosophical concept he could lay his hands on and convinced us that all these philosophical concepts are actually mere words, that they are no longer connected to any reality at all. Humanity has no idea how far it has strayed from reality with what it today calls ideas and often even ideals. In other words, humanity has no idea how it has made Eulenspiegel its patron saint, how Eulenspiegel still roams the lands.

[ 31 ] One of the fundamental evils of our time lies precisely in the fact that humanity today flees from Pallas Athena—the goddess of wisdom—and clings instead to the symbol: the owl. And although humanity no longer suspects this, it is nonetheless true: That which presents itself to us as the foundation of external knowledge is merely a reflection—as we have often explained—but in a mirror one sees what one is! And so the owl—that is to say, modern scientific profundity—sees in the mirror, in the worldly Maya, nothing but its own owl-like face.

[ 32 ] The being in the upper left corner of the modern statue of Isis chuckled at such things—and at many other things as well, which are currently being kept secret out of a certain courtesy toward humanity. But the intention was to evoke a feeling that, through the unique nature of this depiction of human mysteries—shaped by the essence of the Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces in connection with the representation of humanity itself—a state of consciousness would be aroused in humanity that would awaken precisely those impulses in the soul that are necessary for the coming age.

[ 33 ] “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” But the Word has become a mere phrase; the Word has strayed from its origin. The Word resounds and echoes, but no one seeks its connection to reality; there is no striving among people to truly explore the fundamental forces of what is happening around them. And in the context of the present age, one can explore these fundamental forces only if one comes to realize that the microcosmic forces of the human being are truly connected to the entities we call Luciferic and Ahrimanic. Today, one can understand reality only for the human being who lives between birth and death if one can form some concept of that reality—which we have now also considered more frequently—that lies between death and a new birth for the human being. For one reality is merely the pole of the other reality, the opposite pole of the other reality.

[ 34 ] We have pointed out how, in ancient times, when people entered the age of maturity, they experienced not only a change—such as the change in their voice or other physical changes they still experience today during physical maturity—but also a change in their soul. We have pointed out how the ancient Osiris-Isis myth was specifically connected to the fading away of this transformation of the soul. What occurred in humanity through those force essences we spoke of yesterday must return in a different form, as people experience in a new way the power of the word, the power of thought, and the power of the idea; not now as when, through natural forces arising from the innermost physical constitution — just as with the breaking of a boy’s voice — something rises up that adorns the human being with the power of the animal organization and functions invisibly on his head like cow’s horns; rather, what is meant by the Mystery of Golgotha, what is meant by the true power of the word, must be consciously grasped by human beings. A new element must enter human consciousness. This new element is fundamentally different from the elements that people still like to refer to today. But this new element has significance for social life; it has significance for the pedagogy of humanity, if pedagogy or the science of education is to emerge from the sorry state in which it finds itself today.

[ 35 ] What is this profound Eulenspiegel-like mischief—that is to say, scientific profundity—talking about; what does it talk about primarily when it speaks of human beings? What does even a large part of modern poetry talk about? It speaks of the physical origin of humankind in connection with the physical entities of descent. After all, the so-called modern, much-vaunted theory of evolution is nothing other than a perspective that places the physical theory of descent at its center. For the concept of heredity plays the very greatest role in this theory of evolution. It is a one-sided view. People are very content with such one-sidedness, for people today believe that one can learn a great deal from it. One can also do so through entirely arbitrary interpretations of things—interpretations that seem to stem from deep logic but are in reality plucked out of thin air.

[ 36 ] Yesterday we saw an example of how entire bodies of literature are written because people have lost sight of the connection between an idea and the original experience from which that idea arose: the symbol of the cross. An entire body of literature has been written about it, and the cross has been applied to all sorts of things. We saw yesterday what it is meant to refer to. The same thing happens with many other things, and people feel profound when they do such things.

[ 37 ] Let me remind you of one thing: just think for a moment how infinitely important some people feel today when they believe they are speaking in a manner similar to the way that has been spoken here today. There are plenty of people who say this—who even use the phrase very frequently—ah, one can, with all due respect, read it in the newspapers all the time: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” — By this, they mean they have said something very profound. But one should inquire into the origin of such a saying. It goes back to those times when people had vivid ideas that were still closely connected to their experiences and lived realities. When people speak today, there is little connection, especially between the word and its place of origin. If you still wish to have a true connection between words, sentences, and their places of origin, then I advise you to read the little book that collects “Swiss German Proverbs”; for in these folk proverbs one still finds a primal harmony between what is said and the immediate experience. By “the letter,” I mean what has come to be known as alphabetic writing, as opposed to the ancient form that, in the manner described yesterday, drew imaginative life from the spirit. This ancient spirit brought things to life, and that vitality resulted, in that epoch of human development, in imaginative, atavistic clairvoyance. But there was an awareness that this epoch must give way to another, that the letter must come, which would kill the old vitality.

[ 38 ] And now consider this in light of everything I have said about the true nature of consciousness in relation to death. There, it is the letter that kills, but it is also the letter that brings consciousness—a consciousness that must simply be overcome by another form of consciousness. This does not refer to the dismissive attitude found in today’s journalistic folly in the saying: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”—rather, the statement is connected to the evolutionary impulses of humanity. It means something like this: In ancient times, in times of imagination, in the Osiris era, the Spirit sustained the human soul in a dull vitality; in later times, the letter gave rise to consciousness.” That is the interpretation of the saying; that is what it originally meant. And just as in this case, people today are often very quick to offer insights and arbitrary interpretations because they lack any connection to it.

[ 39 ] This does not mean that the conclusions reached by modern, in-depth scientific research on the concept of heredity are wrong, but rather that the other side of the equation must be taken into account when discussing heredity. If one looks back to one’s childhood and, from there, to one’s birth, and asks oneself: What do I carry within me? — then the answer is: What my parents and ancestors carried within themselves and passed on to me! — But there is also another way of looking at human beings, one that people of the present have not yet adopted, one that people of the future must adopt, and one that must take center stage in pedagogy, the art of education: this is not looking back on having once been young, but rather looking squarely at the fact that one grows older in life with each passing day. Fundamentally, modern humanity understands only that one was once young. It does not—not in reality—understand how to realistically grasp that one grows older with each passing day. For it does not know the word that must be added to the word “inheritance” when one contrasts the experience of having once been young with the process of growing older. When one looks back on one’s childhood, one speaks of what one has inherited. Likewise, when one looks at the process of growing older, one can speak of the other pole; just as one speaks of the gateway of birth, so one can speak of the gateway of death. This raises one question: What have we gained from our ancestors by entering this life through the gate of birth? — This raises another question: What might we lose, and how might we change as a result of moving toward the times to come, of growing older with each passing day? What happens when we consciously experience the process of growing older with each passing day?

[ 40 ] But this is a challenge for our age. Humanity must learn to grow older consciously with each passing day. For if one consciously learns to grow older with each passing day, then true knowledge means: an encounter with spiritual beings, just as the descent from physical beings means that one is born and possesses inherited characteristics. But I will speak next time about how these things are connected—about that important inner impulse that must reach the human soul if the human soul is to find what it so desperately needs for the future, which alone can be a complete and full complement to what natural science provides on the one hand.

[ 41 ] Then you will see why the new myth of Isis can stand alongside the ancient myth of Osiris and Isis, and why both are necessary for people today; why the following must be added to the words that echo from ancient Egypt, from the statue at Sais: “I am the universe; I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil”—why another must resound within these words, why today these words may no longer speak one-sidedly only to the human soul, but must be accompanied by the words: “I am the human being. I am the past, the present, and the future. Every mortal should lift my veil.

[ 42 ] Today I have presented you with more puzzles than solutions. But we will continue to discuss this, and the puzzles will then resolve themselves in many different ways.