Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Occult Psychology
GA 183

17 August 1918, Dornach

Lecture I

You will easily believe what very deep satisfaction it gives me to take up work again among you all on this building of ours. It is a fact that anyone coming into intimate contact with the whole aura of this building today would be able to receive the impression, as a result not only of deep reflection but also of quite superficial thought; that something connected with the most significant, the most weighty tasks of man's future is bound up with this building. And it goes without saying that after long, forced absence one is profoundly satisfied on finding oneself once more at this place where this building stands as a symbol of our cause.

To this I would add that particularly for me, my dear friends, it is a matter of infinite gratification every time I now return after long absence to be able to see how beautifully and significantly the work on the building has progressed through the active devotion of the workers. In these months of my recent absence in particular, when work has been carried out under such difficult conditions, part of the artistic work has gone forward in an unprecedented way; it has made progress in the spirit that should permeate the whole.

With deep pleasure too, I see, as a consequence of the spirit in our work, as consequence of all that is originating here, the real feeling of solidarity among many of our friends—the genuine feeling towards all that this building incorporates. What reveals itself to the soul when one lets this whole matter renew its effect upon one is that here we have a place with which is united such a true sentiment in a number of the friends of our spiritual movement, so sincere a sentiment that it promises a continuance of the best impulses in this movement for the future of mankind for which they are so necessary. In the work devoted to this building there is already something that could serve as a model for all that, in common with what we call today the Anthroposophical Society, is actually intended.

On the other hand, I have a strong feeling that what is favourable, what is so significantly good found here in our building, in the harmony of human work, and human feeling consists in this building being able through its objective nature to free what our movement wills from the subjective interests of individual men.

Concerning what we have just touched upon, my dear friends, there have been indeed, and still are, in all similar societies as well as in the Anthroposophical Society, certain remarkable views, that to be more exact, are remarkable illusions. A great deal is preached about selflessness and universal love between men; this is often, however, a mere mask for certain artful egoistic interests of individual human beings. It true that these individuals do not know that this is a question of mere egoistic interest; in face of their own consciousness they are innocent nevertheless, the fact remains.

The building itself, however, claims from a relatively large number of our friends a selfless devotion to something objective, to something standing out as a symbol of our cause, and free from all that is personal. And what is connected with our building can to that extent very well be, the model for what is sought in our Movement.

My dear friends! When, as today, we greet each other again, we need especially to dwell upon what if fruitful and all-embracing in the spiritual movement of ours. Meeting thus again, we need to reflect upon how earnestly we can believe that however it may happen—and the manner in which it does so depends upon how conditions take their course—man will never find his way out of the appalling blind alley into which he has come today until he decides in some way to seek a starting point for fruitful work, fruitful action, within a spiritual movement such as ours. We shall certainly not insist egoistically that the truth is to be found only in our small confined circle where it is recognised, through the very nature of the matter, that man has landed himself in the present terrible situation by neglecting his own spiritual substance. We should be able to recognise ourselves as men who are united in those ideas that alone can lead mankind out of this blind alley.

In the soul of modern men there is indeed very much that is not clear. When it has been possible to renew our knowledge here or there about the needs prevailing in our spiritual movement the following may be said on one hand: Yes indeed, the number of souls of those who are thirsting for spiritual life in our sense has very greatly increased. The longing for such spiritual life can well be said to have become infinitely greater; the attention given to our impulses has recently become undeniably greater, at least in those spheres that have been outwardly accessible to me in these last years and especially in recent months. It is not without meaning that I remark upon this distinct increase and strengthening of man's longing for the spiritual life. It is true that over against this strengthening and sharpening of the desire for spirit life there stands the terrible confusion from which the greater part of mankind is suffering. This terrible confusion among men comes about through the outworn ideas, or it would be better to say the outworn lack of ideas, the easy-going comfort where all keen vigorous thought concerned, the comfort that comes from the laxity, the indolence, with which during many decades, the thought-life on earth has been carried. This laxity, this laziness, leads souls astray in the present yearning after spiritual life. On the one hand, men are immersed in a genuine longing for spirituality, for strong supersensible impulses. On the other hand, these souls are fettered by the old powers that do not wish to withdraw from the scene of human activity, but should be able to see from this very activity how far they are removed from having any further place there. It might be said that one finds everywhere this dark impression, this impression of a cleft.

In many places in connection with repeated lectures with lantern slides, I have talked a great deal with our members about the Group that will take the chief place in our building. It could be seen on the one hand what powerful impulses have actually entered those souls who, by reason of the conditions during past years, have not even had a glimpse of what is going on here. A new human understanding is already arising from the very way in which what is ahrimanic and what is luciferic has been thought out in connection with what belongs to the Christ and has been represented and revealed in our Group. It makes a deep impression on souls when they are approached by all that is thus given. On the other hand, however, my dear friends, we find everywhere the obstructive influences of what is widespread among men in the remnants of what is old, rotten, in their so called cultural life.

This could be seen particularly in what might be called in a real sense the humorous frame of mind with which the lectures were received that were given at the art centre of our friend Herr von Bernus in Munich, when I tried to show a large audience the inner impulses active here in our conception of art. That did indeed arouse interest in people to an extraordinary degree, for I held lectures of this kind in Munich in February and in May and had to give each of them twice. Herr von Bernus assured me there were so many enquiries that I should have been able to give four times over each of the public lectures dealing with the principles of my conception of art, as they have found expression in the building here. Interest was certainly there, but it goes without saying one could find less reason to be pleased in the agreement shown with what was said by the critic of a Munich newspaper, which might be called a showing of teeth though politely and humorously. It was particularly facetious since inner resentment made itself felt against what could not be understood. It was all—not spoken,—but spat out, if you forgive the inelegant expression. And it was shown up by the very interest aroused by the matter where honesty and sincerity spoke in opposition to what was otherwise noticeable in this artistic centre (that is Munich, it goes without saying; it is a well-known fact). Thus was shown how in this centre of artistic activity the most intelligible as well as the unintelligible stuff was talked... It is just in this sort of discrepancy that we get an example of how today the two streams of which I have been speaking are present, and how we need to stand consciously within what is essential and important, towards which we must struggle for the sake of the world and its future.

I am certainly not saying all this because when our matters have publicity anywhere I would strive for what is called a “good press” for the moment we had a “ good press” I should think there must be something wrong, something of ours must have been untrue.

All these things are suitable for calling up in us a consciousness that it is very necessary for us to take a decided stand on the grounds of our cause. For nothing could promote greater confusion among us than our wishing to make any kind of compromise with—well with what the external world would consider it right for us to do. In what we do it is only towards the principles for which we stand that must look for guidance.

Another example of what we have been discussing, less directly connected with our cause, nevertheless connected inwardly, is the recent increasing interest shown in the most varied places for Eurythmy. And when we who were present remember how Eurythmy was received particularly in one place, where it had scarcely been seen before, it was partly something entirely new to the audience, namely in Hamburg, we have really to remember this reception with the deepest satisfaction. The significance of the impulses going out from even an affair of that kind was especially evident in Hamburg. People were there who to all intents and purposes were witnessing a proper performance of Eurythmy for the first time. And the possibility will yet arise perhaps for Eurythmy to be performed publicly. It is just at this juncture, however, that we must stand on the very firmest ground with our cause and do nothing that is not entirely consistent with it.Otherwise, my dear friends, it would soon be seen that, from a certain point of view, it must not be thought that I shall yield when some particular matter is in question that depends upon me. Most of you already know that where no principle is concerned, when some purely human affair comes to the fore, it goes without saying that I am always in it all with best of you. When it is a question, however, of approaching the boundary where any principle whatever has to be forsworn—even in the smallest degree—I shall show myself inflexible. Therefore, at the present time, when so much dancing can be seen—for there is dancing everywhere, it is quite dreadful, if you live in a town any night you join in a dance evening—when there is show-dancing everywhere, if it should be thought (I do not say all this without good reason; although I do not specify any particular instance, I have good reason to speak) if it should be thought that by giving public performances of Eurythmy, we meant to identify ourselves with any kind of journalistic stunt to put forward some kind of claim for attention, then I should take precautions against this in the most determined manner. A feeling for what is in good taste must be forthcoming solely out of our cause.

You see my dear friends, we have sometimes also to remember, especially on meeting again, to conduct according to the standard of spiritual impulses the necessary direct activity resulting from the will. These spiritual impulses will have to fight against a great deal of what today we can no longer call prejudice, for things work too powerfully be described by such a weak term. I do not say in a conceited, egoistical way “We” have to fight, but these impulses will have to fight against many different things. Now over and over again we have to refer to the terrible malady of our age, that consists in lack of control where the life of thinking is concerned. For, rightly conceived, the life of thought is already a spiritual life. It is because men give so little heed to their life of thinking that they seldom find their way into the spiritual worlds.

There is one thing upon which I must repeatedly touch from the most varied sides, namely, what an appalling value is put today upon the mere content of thoughts. The content of thoughts, however, is what is of least importance! The content of thoughts—Look! a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, this cannot be gainsaid. Even though a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, however, when you put it into suitable, good, fruitful ground you get a juicy ear, and when you, put it into ground that is barren and stony, you get either nothing at all or a rotten ear. But each time you are dealing with a grain of wheat.

Let us speak of something other than a grain of wheat. Let us say instead of ‘grain of wheat ’, ‘idea of free man’ which is so much discussed today. Some will say ‘idea of free man’ is the ‘idea of free man.’ It is just the same as a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat. But there is a difference in whether ‘idea of free man’ flourishes in a heart, in soul where this heart and soul is fruitful ground, or whether the ‘idea of free man’, exactly the same idea with the same foundation, flourishes in Woodrow Wilson's head! It matters not in the least if a grain of wheat is sown in stony ground or right into the rock, and it is just true that all the so called beautiful ideas that we are given in the programmes of Woodrow Wilson signify nothing if they come out of his head. But this is something that modern man comes to understand with such infinite difficulty, for he holds the view that it is the content of a programme, the content of the idea, has as little significance as the germinating power of a grain of wheat before it is planted in fertile ground.

To think with reality! Man has the greatest need of this. And something else is connected with the present unreality in thinking namely, men are taken unawares by almost all that happens. Indeed one might ask when has that not occurred in these last years?. Men are surprised by everything, and they will go on being more and more surprised. But they will not have anything to do with what is really working in the world, and this today makes it impossible for them to bring any foresight to bear on their affairs.

Working merely with ideas, one can from any side base anything upon anything. If one works with the content of ideas alone it is actually possible to base everything on anything. This is also something it is necessary to see into increasingly and ever more deeply; it is necessary but there is little will for it.

Generally, when such things are spoken of, and examples of them given, one meets with no real response because the examples seem too grotesque. But our whole life of soul and spirit today fairly hums with these things that give so grotesque an impression on being brought to light—my dear friends, they buzz around us! I know that many of you may feel resentment if I give you a really outstanding idea as an example—I will, however, quote this instance.

Now it is a case here of a University professor, an old respected professor at a university, who lit on the fact that Goethe during his long life was attracted by various women. Yes, our professor came up against this idea and took upon himself the task of making a real study of both the life of Goethe and that of the spirits connected with him. And we see how he obviously makes it his business, in spite of not being professor at a European university, to go to work as thoroughly as a mid-European professor usually does, and he made to pass before his soul the whole procession of Goethe's ladies in their relation to Goethe. What did he discover? I can quote this for you almost in his very words.

He discovered that each woman Goethe loved momentarily during his life can be said to have been for him a kind of Belgium, the neutrality of which he violated and then bemoaned that his heart bled for having been obliged to assail shining innocence. Neither did he forget to assert, each time, like the German Chancellor, that this sphere of violated neutrality had deserved a better fate but that he, Goethe, could not do otherwise since his destiny and the rights of his spiritual life obliged him to sacrifice the loved one—yes, even to offer up the pain of his very heart on the altar of the duty he owed to his own immortal ego.

Now I could give you here many other ideas that come in this book. You might ask for, what purpose? But, my dear friends, there is very good reason. For you find this kind of idea all over the world. The ideas of modern men are like that! And it is not without reason that such ideas should show themselves in literature where the essence of human thinking appears. This conception is upheld by Santayana, a professor at Harvard University in America, a much esteemed Spaniard who is, however, completely Americanised. His book was written during this present catastrophe, or at least Boutroux has translated it into French during the war. Shortly before this Boutroux gave a lecture in Heidelberg in which he eulogised German Philosophy in the most flattering terms! The book is called The Errors of German Philosophy and is entirely characteristic of present-day thinking. The appearance of this book was certainly not just a casual event but is very characteristic of modern thought and compares man with what is very far removed from him, with the same facility we find in Professor Santayana when he compares Belgian neutrality with Goethe's treatment of various women. For, if you have eyes to see it, this kind of thinking meets you in every sphere of so-called modern science. It is a fact; you come across it everywhere.

Now it is just the task of the spiritual impulse to which our Anthroposophy is devoted, to make a stand against three fundamental evils in the present so-called culture of mankind. There is nothing for it but to fight against these fundamental evils. One fundamental evil shows itself in the sphere of thinking, another in the sphere of feeling and the third fundamental evil is seen in the sphere of the will.

In the sphere of thinking we have gradually reached the point where men can only think in the way the thinking takes its course when it is strictly bound up with the brain. But this thinking, so closely connected with the brain, this thinking that refuses to make a flight to the spiritual, is condemned in all circumstances to be narrow and confined. And the most significant symptom of present scientific thinking in particular is narrowness and limitation. In the field of his narrowness and limitation great things can certainly be done. It is done for example, in modern science. But the thought applied to science today has no need of genius, my dear friends! Thus, narrowness, limitation, is what must be striven against, especially in the intellectual sphere. Today I will simply give these things in outline, but later we shall be describing them more in detail.

In the sphere of feeling it is a question of men having gradually arrived at a certain philistinism—we can only call it so—philistinism, lack of generosity, and being bound to a certain confined circle. It is the chief characteristic mark of the philistine that he is incapable of being interested in the big affairs of the world. Village pump politicians are always philistines. Naturally, in the sphere of Spiritual Science this does not suffice, for here one cannot confine oneself to a narrow circle, we have to be interested in what is outside the earth, therefore in a very wide circle indeed. And people get quite annoyed at the mere suggestion that there should be a desire to know something about a circle wide enough to embrace Moon, Sun, Saturn. In all spheres, however, philistinism must soften into non-philistinism if Spiritual Science is to penetrate. Sometimes that is not convenient or comfortable, for it means facing up unreservedly to the matter. It demands a more unprejudiced facing up to the matter.

Recently an awkward thing happened in our midst—but I stopped it because otherwise perhaps—well, nothing actually happened but something could have happened. Now you will remember the Zurich lectures of last fear; among various examples I gave then of how Darwinism can be overcome through the growth of natural science itself, I pointed to the excellent book by Oskar Hertwig called Des Werden der Organismen (How Organisms come into Being). Here, and every time the opportunity occurred, I referred to this excellent book. Very soon after this work a shorter book appeared by this same Oskar Hertwig, in which the same Oskar Hertwig spoke about the social, the ethical and the political life. And I then thought to myself: it may happen that some of our members having heard me call Oskar Hertwig's book about organisms an outstanding book will assume that this second volume is excellent also, when it is actually a worthless book, a book written by a man who in this particular sphere—in the sphere of the social life, the ethical life and the political life—cannot put into shape a single orderly thought. I feared lest certain of our members might already have judged that since it came from Hertwig this book too would have some kind of merit. So I had to step in and again whenever I could seize the opportunity I availed myself of it to point out that I considered this second book of the author, who had previously written so well about natural science, to be the worthless and foolish effort of a man who had no ability to speak of the things of which he spoke here.

Our Spiritual Science does not admit of one thing conveniently following from another, without each new fact being confronted and judged impartially. Spiritual Science demands from men actual proof of the concrete nature of every single case. Philistinism is something that will vanish when the impulse of Spiritual Science spreads. So much for the sphere of feeling.

And in the sphere of the will there is something that recently has particularly and in the widest sense taken hold of mankind, something I can only term lack of skill. As a rule, a man today is very able within the narrow circle of what he learns, but he is considerably inept about everything outside this circle. One comes across people who can't even sew on a button—that is only one example. There are men who are unable to sew on a button! Lack of skill in anything beyond a narrow circle is what is specially prevalent in the sphere of the will. Whoever takes what we call Spiritual Science with his whole soul, and not just with abstract thinking, will see that it makes a man more dexterous and fits him actually to spread his interest over a wider area, to extend his will over a wider world. Naturally it is just where this lack of skill is concerned that spiritual science is still too weak; but the more intensively we take it the more will it contend with unskillfulness.

This is what confronts the present-day acceptance of Spiritual Science with what might be called a trinity: narrowness in the intellectual sphere; philistinism, which means a lack of generosity, in the sphere of feeling; unskillfulness in the sphere of will.

And the three are loved nowadays even if loved unconsciously. Nothing in the world today is more loved than unskillfulness, philistinism and narrow-mindedness. Because they are loved it will not be easy for men to progress to the wide views to which they must come—to the way in which we must look at all that is connected with the names Ahriman and Lucifer. And it is just here that something important must understood today. For today among many other things there is an important transition from the luciferic to the ahrimanic. And as this transition is shown not simply elsewhere but also here in Switzerland one may well speak of it here. In this region the first has perhaps less significance owing to the very habits of the Swiss. The second, however, shows every prospect of attaining more importance precisely in this country. Where certain things are concerned mankind is indeed in a state of transition from faults that are luciferic to those that are ahrimanic, from luciferic impulses that run counter to human development to ahrimanic counter-impulses.

Now certain impulses of earlier days holding good in educational matters were of a thoroughly luciferic nature. Ambition and vanity were counted on in educational matters. (All of us when young, with the exception of the youngest among us, have known this quite well.) Perhaps this applies less to Switzerland but elsewhere it is pretty prevalent—this reckoning on ambition and vanity—orders, titles, and so on and so forth! Some people's whole career was based on the luciferic impulses of vanity and ambition, on the being worth more than other men. Just try to think back to how educational affairs were indeed built up on such luciferic impulses.

At the present time there is an endeavour to put ahrimanic impulses in the place of those that are luciferic. Today they hide themselves behind the elegant term “ability tests”. In the ahrimanic sphere this corresponds to what in the luciferic sphere was boasting about vanity and ambition even among children. Today there is an endeavour to seek out those the most gifted, or those who apart from that are most successful in class; out of these again individuals are taken. Among these gifted ones tests are made, intelligence tests, memory tests, perception tests and so on. This is something very suited to the Swiss disposition. And should the luciferic play a very small part here, the ahrimanic shows itself nicely in bud in the understanding for these ability tests. For these ability tests proceed from the intelligence, from science, from the present-day psychology of the learned. Then these gifted ones who are to be tested are made to sit down and are given the written words: murdered, looking-glass, the murderer's victim. And they sit there, poor lambs, in front of the three words murderer, looking-glass, the murderer's victim, and are supposed to look for a connecting link between them. One child finds that the murderer steals upon his victim, but the victim has a looking-glass in which the murderer is reflected so that the victim is able to save himself. So much for the first child. His gift of perception takes him as far as connecting the three words in this way.

Now comes another:—A murderer is creeping on his victim and sees himself in a looking-glass. His face appears to him in it as the face of somebody with a bad conscience, so he leaves his victim on account of seeing the reflection of his own face. That is the second child.

The third child makes yet another combination. A murderer comes creeping, he finds a mirror and falls against it so that the mirror falls down with a terrible noise, it makes a regular disturbance. The victim hears the noise and is in time to defend himself against the murderer.

The last child is the most talented! The first only found the nearest combination of ideas; the second an obvious matter of morals; the third child found a very complicated connection of ideas, and this one is the most talented!—That is more or less how it is. When describing things briefly one naturally gives them a little colouring of one's own. But this is how the ability of children is henceforward going to be tested to find out who is the most talented.

One thing is certain, my dear friends—if the men who invent these methods would just think of the great people they revere, Helmholtz for instance, and so on, Newton and so on, these great ones would one and all, if given these tests, have been looked upon as the most untalented little rascals. Nothing would have come of it. For Helmholtz who is certainly considered by those who give these tests today as a very great physicist—as I think you will agree—was a hydrocephalic and not at all gifted in his youth, and so on and so forth.

What is it that people want to test? Simply the outer organism, entirely what may be counted as the physical instrument of man, what is purely ahrimanic in human nature. If ever the fruits of these ability tests are to come to anything, more ghastly thought-pictures will arise than those that have led to the present human catastrophe. When, however, one speaks today about anything that may lead to catastrophic events in perhaps a hundred years, this does not interest man. For we live now in this transition from a luciferic educational system to an educational system that is ahrimanic; and we must belong to those who understand how to see clearly into such matters:

Men must change what is active force for the future into forces of the present. For this is what is demanded from us today—to confront concrete reality in a true, genuine, unprejudiced way.

Here one may have very strange experiences. I do not remember if I have already mentioned here a very interesting experience of mine. There are writings of Woodrow Wilson's—one about “Freedom”, another just called “Literature”. These writings have been very much admired—are still very much admired. In the publication called “Literature” an interesting lecture appears again which Woodrow Wilson once gave about the historical evolution of America. And elsewhere, too, interesting lectures by Woodrow Wilson have been repeated having wide historic standpoints. And reading these writings I had an interesting experience. In them one finds isolated sentences which appeared to me extraordinarily familiar yet certainly not copied from anywhere—certainly not copied they nevertheless seemed to me wonderfully familiar. And the idea soon struck me that these sentences of Woodrow Wilson's might just well have been written by Herman Grimm, that quite a number of these sentences indeed are found word for word in Grimm. Herman Grimm I love; Woodrow Wilson—Well, you know by now that I do not exactly love him! Nevertheless I cannot on that account conceal the objective fact that where the content of the subject is concerned one could simply take over whole sentences from Herman Grimm's lectures and articles and transpose them into those of Wilson—and, vice versa, transpose sentences of Wilson's into the works of Herman Grimm. Here are two people who as far as the actual text is concerned are saying just the same thing. We have, however, to learn today that when two people say the same thing it is not the same! For the interesting fact meets us that Herman Grimm's sentences are personally striven for, bit by bit they are wrenched from the soul. The sentences of Woodrow Wilson that sound so similar come from a kind of characteristic frenzy. The man is possessed by a subconscious ego forcing these sentences into the conscious life.

Whoever can judge of such things realises that this is the point here! A grain of wheat is a grain of wheat: The difference, however, lies in where it is sown, in what kind of soil. There is a difference in whether an idea becomes so much part of a personality because he has striven for it bit by bit in his own particular way, or whether one gets the idea by being possessed by the subconscious, everything sounding out of a possessed subconscious, out of a consciousness that is possessed by the subconscious.

Thus it is a question today of understanding that the content of thoughts, the content of programmes, are not of importance—the important thing is the livingness of the life lived by mankind.

My dear friends! We can teach materialistic philosophy, we can teach the philosophy of mere ideas; we can teach a science that is merely materialistic, and in this merely materialistic science become a most excellent European teacher, a credit to the university and a good citizen of the State. The type is not so rare, I fancy you can find them anywhere, these ornaments and lights of science, who at the same time are quite exemplary good citizens; one can well be this, my dear friends! But take some ideas, I should say an idea of a definite kind, let us take as a trivial idea the struggle for existence, for instance, or those ideas that are advocated by more peaceable people such as Oskar Hertwig, and so on, or ideas upheld by Spencer, Mill, Boutroux or Bergson who certainly are not wishing to press forward to the spiritual life, but are confined to the philosophy of mere ideas. But still more, take the materialistic ideas of science, take these ideas! It is true they might be able to spring up in the brain of the good subjects of the State. Very well. But, my dear friends, a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat; nevertheless it makes a difference whether it grows in soil that is fertile for it or in rocky soil, and it makes a difference whether these scientific ideas which can be striven for in Europe as a credit to science, and hold good in the universities, thrive in the brains of the university students, or whether they spring up in the brain of a man whose brother already as a young man at the end of the eighties was counted a shining light in science at the Petersburg laboratory... Such facts certainly like a flash of lightning illumine things that are working at the present time! Take this young man who was there in the Petersburg laboratory about the year already a shining light in science, full of productive ideas in chemistry with a medal—a very rare thing—distinguished by this special medal from all those working with him, and highly esteemed even as a young man—and suddenly he disappears! Even marked out by the university authorities—he is suddenly no longer there! In all manner of roundabout ways his colleagues have to find out that meanwhile he has been hanged for taking part in a conspiracy against the reactionary Alexander III. It makes a difference whether the same idea enters the brain of a worthy university professor of Western Europe, or the brain of the brother of the man who was hanged under such conditions. When it enters the brain of this brother it changes this brother into a Lenin—for the hanged mans brother is Lenin—then this idea becomes the driving force behind all that you now see in Eastern Europe.

Idea is idea, as grain of wheat is grain of wheat; one has, however, to realise whether something is the same idea that arises either in the brain of a university professor or in the brain of the brother of this man they hanged. We must have the will to see into the background of existence where lie the actual impulses behind events. And we must have the courage to reject all the empty nonsense about programmes, ideas, sciences, of those who believe in them. Something depends on what they uphold. This or that may be upheld according to its content, nevertheless it is of consequence in what sphere of actual life what is thus upheld lies, just as it is of consequence where the grain of wheat falls, whether in fertile or unfertile ground. In every sphere man must find the way out of the abstraction that in the present grave conditions is everywhere leading to illusion or to chaos; he must find the way to the reality that can be found in spirituality alone! And however long it be, this is the only road by which man can find his way out of the present confusion to what can bless and heal him.

This is what should be written on our hearts, my dear friends, something in which we can all be united. this is something with which we should greet each other in earnest, associating ourselves in this knowledge with what must be the cure for man's failings. For it is possible to cure them. But, my dear friends, this may not be done with quack remedies, they must be healed by something the lack of which has brought mankind into this chaos.

Leninism would never have taken hold of the East had not materialistic science—not always recognised as such—been taught in the West. For what has been produced in the East is the direct child of materialistic science. It is just a child of materialistic science. Through Karl Marx a changeling has arisen; the real child of materialistic science already exists in the East. But we must have the will really to see into these things.

This, my dear friends, is as it were the background against which our building is being erected. And individual men who work here at this building think about it quite apart from the ideas today affecting men in so many lands. We can well imagine that outside, in other countries, there may be people who consider that men are living here who keep aloof from what concerns the world and, as these people believe, should concern it. It is easy to imagine people looking reproachfully at this place. Those who have their whole heart and soul in this building need not worry themselves about being thus reproached. For even if this building does not perhaps fulfil its task, if it never reaches its goal, what works on the building, my dear friends, and what proceeds from those working with devotion on the building, is today the most important thing of all; it is what must rescue men from everything into which they have fallen. And when people outside believe that here men are working with no thought for the task of present-day mankind, the answer must be that here we are working on what is of supreme importance today, on what is preeminently essential, only others know nothing of it, it is something of which as yet they are ignorant. But the important point is that mankind will want to know something of what is happening here.

Once again let it be emphasised. It is not important whether this building attains its goal—although it would be good were it to do so. What is important is that this building should be worked upon out of certain ideas that men have discovered for this work. It is not the content of these ideas but the way in which they live that gives them their impulses for the future, whereas the ideas so many believe in today are simply and solely ideas that incline towards the grave, ideas of a former age which are passing into dissolution and are ripe for dissolution.

Erster Vortrag

Daß es mir die tiefste Befriedigung gewährt, die Arbeit in Ihrer Mitte an diesem unserem Bau und um unseren Bau herum hier wiederum aufnehmen zu können, das werden Sie mir wohl ohne weiteres glauben. Es ist ja tatsächlich so, daß heute nicht nur bei tieferem Nachdenken, sondern, man darf sagen, schon bei oberflächlicherem Nachdenken demjenigen, der der ganzen Aura dieses Baues nahegetreten ist, der Gedanke aufgehen könnte, daß mit diesem Bau doch etwas verknüpft ist, was mit den bedeutungsvollsten, schwerwiegendsten Aufgaben der Menschenzukunft zusammenhängt. Und nach längerer, erzwungener Abwesenheit ist es ja selbstverständlich, daß man sich mit tiefster Befriedigung wiederum an der Stätte befindet, an der dieser Bau als ein Symbolum unserer Sache steht.

Zu dem Gesagten darf ich wohl hinzufügen, daß für mich besonders jedesmal, wenn ich jetzt nach längerer Abwesenheit wiederkomme, die tiefste Befriedigung daraus resultiert, daß ich ja immer dann sehen kann, wie schön und wie bedeutungsvoll die Arbeit an diesem Bau durch die hingebungsvolle Tätigkeit der am Bau Arbeitenden weiter gefördert worden ist. Insbesondere in diesen Monaten meiner letzten Abwesenheit, wo ja unter so schwierigen Verhältnissen gearbeitet worden ist, ist ja gerade ein Teil der künstlerischen Arbeit in einer unvergleichlichen Weise fortgeschritten, fortgeschritten in dem Geiste, der dieses Ganze durchdringen soll.

Aber auch mit tiefer Befriedigung sehe ich bei Verfolgung des Geistes unserer Arbeit, bei Verfolgung desjenigen, was hier entsteht, das Verbundensein treuer Gesinnung bei vielen unserer Freunde, treuer Gesinnung gegenüber dem, was sich gerade in diesem Bau verkörpert. Und dasjenige, was dann beim Wieder-auf-sich-wirkenLassen dieser Sache der Seele sich offenbart, das ist doch, daß hier eine Stätte vorhanden ist, mit welcher verbunden ist eine solche treue Gesinnung einer Anzahl von Freunden unserer geistigen Bewegung, einer solch treuen Gesinnung, die da verspricht, daß sich die besten Impulse unserer geistigen Bewegung in die Zukunft der Menschheit hinein halten werden, der sie so notwendig sein werden. Es gibt schon innerhalb gerade der diesem Bau gewidmeten Arbeit etwas, was Vorbild sein könnte für dasjenige, was im allgemeinen mit dem, was sich unter uns heute Anthroposophische Gesellschaft nennt, eigentlich gewollt ist.

Aber ich habe auf der andern Seite vielfach wiederum das Gefühl, daß das Günstige, das bedeutungsvoll Gute, das man hier im Zusammenwirken von Menschenarbeit und Menschengefühl mit diesem Bau finden kann, gerade darinnen besteht, daß dieser Bau etwas ist, was gewissermaßen in seiner Objektivität das, was durch unsere Bewegung gewollt wird, loslöst von den subjektiven Interessen der einzelnen Menschen.

Über dieses jetzt eben Berührte waren ja - und sind - in allen ähnlichen Gesellschaften, auch in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, gewisse merkwürdige Anschauungen vorhanden, die eigentlich nichts anderes sind als merkwürdige Illusionen. Man predigt viel von Selbstlosigkeit, von allgemeiner Menschenliebe; aber das sind oftmals bloße Masken für gewisse, nur raffinierte egoistische Interessen der einzelnen Menschen. Gewiß, die einzelnen Menschen wissen nicht, daß es sich für sie um bloße egoistische Interessen handelt, sie sind vor ihrem eigenen Bewußtsein gewissermaßen unschuldig; aber es ist doch so. Der Bau selbst verlangt aber von einer schon ziemlich großen Anzahl unserer Freunde eine selbstlose Hingabe an etwas Objektives, an etwas, was als ein von jeder einzelnen Persönlichkeit losgelöstes Symbolum unserer Sache dasteht. Und insoferne wird wohl dasjenige, was mit diesem Bau zusammenhängt, vorbildlich sein können für das, was unsere Bewegung will.

Meine lieben Freunde, wenn wir uns so wie heute wiederum begrüßen, da dürfen wir insbesondere die Blicke richten auf das Fruchtbare und Umfassende dieser unserer geistigen Bewegung, und wir dürfen bei einer solchen Begrüßung bedenken, daß es uns ernst sein kann mit dem Glauben: Wie es auch immer geschehen mag — das Wie, das kann ja noch so oder so, je nach den Verhältnissen sich abspielen -, aus der furchtbaren Sackgasse, in welche die Menschheit hineingeraten ist in der Gegenwart, wird sie nicht früher herauskommen, als bis sie sich entschließt, in irgendeiner Weise Anknüpfungspunkte zu suchen für fruchtbares Wirken, fruchtbares Tun innerhalb einer solchen geistigen Bewegung, wie es die unsrige ist. Wir werden ja ganz gewiß nicht in egoistischer Weise darauf bestehen, die Wahrheit gerade nur innerhalb unseres engen, beschränkten Kreises zu haben; aber wir dürfen uns in einem Kreise zusammengehörig wissen, welcher erkennt, daß die Menscheit wegen des Vernachlässigens ihrer Geistessubstanz sich in diese furchtbare Lage der Gegenwart gebracht hat. Wissen können wir uns als solche Menschen, die vereint sind mit jenen Ideen, die einzig und allein hinausführen können aus der Sackgasse, in welche die Menschheit gekommen ist.

Es ist ja in den Seelen der heutigen Menschen ungemein vieles ungeklärt. Wenn man wiederum da und dort sich hat unterrichten können über die Bedürfnisse, die obwalten nach unserer geistigen Bewegung, so kann man auf der einen Seite sagen: Ja, es sind doch die Seelen derjenigen, die da dürsten nach jenem spirituellen Leben, das wir meinen, der Zahl nach in starker Zunahme begriffen. Die Sehnsucht nach solchem spirituellem Leben, sie hat sich, das darf wohl gesagt werden, ungeheuer vergrößert. Die Aufmerksamkeit, welche entgegengebracht wird unseren Impulsen, sie ist unstreitig in den letzten Jahren auch eine größere geworden, wenigstens auf den Gebieten, die mir in äußerlicher Weise in diesen letzten Jahren und insbesondere in den letzten’ Monaten zugänglich waren. Auch das wird nicht ganz bedeutungslos sein, zu bemerken, daß eine solche Vergrößerung und Verstärkung dieser Sehnsucht der Menschenseelen nach dem spirituellen Leben ganz deutlich vorhanden ist. Allerdings steht dieser Verstärkung und Verschärfung der Sehnsucht nach dem spirituellen Leben das andere gegenüber: jene furchtbare Beirrung, unter welcher der weitaus größte Teil der Menschheit leidet, jene furchtbare Beirrung, welche durch die altüberkommenen Ideen, oder man könnte besser sagen, durch die altüberkommene Ideenlosigkeit innerhalb der Menschheit bewirkt wird, die, man möchte sagen, Bequemlichkeit gegenüber jedem starken, jedem scharfen Gedanken, jene Bequemlichkeit, die einfach herrührt aus der Laxheit, aus der Trägheit, mit der das Gedankenleben seit vielen Jahrzehnten über die Erde hin geführt worden ist. Diese Laxheit, diese Trägheit beirrt die Seelen in dem vorhandenen Sehnen nach dem spirituellen Leben. Auf der einen Seite stecken die Menschen drinnen in einer wirklichen Sehnsucht nach Geistigkeit, nach übersinnlichen, starken Impulsen. Auf der andern Seite werden die Seelen niedergehalten von all jenen alten Mächten, die nicht abtreten mögen vom Schauplatz des Menschenwirkens und die doch sehen könnten aus dem, wie weit sie es gebracht haben, daß sie nicht mehr auf diesen Schauplatz des Menschenwirkens gehören. Man möchte sagen, daß man diesen dunkeln Eindruck, diesen zwiespältigen Eindruck überall hat.

Ich habe ja unter unseren Mitgliedern an manchen Orten, in Hamburg, in Berlin, in München, vielfach, in Anknüpfung an durch Lichtbilder wiedergegebene Darstellungen, von unserer Gruppe gesprochen, die an der Hauptstelle unseres Baues stehen soll. Man konnte auf der einen Seite sehen, wie tatsächlich mächtige Impulse in die Seelen auch derjenigen hineingehen, die durch die Verhältnisse der letzten Jahre niemals einen Blick werfen konnten auf das, was hier geschieht. Ein neues Menschenverständnis geht schon aus von der Art und Weise, wie das Ahrimanisch-Luziferische mit dem Christlichen zusammen gedacht wird und dargestellt, geoffenbart wird durch unsere Gruppe. Es ergreift die Seelen, wenn das, was durch diese Dinge gegeben wird, an diese Seelen herantritt. Allein, auf der andern Seite zeigen sich überall die hemmenden Einflüsse dessen, was als Überbleibsel des Alten, Verfaulten am sogenannten Kulturleben sich über die Menschheit verbreitet.

Das hat man ja insbesondere sehen können an der, man darf wahrhaftig im tiefsten Sinne sagen, humoristischen Art, wie den Vorträgen begegnet wurde, die ich im Kunsthause unseres Freundes, des Herrn von Bernus in München gehalten habe, worinnen ich versuchte, die inneren Impulse unserer hier betätigten Kunstanschauung einem größeren Publikum nahezubringen. Ja, Interesse hat das bei den Leuten außerordentlich viel erregt, denn ich habe im Februar und im Mai solche Vorträge in München gehalten, und ich mußte jeden dieser Vorträge zweimal halten; Herr von Bernus aber versicherte mir, es wären so viel Anfragen da, daß ich jeden dieser Vorträge vor einem öffentlichen Publikum, worin ich die Prinzipien meiner Kunstanschauung, wie sie hier in dem Bau zutage treten, dargelegt habe, hätte viermal halten können. Interesse war schon da. Aber da, wo man selbstverständlich unfroh sein würde, wenn Zustimmung vorhanden wäre, bei der Münchner Zeitungskritik, da war, man kann schon sagen, in edelstem Sinne humoristisches Zähnefletschen da. Es war insbesondere humoristisch, weil der innere Groll gegen etwas, was man gar nicht verstehen konnte, sich da so geltend machte: Es war alles solch — nicht gesprochenes, sondern gespieenes Zeug! Verzeihen Sie den harten Ausdruck. Und es zeigte sich gerade an dem Interesse, das der Sache entgegengebracht wurde, worinnen Ehrlichkeit und Aufrichtigkeit sich aussprach, im Gegensatze zu dem, was aus diesem Kunstmittelpunkte sonst sich zeigte — das ist ja München selbstverständlich, nicht wahr, das ist ja bekannt -, es zeigte sich also, wie in diesem Kunstmittelpunkte sowohl das verständigste als auch das unverständigste Zeug geredet wurde. Gerade an dieser Diskrepanz zeigte sich an einem Beispiel, wie diese zwei Strömungen, von denen ich Ihnen sprach, in der Gegenwart vorhanden sind; wie wir wirklich uns bewußt sein dürfen, in etwas ganz Wesentlichem und Wichtigem drinnenzustehen, das für die Welt, für die Zukunft zu erkämpfen ist.

Ich sage das alles sicher nicht deshalb, weil ich irgendwie anstreben würde, wenn die Dinge in die Öffentlichkeit treten, wie man sagt, eine «gute Presse» zu bekommen; denn ich würde in dem Augenblicke, wo eine «gute Presse» auftritt, glauben: Da muß selbstverständlich irgend etwas nicht richtig sein, da muß irgend etwas Falsches auf unserer Seite geschehen sein.

Alle diese Dinge sind ja geeignet, in uns das Bewußtsein hervorzurufen, daß wir gar sehr nötig haben, mit aller Entschiedenheit auf dem Boden unserer Sache zu stehen. Denn nichts könnte uns in schlimmere Verwirrung hineinführen, als wenn wir irgendwelche Kompromisse schließen wollten mit dem, wovon die Außenwelt meint, daß es das Richtige wäre für uns. Nur in den Prinzipien unserer Sache selbst müssen wir dasjenige finden, was uns die Richtung für unser Tun angibt.

Auch für so etwas, das mehr mittelbar mit unserer Sache zusammenhängt, aber doch innerlich zusammenhängt, auch für die Eurythmie hat sich ja in der letzten Zeit ein immer steigendes Interesse an den verschiedensten Orten gezeigt. Und wenn wir, die wir da waren, uns erinnern, wie zum Beispiel gerade die Eurythmie in einem Orte aufgenommen worden ist, wo sie fast noch gar nicht gesehen worden ist, wo sie zum Teil sogar etwas Neues war für diejenigen, die sie gesehen haben, in Hamburg, so muß man sich wirklich an die Art, wie da die Sache aufgenommen wurde, mit einer tiefen Befriedigung erinnern. Gerade in Hamburg konnte man sehen, wie bedeutungsvoll die Impulse sind, die auch von einer solchen Sache ausgehen können. Und da waren Leute, die eigentlich im Grunde zum erstenmal so recht einen eurythmischen Wurf gesehen haben. Und es wird vielleicht auch für die Eurythmie die Möglichkeit kommen, mit ihr in die Öffentlichkeit einzutreten. Aber gerade dann müssen wir mit solch einer Sache auf dem allerfestesten Boden stehen, nichts anderes tun, als was lediglich aus unserer Sache selbst heraus folgt. Sonst würde sich sehr bald zeigen, daß von einem gewissen Punkte ab niemand glauben darf, daß ich in einer gewissen Sache, wenn es auf mich selbst ankommt, biegsam bin. Die meisten von Ihnen wissen schon, daß ich selbstverständlich überall da, wo es nicht auf etwas Prinzipielles ankommt, sondern wo es darauf ankommt, menschlich zu sein, das Menschliche in den Vordergrund zu stellen, in jeder Weise mit allen Menschen mitgehe aber wo es an die Grenze kommt, daß auch nur im geringsten irgend etwas Prinzipielles verleugnet werden müßte, da würde ich mich nicht als biegsam erweisen. Wenn also in der jetzigen Zeit, wo so vieles an Tänzerei gesehen werden kann — denn überall wird ja getanzt, das ist ja ganz schrecklich, man könnte an jedem Abend, wenn man in einer größeren Stadt wohnt, einen Tanzabend mitmachen, wo überall schaugetanzt wird -, wenn man da glauben würde, und ich sage diese Sache nicht so ohne Begründung, obwohl ich auf nichts Konkretes hinweise, daß, wenn diese unsere Eurythmie jetzt vor die Öffentlichkeit treten würde, wir irgendwie uns binden sollten an eine journalistische Verständnislosigkeit, die irgendwelche Anforderungen stellte, so würde ich mich in der ganz entschiedensten Weise dagegen verwahren. Dasjenige, was Geschmacksrichtung ist, was Geschmackstendenz ist, muß lediglich aus unserer Sache selbst hervorgehen.

Wir müssen uns manchmal auch erinnern, insbesondere wenn wir uns wieder begrüßen, an das aus dem Willen folgende, notwendige, geradlinige Sich-Bewegen nach Maßgabe unserer spirituellen Impulse. Diese spirituellen Impulse werden ja gegen manches zu kämpfen haben. Man kann heute nicht mehr bloß sagen Vorurteil, denn die Dinge wirken zu stark, als daß man sie mit dem schwachen Wort Vorurteil belegen könnte; diese Impulse, die werden gegen mancherlei zu kämpfen haben. Immer wieder und wiederum muß ja hingewiesen werden auf die große Krankheit unserer Zeit, welche in der Zügellosigkeit gegenüber dem Gedankenleben besteht. Denn das Gedankenleben ist schon ein spirituelles Leben, wenn man es richtig erfaßt. Und weil die Menscheit so wenig sich an das Gedankenleben halten will, findet sie so wenig den Weg in spirituelle Welten hinein. Und ich muß schon von der verschiedensten Seite immer wieder und wieder eines berühren: Man hält heute furchtbar viel von dem bloßen Inhalt der Gedanken. Aber der Inhalt der Gedanken ist an den Gedanken das am allerwenigsten Wichtige. Nicht wahr, ein Weizenkorn ist ein Weizenkorn; es läßt sich nicht bestreiten. Aber mag ein Weizenkorn auch ein Weizenkorn sein: Wenn Sie ein Weizenkorn in einen guten, fruchtbaren Weizenboden hineinsenken, so bekommen Sie eine saftige Weizenähre daraus; wenn Sie ein Weizenkorn in einen ganz unfruchtbaren, steinigen Boden hineinsenken, bekommen Sie entweder gar nichts oder eine sehr korrupte Weizenähre. Jedesmal haben Sie es mit einem Weizenkorn zu tun.

Sagen wir jetzt etwas anderes statt Weizenkorn. Sagen wir statt Weizenkorn «Idee der freien Menschheit», von der ja heute so viel gesprochen wird; «Idee der freien Menschheit» ist «Idee der freien Menschheit», wird mancher sagen. Das ist geradeso wie: Weizenkorn ist Weizenkorn. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob «Idee der freien Menschheit» in einem Herzen, in einer Seele gedeiht - ganz genau dieselbe Idee mit derselben Begründung -, wo dieses Herz und diese Seele fruchtbarer Boden ist, oder ob die «Idee der freien Menschheit» in Woodrow Wilsons Kopf gedeiht! So wenig wie ein Weizenkorn gedeihen kann, wenn es in einen steinigen Boden oder gar in den Felsen hineingesenkt wird, so bedeuten all die sogenannten schönen Ideen, die in den Programmen Woodrow Wilsons vorkommen, nichts, wenn sie aus diesem Kopfe kommen. Allein dies ist etwas, was der gegenwärtigen Menschheit so unendlich schwer wird einzusehen, weil die gegenwärtige Menschheit eben der Anschauung ist: Man hält sich an den Inhalt von Programmen, an den Inhalt von Ideen. Aber der Inhalt von Programmen, der Inhalt von Ideen, der hat ebensowenig eine Bedeutung, als die Keimkraft eines Weizenkorns eine Bedeutung hat, bevor dieses Weizenkorn in einen gerade für es fruchtbaren Weizenboden gesenkt wird.

Real denken, das ist dasjenige, was der Menschheit so ungeheuer not tut. Und mit dem Unrealdenken der Gegenwart hängt etwas anderes zusammen, hängt zusammen, daß die Menschheit fast von allen Ereignissen überrascht wird. Man kann schon die Frage aufwerfen: Von was ist denn die Menschheit nicht überrascht worden in den letzten Jahren? — Von allem ist sie überrascht worden, und sie wird weiter noch viel mehr überrascht werden, als sie überrascht ist. Aber die Menschheit läßt sich ja nicht irgendwie auf dasjenige ein, was wirksam ist in der Welt. Daher ist es auch heute unmöglich, für irgendeine Sache die Menschheit zu irgendeiner Voraussicht zu bringen.

Wenn man mit bloßen Ideen arbeitet, dann kann man von allen Seiten alles durch alles begründen. Wenn man mit dem bloßen Inhalt von Ideen arbeitet, kann man wirklich alles mit allem begründen. Auch das ist etwas, was im Grunde genommen immer mehr und mehr und immer tiefer und tiefer eingesehen werden muß, was aber nicht eingesehen werden will.

Gewöhnlich, wenn man von solchen Dingen spricht und dann Beispiele anführt, findet man keinen rechten Glauben, weil die Beispiele zu grotesk sich ausnehmen. Aber von solchen Dingen, die in so grotesken Beispielen zutagetreten, ist unser ganzes gegenwärtiges Seelen- und Geistesleben durchschwirrt. Ich weiß, daß gar mancher vielleicht mit Groll zuhört, wenn ich Ihnen eine recht ausgefallene Idee als ein Beispiel anführe. Ich will eine ganz ausgefallene Idee anführen.

Da ist ein Universitätsprofessor, ein alter, angesehener Universitätsprofessor auf die Tatsache gestoßen, daß Goethe in seinem langen Leben Neigungen gehabt hat für verschiedene Frauen. Darauf ist also ein Universitätsprofessor gestoßen, der sich zur Aufgabe gemacht hat, Goethes Leben und das Leben der mit ihm zusammenhängenden Geister gründlich zu studieren. Und siehe da, selbstverständlich hat er, trotzdem er nicht gerade ein europäischer Universitätsprofessor ist, es sich zur Aufgabe gemacht, bei diesen Studien so gründlich zu Werke zu gehen, wie sonst in der Regel nur mitteleuropäische Universitätsprofessoren zu Werke gehen: er hat die ganze Galerie der Goetheschen Frauengestalten in ihrem Verhältnis zu Goethe an seiner Seele Revue passieren lassen. Und was hat er herausgefunden? Fast wörtlich kann ich es Ihnen anführen. Er hat herausgefunden: Was man über die jeweilig geliebte Frau in Goethes Leben sagen kann, das ist, daß jede für Goethe eine Art Belgien war, gegenüber welcher er die Neutralität verletzte, und dann darüber geseufzt hat, daß sein Herz blute, indem er über eine leuchtende Unschuld herfallen mußte. Aber er hat auch nicht vergessen, jedesmal wiederum wie der deutsche Kanzler zu behaupten, daß das Gebiet der verletzten Neutralität ein besseres Schicksal verdient haben würde, daß aber er, Goethe, nicht anders gekonnt habe, da seine Bestimmung, die Rechte seines geistigen Lebens ihn verpflichteten, die Geliebte zu opfern, ja den Schmerz seines eigenen Herzens zu opfern auf dem Altar der Pflicht, die er habe gegen sein eigenes unsterbliches Ich.

Nun, aus diesem Buche könnte ich Ihnen noch manche ausgefallene Idee hier vorlegen. Sie würden sagen: Wozu das? — Aber es hat schon seine guten Gründe, denn derlei Ideen finden Sie heute überallhin über die Erde zerstreut. Sie sind so, die Ideen der heutigen Menschheit. Und nicht umsonst zeigen sich solche Ideen da, wo der Extrakt des menschlichen Denkens in der Literatur auftritt, denn diese Anschauung wird vertreten von Santayana, dem Professor der Harvard-Universität in Amerika, einem sehr angesehenen Spanier, der sich aber ganz amerikanisiert hat, dessen Buch während dieser Menschheitskatastrophe geschrieben worden ist, und dessen französische Ausgabe eingeleitet worden ist von Boutroux, der kurz vor dem Kriege von Heidelberg aus eine große Lobrede über die deutsche Philosophie gehalten hat. Dieses Buch heißt: «L’erreur de la philosophie allemande» und ist wahrhaftig nicht ein Zufallsbuch, sondern es ist ganz charakteristisch für das Denken der Gegenwart, weil ja wirklich mit derselben Leichtigkeit, mit welcher der Professor Santayana die Verletzung der belgischen Neutralität mit den Taten Goethes gegenüber verschiedenen Frauen vergleicht, diese Menschheit das Entferntliegendste zusammenhält. Denn diese Art des Denkens tritt Ihnen, wenn Sie wirklich beobachten können, auf allen Gebieten der sogenannten heutigen Wissenschaft entgegen.

Es ist ja schon einmal die Aufgabe jener geistigen Impulse, denen unsere anthroposophisch orientierte Geisteswissenschaft gewidmet ist, gegen drei Grundübel in der gegenwärtigen sogenannten Menschheitskultur anzukämpfen. Sie kann gar nicht anders, als gegen diese drei Grundübel anzukämpfen. Das eine Grundübel zeigt sich auf dem Gebiete des Denkens, das andere auf dem Gebiete des Fühlens, und das dritte auf dem Gebiete des Wollens.

Auf dem Gebiete des Denkens ist es allmählich dazu gekommen, daß die Menschen nur so denken können, wie dasjenige Denken verläuft, das eng an das physische Gehirn gebunden ist. Aber diesesDenken, das eng an das physische Gehirn gebunden ist, das sich nicht erheben will in freiem Aufschwung zum Spirituellen, das ist unter allen Umständen dazu verurteilt, borniert zu werden, beschränkt zu werden. Und das bedeutungsvollste Kennzeichen, namentlich des gegenwärtigen wissenschaftlichen Denkens, ist die Borniertheit, ist die Beschränktheit. Gewiß, man kann auf dem Felde des Beschränkten, des Bornierten Großartiges leisten. Das tut zum Beispiel die gegenwärtige Naturwissenschaft. Aber zur Naturwissenschaft, wie sie heute gedacht wird, ist ja keine Genialität notwendig. Also: Borniertheit, Beschränktheit, das ist dasjenige, was namentlich auf intellektuellem Gebiete bekämpft werden muß. Ich will heute mehr skizzieren, wir werden diese Dinge genauer besprechen.

Auf dem Gebiete des Fühlens handelt es sich darum, daß die Menschheit allmählich zu einer gewissen Philistrosität gekommen ist — man kann das nicht anders nennen —, Engherzigkeit, Philistrosität, Eingeschränktheit auf gewisse engumgrenzte Kreise. Das ist ja das hauptsächlichste Kennzeichen des Philisters, daß er sich nicht für große Weltenzusammenhänge interessieren kann. Kirchturmpolitiker sind immer Philister. Das kann natürlich auf dem Gebiete der Geisteswissenschaft nicht genügen, denn da kann man sich nicht auf die engsten Kreise beschränken. Man muß sich sogar für das Außerirdische, man muß sich für sehr weite Kreise interessieren. Und die Leute ärgert es ja, wenn jemand auch nur vorgibt, für so weite Kreise wie Mond, Sonne, Saturn, etwas wissen zu wollen. Aber die Philistrosität muß schon auf allen Gebieten der Nichtphilistrosität weichen, wenn Geisteswissenschaft durchdringen soll. Das ist manchmal nicht bequem, denn das fordert rückhaltloses Sich-der-Sache-Gegenüberstellen, und ein mehr vorurteilsloses Sich-der-Sache-Gegenüberstellen.

Da ist ja in der letzten Zeit einmal etwas recht Niedliches gerade auf unserem Boden passiert; aber ich habe vorgebeugt, es ist nichts Schlimmes passiert, es hätte nur etwas passieren können! Ich habe Sie werden sich daran noch aus den vorjährigen Zürcher Vorträgen erinnern — unter den verschiedenen Beispielen, wie aus der Naturwissenschaft selber eine Art Überwindung des Darwinismus herauswachsen kann, auf das ausgezeichnete Buch «Das Werden der Organismen» von Oscar Hertwig hingewiesen. Ich habe hier und sonst überall, wo ich nur Gelegenheit gefunden habe, auf dieses ausgezeichnete Buch hingewiesen. Nun erschien sehr bald nach diesem Buch ein kürzeres Buch, worin derselbe Oscar Hertwig über das soziale, das ethische und das politische Leben spricht, und ich hatte mir schon gedacht: Da kann passieren, daß einzelne unserer Mitglieder, wenn sie gehört haben, daß ich gesagt habe, das Buch von Oscar Hertwig «Das Werden der Organismen » sei ein ausgezeichnetes Buch, nun glauben, daß ich denselben Oscar Hertwig für eine unfehlbare Autorität ansehe. Dieses Buch, das als zweites erschienen ist von Oscar Hertwig, ist ein Buch, das nichts taugt, ein Buch, das herrührt von einem Menschen, der auf dem Gebiete, um das es sich da handelt, auf dem Gebiete des sozialen, des ethischen, des politischen Lebens absolut keinen einzigen ordentlichen Gedanken fassen kann. Ich fürchtete schon, daß einzelne unserer Mitglieder nun hätten finden können, daß auch dieses Buch irgendeinen Wert haben könnte, weil es von demselben Oscar Hertwig herrührt. So mußte ich denn vorbauen und habe auch überall, wo ich bisher die Gelegenheit ergreifen konnte, sie ergriffen, um darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daß ich dieses zweite Buch desselben Verfassers, der ein ausgezeichnetes naturwissenschaftliches Buch geschrieben hat, für ein ganz unfruchtbares, törichtes Zeug halte, von einem Menschen, der gar nicht die Möglichkeit hat, über die Dinge zu reden, über die er da redet. Bequem das eine aus dem andern zu folgern, ohne sich jedesmal den Tatsachen aufs neue vorurteilslos gegenüberzustellen, das läßt unsere anthroposophisch orientierte Geisteswissenschaft nicht zu. Die fordert eben wirklich von den Menschen eine Prüfung der Konkretheit gegenüber jedem einzelnen Falle. Philistrosität ist etwas, was schwinden wird, wenn die Impulse der Geisteswissenschaft sich verbreiten. Das auf dem Gebiete des Fühlens.

Und auf dem Gebiete des Wollens, da ist es dasjenige, was so ganz besonders in der neueren Zeit im weitesten Sinne die Menschheit ergriffen hat und was ich doch nicht anders benennen kann denn als Ungeschicklichkeit. Dutch das Eingeschränktsein desjenigen, was man lernt auf einem engen Kreis, kann der heutige Mensch in der Regel viel auf einem engen Kreise, und er ist ziemlich ungeschickt in bezug auf alles, was außerhalb dieses Kreises liegt. Man kann heute Männer kennenlernen, die sich keinen Hosenknopf annähen können! Ungeschicklichkeit außerhalb eines engsten Kreises, das ist dasjenige, was auf dem Gebiete des Willens insbesondere verbreitet ist.

Wer nun nicht mit den bloßen abstrakten Gedanken, sondern mit der ganzen Seele bei dem ist, was man hier Geisteswissenschaft nennt, der wird sehen, daß diese Geisteswissenschaft in die Geschicklichkeit der Hände hineingeht, daß sie den Menschen geschickter macht, daß sie ihn geeignet macht, wirklich wiederum sein Interesse auf weitere Kreise, sein Wollen über eine weitere Welt auszudehnen. Natürlich ist gerade mit Bezug auf die Ungeschicklichkeit Geisteswissenschaft noch zu schwach, aber je stärker wir sie aufnehmen, desto mehr wird sie eine Bekämpferin sein der Ungeschicklichkeit.

Also das ist es, was beim heutigen Aufnehmen der Geisteswissenschaft, ich möchte sagen, als eine Trinität ihr gegenübersteht: Borniertheit auf intellektuellem Gebiete, Philistrosität, das heißt Engherzigkeit auf dem Fühlensgebiete, Ungeschicklichkeit auf dem Willensgebiete. Und die drei liebt man heute, wenn man auch sich dessen nicht voll bewußt ist. Nichts wird heute mehr geliebt in der ganzen Welt als Ungeschicklichkeit, Philistrosität und Borniertheit. Und indem man diese drei liebt, wird man nicht leicht vordringen können zu den großen Aspekten, zu denen die Menschheit vordringen muß: zu den Aspekten, die sich an die Benennungen Ahriman und Luzifer anknüpfen. Und gerade hier ist etwas Wichtiges zu begreifen in unserer Zeit, denn in unserer Zeit ist unter mannigfaltigen andern Dingen auch ein sehr wichtiger Übergang vom Luziferischen zum Ahrimanischen. Und da sich dieser Übergang nicht bloß sonstwo, sondern auch schon durchaus hier in der Schweiz zeigt, so kann man ja auch hier davon sprechen. Auf diesem Gebiet hat vielleicht hier das erste gerade durch schweizerische Gepflogenheiten weniger Bedeutung erlangt, aber das zweite, das hat alle Aussicht, gerade auf diesem Boden mehr Bedeutung zu erlangen. Die Menschheit ist nämlich in bezug auf gewisse Dinge in einem Übergang von luziferischen zu ahrimanischen Untugenden, von luziferischen Kontraimpulsen in bezug auf die Entwickelung der Menschheit zu ahrimanischen Kontraimpulsen.

Durchaus luziferisch geartet waren gewisse Impulse, die man in der früheren Zeit im Erziehungswesen geltend machte. Man rechnete im Erziehungswesen — wir alle, als wir jung waren, mit Ausnahme der Jüngsten unter uns, wissen ja das sehr genau - mit dem Ehrgeiz, mit der Eitelkeit. Also man rechnete — vielleicht hier in der Schweiz weniger, aber sonst ziemlich viel in der Welt - mit dem Ehrgeiz und der Eitelkeit, mit Ordenswesen, Titelwesen und so weiter, nicht wahr! Die ganze Laufbahn mancher Menschen war aufgebaut auf diesen luziferischen Impulsen der Eitelkeit, des Ehrgeizes, des Mehr-Geltens als ein anderer Mensch und so weiter. Versuchen Sie zurückzudenken, wie das Erziehungswesen schon aufgebaut war auf diesen luziferischen Impulsen.

In der Gegenwart strebt man danach, an die Stelle dieser luziferischen Impulse ahrimanische zu setzen. Sie hüllen sich heute in das niedliche Wort «Begabtenprüfungen». Das will auf ahrimanischem Gebiete, was das Pochen auf den Ehrgeiz und die Eitelkeit schon bei dem Kinde auf luziferischem Gebiete war. Man strebt heute danach, die Begabtesten herauszufinden, diejenigen, die schon ohnedies in den Klassen am meisten können; aus denen sollen wiederum einzelne herausgezogen werden. Dann stellt man mit diesen Begabtenprüfungen an, Prüfungen des Intellekts, Prüfungen des Gedächtnisses, Prüfungen der Auflassungsgabe und so weiter. Und das ist etwas, wofür die Verfassung des Schweizer Gemütes sehr viel Veranlagung hat. Und wenn auch das Luziferische hier weniger eine Rolle spielte, dieses Ahrimanische, das zeigt sich schon in sehr niedlichen Keimen: Verständnis für diese Begabtenprüfungen. Denn diese Begabtenprüfungen gehen ja aus von der Intelligenz, von der Wissenschaft, von der gegenwärtigen Gelehrtenpsychologie. Da setzt man sich hin, nicht wahr, diejenigen, deren Begabung man prüfen will, man schreibt ihnen auf: Mörder — Spiegel - Opfer des Mörders.

Nun sitzen sie da, die armen Lämmer, vor den drei Worten Mörder, Spiegel, Opfer des Mörders und sollen Verbindungsglieder suchen. Das eine Kind findet: Der Mörder schleicht sich an sein Opfer heran, aber das Opfer hat einen Spiegel, und in dem spiegelt sich gerade der Mörder, und da kann sich das Opfer noch retten. — Das ist das erste Kind. Seine Auffassungsgabe geht dahin, die drei Worte so zu verbinden.

Jetzt kommt ein anderes: Ein Mörder. schleicht sich an sein Opfer heran, sieht sich in einem Spiegel; da kommt ihm sein Gesicht vor wie jemand, der kein gutes Gewissen hat, und der Mörder läßt ab von seinem Opfer, weil er sein Gesicht im Spiegel sieht. — Das ist das zweite Kind.

Das dritte Kind macht eine andere Kombination: Ein Mörder schleicht heran. Dieser Mörder findet einen Spiegel. Er stößt sich an dem Spiegel; der Spiegel fällt herunter, macht einen furchtbaren Lärm, poltert. Das Opfer des Mörders wird auf das Gepolter aufmerksam und kann zur rechten Zeit sich rüsten gegen den Mörder.

Das letzte Kind ist das Begabteste! Das erste hat nur das Allernächste an Ideenkombinationen gefunden, das zweite eine naheliegende moralische Sache, das dritte Kind hat aber eine sehr komplizierte Ideenverbindung gefunden. Das ist das Begabteste! Nun ja, es ist schon so ähnlich. Man muß ja natürlich alles, wenn man es kurz darstellen will, ein bißchen in seiner eigenartigen Wesenheit darstellen. Aber so will man in der nächsten Zeit die Begabung der Kinder prüfen, damit man die Begabtesten herausbekomme.

Das eine ist sicher: Wenn diejenigen Menschen, die diese Methoden erfinden, nachdenken würden, wer die Großen sind, die sie verehren, so Helmholtz, Newton und so weiter, so müßten sie sagen, die wären bei diesen Begabtenprüfungen alle, durch die Bank, als die unbegabtesten Kerlchen angesehen worden! — Es wäre nichts herausgekommen. Denn Helmholtz, der heute bei den Leuten, die da die Begabtenprüfungen machen, ganz gewiß als ein großer Physiker angesehen wird, hatte einen Wasserkopf und war sehr unbegabt in seiner Jugend.

Was will man denn da prüfen? Den bloßen äußeren Organismus, lediglich dasjenige, was als physisches Werkzeug des Menschen in Betracht kommt, das rein Ahrimanische der Menschennatur! Werden jemals die Früchte dieser Begabtenprüfungen in der Menschheit irgend etwas bedeuten, dann werden noch greulichere Gedankengebilde heraufkommen, als diejenigen sind, die zu der gegenwärtigen Menschheitskatastrophe geführt haben. Allein, wenn man heute den Menschen spricht von dem, was vielleicht erst in hundert Jahren zu katastrophalen Ereignissen führen kann, so interessiert das ja die Menschen nicht. Aber wir leben jetzt in diesem Übergang von luziferischem Erziehungssystem zum ahrimanischen Erziehungssystem, und wir müssen zu denen gehören, die solche Sachen ins Auge zu fassen verstehen.

Dasjenige, was wirksame Kraft für die Zukunft ist, müssen die Menschen umsetzen in Kräfte der Gegenwart. Denn das ist es, was heute von uns gefordert wird: Gefordert wird echtes, wahres, unbefangenes Sich-Gegenüberstellen dem, was konkrete, unmittelbare Wirklichkeit ist.

Darinnen kann man ja sehr sonderbare Erfahrungen machen. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich hier eine Erfahrung schon erwähnt habe, die ganz interessant ist. Es gibt Schriften von Woodrow Wilson, eine Schrift über die Freiheit, eine andere Schrift heißt «Nur Literatur», die viel bewundert worden sind, auch heute noch von vielen sehr bewundert werden. In der einen Schrift, die «Nur Literatur» heißt, ist ein interessanter Essay wiedergegeben, den Woodrow Wilson über die historische Entwickelung von Amerika geschrieben hat. Auch sonst sind interessante Essays von Woodrow Wilson wiedergegeben mit weiten historischen Gesichtspunkten. Als ich diese Schriften las, machte ich eine interessante Erfahrung. In diesen Schriften finden sich einzelne Sätze, die mir ungemein bekannt schienen, und die doch ganz gewiß nicht von irgend etwas abgeschrieben waren; sie schienen mir aber doch außerordentlich bekannt. Und ich kam sehr bald darauf, daß diese Sätze, die da bei Woodrow Wilson stehen, ebensogut bei Herman Grimm stehen könnten, ja, daß mancher dieser Sätze sogar wörtlich bei Herman Grimm steht. Herman Grimm liebe ich; Woodrow Wilson, das wissen Sie ja wohl, liebe ich nicht gerade. Aber ich kann deshalb doch nicht die objektive Tatsache verschweigen, daß in bezug auf den Inhalt der Sätze man Sätze von Herman Grimm in Vorträgen, Aufsätzen einfach herübernehmen und hineinstellen könnte in Wilsons Aufsätze, und umgekehrt Sätze von Wilson in Werke von Herman Grimm herübernehmen könnte. Da sagen zwei dem einfachen, gewöhnlichen Wortlaute nach eines und dasselbe. Aber in der Gegenwart muß man lernen: Wenn zwei dasselbe sagen, ist es nicht dasselbe! Denn es liegt die interessante Tatsache vor: Herman Grimms Sätze sind persönlich erkämpft, sind errungen, Schritt für Schritt von der Seele errungen. Woodrow Wilsons ganz gleichlautende Sätze rühren von einer eigentümlichen Besessenheit her. Von einem unterbewußten Ich ist der Mann besessen, das diese Sätze herauftreibt in das bewußte Leben.

Wer solche Dinge beurteilen kann, der kommt darauf, daß es sich hier darum handelt: Weizenkorn ist Weizenkorn; aber es ist ein Unterschied, ob das Weizenkorn in diesen Boden oder in jenen Boden gesenkt wird. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob jemand eine Idee so sehr als die seinige hat, daß er sie Stück für Stück auf seinem eigenen, persönlichsten Wege erkämpft hat, oder ob jemand diese Idee dadurch hat, daß ein Unterbewußtes ihn von sich, von diesem Unterbewußten, besessen gemacht hat: da tönt alles aus einem besessenen Unterbewußten heraus, aus einem Bewußtsein, das vom Unterbewußten besessen ist. Also es kommt heute schon darauf an, zu verstehen: Auf den Inhalt der Gedanken, auf den Inhalt von Programmen kommt es nicht an, sondern auf das lebendige Leben kommt es an, das die Menschheit lebt.

Man kann materialistische Philosophie lehren, man kann bloße Gedankenphilosophie lehren, man kann bloße materialistische Naturwissenschaft lehren, man kann mit bloß materialistischer Naturwissenschaft ein ausgezeichneter europäischer Gelehrter sein, eine Zierde der Universität sein und daneben ein braver Staatsbürger: es ist ja der Typus nicht so selten, nicht wahr? Sie sind ja überall zu finden, die Zierden und Leuchten der Wissenschaft, die zu gleicher Zeit ganz tadellose, brave Staatsbürger sind! Das kann man ja ganz gut sein. Aber nehmen Sie irgendeine bestimmt geartete Idee, etwa den Kampf ums Dasein, um eine triviale Idee zu nennen, oder eine Idee, wie sie selbst zahmere Leute wie Oscar Hertwig vertreten, oder Ideen, wie sie Spencer oder Mill oder Boutroux und Bergson vertreten, die eben durchaus nicht zu spirituellem Leben vordringen wollen, sondern bei bloßen Gedankenphilosophien bleiben — aber noch mehr: Nehmen Sie das, was materialistische naturwissenschaftliche Ideen sind, nehmen Sie diese Ideen -, gewiß, sie können wachsen im Gehirn von braven Staatsbürgern; schön, aber Weizenkorn ist Weizenkorn, doch es ist ein Unterschied, ob ein Weizenkorn in weizenfruchtbarem Boden wächst oder in felsigem Boden, und es ist ein Unterschied, ob dieselbe naturwissenschaftliche Idee, die in Europa als eine Zierde der Naturwissenschaft errungen werden kann und an den Universitäten gilt, in den Gehirnen der Universitätslehrer wächst, oder ob sie wächst in dem Gehirn eines Menschen, der einen Bruder hat, welcher schon als junger Mann, am Ende der achtziger Jahre, als eine Leuchte der Wissenschaft in einem Petersburger Laboratorium gilt, der voller fruchtbarer chemischer Ideen ist, mit einer besonderen Medaille ausgezeichnet, von allen, die mit ihm gearbeitet haben, als junger Mann schon hochverehrt wird — und dieser Bruder ist plötzlich nicht mehr da! Eben noch von der Universitätsbehörde ausgezeichnet, plötzlich nicht mehr da! Auf allen möglichen Umwegen sollen dann seine Kollegen erfahren haben, daß er mittlerweile gehenkt worden ist, weil er an Verschwörungen teilgenommen hatte gegen Alexander III., den Reaktionär. Solche Tatsachen beleuchten die Dinge, die in der Gegenwart spielen, als Lichtblitze. Es ist nun ein Unterschied, ob dieselbe Idee in das Gehirn eines braven westeuropäischen Universitätsprofessors fällt oder in das Gehirn des Bruders dieses unter solchen Voraussetzungen Gehenkten. Wenn sie in das Gehirn dieses Bruders fällt, dann verwandelt sich dieser Bruder in einen Lenin — denn der Bruder dieses Gehenkten ist Lenin -, und dann wird dieselbe Idee zur Triebkraft von alledem,was Sie jetzt im Osten Europas aufgehen sehen.

Idee ist Idee, wie Weizenkorn Weizenkorn ist, aber man muß erkennen, ob etwas dieselbe Idee ist und nun auftritt, je nachdem, in dem Gehirn des Universitätsprofessors oder in dem Gehirn des Bruders des dazumal Gehenkten. Man muß den Willen haben, hineinzuschauen in diejenigen Untergründe des Daseins, wo die wirklichen Impulse des Geschehens liegen. Und man muß den Mut haben, abzulehnen all das Phrasenzeug von Programmen und Ideen von Wissenschaftern, die da glauben, wenn sie dies oder jenes vertreten, so komme etwas darauf an. Vertreten kann man dem Inhalte nach dies oder jenes; doch darauf kommt es an, in welchem Gebiete des lebendigen Lebens dieses also Vertretene ist, so wie es darauf ankommt, in welches Gebiet das Weizenkorn fällt, ob in einen fruchtbaren Boden oder in einen unfruchtbaren Boden. Den Weg von der Abstraktion, die unter den heutigen ernsten Verhältnissen überall zur Illusion oder zum Chaos führt, zu der Wirklichkeit, die einzig und allein in der Spiritualität gefunden werden kann, diesen Weg muß auf allen Gebieten die Menschheit suchen. Und wenn es noch so lange dauert: Auf diesem Wege allein kann die Menschheit das Heil und den Segen aus der gegenwärtigen Verwirrung heraus finden.

Das ist es, was wir uns ins Herz schreiben sollten, worinnen wir uns zusammenfinden sollen. Das ist es, womit wir uns in einer ernsten Begrüßung begrüßen sollten: in diesem Wissen, dazuzugehören zu dem, was die Gebrechen der Menschheit heilen muß. Sie sind heilbar, aber sie dürfen nicht mit Quacksalbereien geheilt werden wollen. Sie müssen geheilt werden mit demjenigen, durch dessen Mangel die Menschheit gerade in das Chaos hineingekommen ist.

Niemals hätte im Osten der Leninismus Platz greifen können, wenn nicht im Westen die materialistische Wissenschaft, die manchmal gar nicht sich materialistisch glaubt, gelehrt worden wäre. Denn was im Osten gemacht wird, ist direkt ein Kind der materialistischen Wissenschaft. Ein Wechselbalg ist durch Karl Marx entstanden. Das wirkliche Kind der materialistischen Wissenschaft ist schon im Osten vorhanden. Aber man muß den Willen haben, in alle diese Dinge wirklich hineinzuschauen.

Das, meine lieben Freunde, ist gewissermaßen der Hintergrund, auf dem sich nun, ich möchte sagen, abhebt unser Bau. Und einzelne Menschen hier bei diesem Bau, sie arbeiten, denken an den Bau wahrhaftig recht abseits von den Ideen, die auf so vielen Territorien heute die Menschheit bewegen. Man kann sich gut denken, daß da draußen auf den andern Territorien viele Menschen sind, die da finden, daß hier Menschen leben, die sich absondern von dem, was heute die Welt bewegt und, wie die Menschen glauben, auch bewegen sollte. Man könnte sich das denken, daß die Leute vorwurfsvoll an diesen Ort hinsehen. Diejenigen, die mit ganzem Herzen und ganzer Seele bei diesem Bau sind, brauchen sich aus diesem Vorwurf nichts zu machen. Denn, möge dieser Bau vielleicht gar nicht seine Aufgabe erfüllen, möge dieser Bau gar nicht sein Ziel erreichen: was an diesem Bau aber arbeitet und was von denen aus gearbeitet wird, die an diesem Bau mit Hingabe arbeiten, das ist dasjenige, was das Allerwichtigste ist in der Gegenwart, das ist dasjenige, was die gegenwärtige Menschheit herausführen muß aus alldem, in das sie hineingekommen ist. Und wenn die Menschen draußen etwa glauben: Hier arbeiten Leute abseits von den Aufgaben der gegenwärtigen Menschheit -, so muß man diesen Leuten sagen können: Hier wird gerade gearbeitet für das Allerwichtigste, für das Allerwesentlichste in der Gegenwart, das nur die andern nicht kennen, wovon die andern noch nichts wissen. Aber davon wird es gerade abhängen, daß die Menschheit werde etwas wissen wollen von dem, was hier geschieht.

Noch einmal sei es betont: Nicht darauf kommt es an, ob dieser Bau sein Ziel erreicht — obgleich es gut wäre, wenn er sein Ziel erreichen würde -, sondern darauf kommt es an, daß aus gewissen Ideen heraus an diesem Bau gearbeitet worden ist, daß sich Menschen gefunden haben für das Arbeiten an diesem Bau. Und nicht der Inhalt dieser Ideen, sondern die Art, wie diese Ideen leben, das ist dasjenige, was die Menschheitsimpulse für die Zukunft sind, während das, woran heute viele glauben, nichts anderes ist als die zum Grabe sich neigenden, in die Auflösung übergehenden, für die Auflösung auch reifen Ideen der Vorzeit. Davon wollen wir dann morgen weiter reden.

First Lecture

You will readily believe me when I say that it gives me the deepest satisfaction to be able to resume my work here among you, on this building of ours and around it. It is indeed the case that today, not only upon deeper reflection, but even upon more superficial reflection, anyone who has come into close contact with the whole aura of this building may be struck by the thought that something is connected with this building that has to do with the most significant and most serious tasks of the future of humanity. And after a long, enforced absence, it is only natural that one returns with the deepest satisfaction to the place where this building stands as a symbol of our cause.

I might add that for me, every time I return after a long absence, I derive the deepest satisfaction from seeing how beautifully and meaningfully the work on this building has been advanced by the dedicated efforts of those working on it. During the months of my recent absence, when work has been carried out under such difficult conditions, some of the artistic work has progressed in an incomparable manner, progressing in the spirit that should permeate the whole.

But it is also with deep satisfaction that I see, in pursuing the spirit of our work, in pursuing what is being created here, the bond of loyalty among many of our friends, loyalty to what is being embodied in this building. And what then reveals itself to the soul when it allows this matter to sink in is that here there is a place connected with such a loyal attitude on the part of a number of friends of our spiritual movement, such a loyal attitude that promises that the best impulses of our spiritual movement will continue into the future of humanity, where they will be so necessary. There is already something within the work dedicated to this building that could serve as a model for what is generally intended by what we today call the Anthroposophical Society.

But on the other hand, I often have the feeling that the favorable, the meaningful good that can be found here in the interaction of human work and human feeling with this building, consists precisely in the fact that this building is something that, in its objectivity, detaches what is desired by our movement from the subjective interests of individual human beings.

Certain strange views have existed and still exist in all similar societies, including the Anthroposophical Society, which are actually nothing more than strange illusions. There is much preaching about selflessness and universal love for humanity, but these are often mere masks for certain sophisticated selfish interests of individual people. Certainly, individual people do not know that these are merely selfish interests; they are, so to speak, innocent of their own consciousness; but that is how it is. The building itself, however, demands of a fairly large number of our friends a selfless devotion to something objective, to something that stands as a symbol of our cause, detached from any individual personality. And insofar as this is the case, what is connected with this building can serve as an example for what our movement wants to achieve.

My dear friends, when we greet each other again today, we should focus in particular on the fruitfulness and comprehensiveness of our spiritual movement, and we should remember that we are serious in our belief that, however it may happen—the how can still be decided depending on the circumstances— humanity will not emerge from the terrible impasse into which it has fallen in the present until it decides to seek points of contact in some way for fruitful work, fruitful activity within a spiritual movement such as ours. We will certainly not insist in a selfish way that the truth is to be found only within our narrow, limited circle; but we can know that we belong to a circle that recognizes that humanity has brought itself into this terrible situation of the present by neglecting its spiritual substance. We can know ourselves to be people who are united with those ideas that alone can lead us out of the impasse into which humanity has come.

There is indeed much that is unclear in the souls of people today. If, on the other hand, one has been able to learn here and there about the needs that prevail according to our spiritual movement, then one can say on the one hand: Yes, the souls of those who thirst for the spiritual life we mean are indeed growing in number. The longing for such a spiritual life has, it may well be said, increased enormously. The attention given to our impulses has undoubtedly also grown in recent years, at least in those areas that have been accessible to me externally in recent years and especially in the last few months. It is also not entirely insignificant to note that such an increase and intensification of this longing of human souls for spiritual life is quite clearly present. However, this intensification and sharpening of the longing for spiritual life is countered by something else: the terrible confusion under which the vast majority of humanity suffers, that terrible confusion caused by the old ideas, or rather, by the old lack of ideas within humanity, which, one might say, is a complacency toward every strong, every sharp thought, that complacency which simply stems from the laxity, from the inertia with which the life of thought has been conducted on earth for many decades. This laxity, this inertia, confuses the souls in their existing longing for spiritual life. On the one hand, people are stuck in a real longing for spirituality, for supersensible, strong impulses. On the other hand, souls are held down by all those old forces that do not want to leave the stage of human activity, even though they could see from how far they have come that they no longer belong on this stage. One might say that this dark impression, this ambivalent impression, is everywhere.

I have spoken to many of our members in various places, in Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, about our group, which is to stand at the center of our building, using photographs to illustrate my words. On the one hand, one could see how powerful impulses are actually entering the souls of even those who, due to the circumstances of recent years, have never been able to catch a glimpse of what is happening here. A new understanding of the human being is already emerging from the way in which the Ahrimanic-Luciferic is conceived and presented together with the Christian, as revealed by our group. It touches the souls when what is given through these things approaches them. On the other hand, however, the inhibiting influences of what remains of the old, rotten elements of so-called cultural life are spreading throughout humanity.

This was particularly evident in the truly humorous way in which the lectures I gave at the art gallery of our friend, Mr. von Bernus, in Munich were received. In these lectures, I attempted to bring the inner impulses of our artistic view, which is active here, closer to a larger audience. Yes, this aroused extraordinary interest among the people, because I gave such lectures in Munich in February and May, and I had to give each of them twice; but Mr. von Bernus assured me that there were so many requests that I could have given each of these lectures four times before a public audience, in which I explained the principles of my view of art as they are manifested here in the building. The interest was already there. But where one would naturally be unhappy if there were approval, among the Munich newspaper critics, there was, one might say, humorous teeth-gnashing in the noblest sense. It was particularly humorous because the inner resentment against something that one could not understand at all came to the fore: It was all such—not spoken, but spat out—nonsense! Forgive me for the harsh expression. And it was precisely in the interest shown in the matter, in which honesty and sincerity were expressed, in contrast to what was otherwise evident in this art center—that is Munich, of course, isn't it, that is well known—that it became apparent how both the most intelligent and the most incomprehensible things were said in this art center. This discrepancy in particular demonstrated how these two currents I mentioned to you are present in the present day; how we can truly be aware that we are involved in something very essential and important that must be fought for, for the world and for the future.

I am certainly not saying all this because I somehow aspire to get “good press” when things become public, as they say; for the moment “good press” appears, I would believe that something must be wrong, that something must have gone wrong on our side.

All these things are likely to make us aware that we really need to stand firmly on the ground of our cause. For nothing could lead us into worse confusion than if we were to make any compromises with what the outside world thinks is right for us. We must find the direction for our actions solely in the principles of our cause itself.

Even for something that is more indirectly related to our cause, but is nevertheless intrinsically connected to it, such as eurythmy, there has been a growing interest in various places in recent times. And when we who were there remember how eurythmy was received in a place where it had hardly been seen before, where it was even something new for some of those who saw it, in Hamburg, we must remember with deep satisfaction the way in which it was received there. In Hamburg in particular, one could see how significant the impulses are that can emanate from such a thing. And there were people who were actually seeing eurythmy for the first time. And perhaps the opportunity will also arise for eurythmy to enter the public arena. But precisely then we must stand on the firmest ground with such a thing and do nothing other than what follows from our cause itself. Otherwise it would very soon become apparent that, from a certain point on, no one can believe that I am flexible in a certain matter when it comes to myself. Most of you already know that, of course, wherever it is not a matter of principle but of being human, of putting humanity first, I go along with everyone in every way; but where it comes to the limit, where even the slightest denial of principle would be necessary, I would not prove flexible. So if, in the present time, when so much dancing can be seen — because dancing is everywhere, it's terrible, if you live in a large city you could go to a dance every evening, where people are dancing everywhere — if one were to believe, and I don't say this without reason, although I am not referring to anything specific, that if our eurythmy were to be presented to the public now, we would somehow have to bind ourselves to a journalistic lack of understanding that would make all kinds of demands, I would object to that in the strongest possible terms. What is a matter of taste, what is a taste tendency, must come solely from our own work.

We must sometimes remind ourselves, especially when we greet each other again, of the necessary, straightforward movement that follows from the will, in accordance with our spiritual impulses. These spiritual impulses will have to fight against many things. Today, one can no longer simply say prejudice, because things have too strong an effect to be described by the weak word prejudice; these impulses will have to fight against many things. Again and again, we must point to the great illness of our time, which consists in the lack of restraint in our thought life. For the life of the thoughts is already a spiritual life, if one understands it correctly. And because humanity wants so little to adhere to the life of the thoughts, it finds so little way into spiritual worlds. And I must touch upon one thing again and again from various sides: today, people attach tremendous importance to the mere content of thoughts. But the content of thoughts is the least important thing about thoughts. A grain of wheat is a grain of wheat; that cannot be denied. But even though a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, if you plant a grain of wheat in good, fertile soil, you will get a lush ear of wheat; if you plant a grain of wheat in completely barren, stony soil, you will get either nothing at all or a very rotten ear of wheat. Each time, you are dealing with a grain of wheat.

Let us now say something else instead of grain of wheat. Let us say instead of grain of wheat, “idea of free humanity,” which is so much talked about today; “idea of free humanity” is “idea of free humanity,” some will say. It's just like this: a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat. There is a difference between whether the “idea of a free humanity” flourishes in a heart, in a soul – exactly the same idea with the same reasoning – where this heart and this soul are fertile ground, or whether the “idea of a free humanity” flourishes in Woodrow Wilson's head! Just as a grain of wheat cannot grow if it is planted in stony ground or even in rock, so all the so-called beautiful ideas that appear in Woodrow Wilson's programs mean nothing if they come from his head. This alone is something that is so infinitely difficult for the present human race to understand, because the present human race is precisely of the view that People cling to the content of programs, to the content of ideas. But the content of programs, the content of ideas, has as little meaning as the germinating power of a grain of wheat has before that grain of wheat is planted in soil that is fertile for it.

Real thinking is what humanity so desperately needs. And something else is connected with the unreal thinking of the present, namely that humanity is taken by surprise by almost all events. One might well ask: What has humanity not been surprised by in recent years? It has been surprised by everything, and it will be surprised by much more than it has been surprised by so far. But humanity does not somehow allow itself to be influenced by what is effective in the world. That is why it is impossible today to bring humanity to any kind of foresight for any cause.

If one works with mere ideas, then one can justify everything from all sides by everything. If one works with the mere content of ideas, one can really justify everything with everything. This, too, is something that, in essence, must be understood more and more and more deeply, but which does not want to be understood.

Usually, when one speaks of such things and then gives examples, one finds no real belief, because the examples seem too grotesque. But our entire present soul and spiritual life is permeated by such things, which come to light in such grotesque examples. I know that some of you may listen with resentment when I give you a rather unusual idea as an example. I will give you a very unusual idea.

There is a university professor, an old, respected university professor, who came across the fact that Goethe had inclinations toward various women during his long life. So a university professor came across this and made it his task to thoroughly study Goethe's life and the lives of the spirits associated with him. And lo and behold, even though he is not exactly a European university professor, he has made it his mission to conduct these studies as thoroughly as only Central European university professors usually do: he has reviewed the entire gallery of Goethe's female characters in their relationship to Goethe in his soul. And what did he discover? I can quote him almost verbatim. He discovered that what can be said about each of the women Goethe loved in his life is that each was a kind of Belgium for Goethe, whose neutrality he violated, and then sighed that his heart bled because he had to pounce on a shining innocence. But he also did not forget to assert each time, like the German chancellor, that the territory of violated neutrality would have deserved a better fate, but that he, Goethe, could not have done otherwise, since his destiny and the rights of his spiritual life obliged him to sacrifice his beloved, indeed to sacrifice the pain of his own heart on the altar of the duty he owed to his own immortal self.

Well, I could present you with many more unusual ideas from this book. You would say: What's the point? — But there are good reasons for it, because such ideas are scattered all over the earth today. They are the ideas of today's humanity. And it is not for nothing that such ideas appear where the essence of human thought appears in literature, for this view is held by Santayana, the professor at Harvard University in America, a highly respected Spaniard who has become completely Americanized, whose book was written during this catastrophe of humanity, and whose French edition was introduced by Boutroux, who, shortly before the war, delivered a great eulogy on German philosophy from Heidelberg. This book is called “L'erreur de la philosophie allemande” (The Error of German Philosophy) and is truly not a book of chance, but is quite characteristic of contemporary thinking, because with the same ease with which Professor Santayana compares the violation of Belgian neutrality with Goethe's actions towards various women, this humanity holds together the most distant things. For if you really observe, you will find this kind of thinking in all areas of so-called modern science.

It is indeed the task of those spiritual impulses to which our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is devoted to combat three fundamental evils in contemporary so-called human culture. It cannot do otherwise than combat these three fundamental evils. One fundamental evil manifests itself in the realm of thinking, another in the realm of feeling, and the third in the realm of willing.

In the realm of thinking, it has gradually come about that people can only think in the way that thinking proceeds when it is closely bound to the physical brain. But this thinking, which is closely bound to the physical brain and does not want to rise in free flight to the spiritual, is doomed under all circumstances to become narrow-minded and limited. And the most significant characteristic, especially of present-day scientific thinking, is narrow-mindedness, is limitation. Certainly, one can achieve great things in the field of the limited, the narrow-minded. This is what contemporary natural science does, for example. But natural science as it is conceived today does not require genius. So: narrow-mindedness, limitedness, that is what must be fought against, especially in the intellectual realm. I want to sketch this out more today; we will discuss these things in more detail later.

In the realm of feeling, humanity has gradually become somewhat philistine—there is no other word for it—narrow-minded, philistine, restricted to certain narrow circles. This is the main characteristic of the philistine: he cannot be interested in the great connections of the world. Church politicians are always philistines. This is of course not enough in the field of spiritual science, because there one cannot limit oneself to the narrowest circles. One must even be interested in the extraterrestrial, one must be interested in very wide circles. And it annoys people when someone even pretends to want to know something about such wide circles as the moon, the sun, Saturn. But philistinism must give way in all areas of non-philistinism if spiritual science is to penetrate. This is sometimes uncomfortable, because it requires unreserved confrontation with the matter at hand and a more unprejudiced approach to it.

Something quite nice has happened recently in our country, but I have taken precautions so that nothing bad has happened; it could only have happened! You will remember from last year's lectures in Zurich that, among the various examples of how a kind of overcoming of Darwinism can grow out of natural science itself, I referred to the excellent book “Das Werden der Organismen” (The Development of Organisms) by Oscar Hertwig. I have referred to this excellent book here and everywhere else where I have had the opportunity to do so. Very soon after this book was published, a shorter book appeared in which the same Oscar Hertwig discusses social, ethical, and political life, and I had already thought to myself: It may happen that some of our members, having heard me say that Oscar Hertwig's book “Das Werden der Organismen” is an excellent book, now believe that I consider Oscar Hertwig himself to be an infallible authority. This book, which is Oscar Hertwig's second, is a book that is worthless, a book written by a man who is absolutely incapable of forming a single coherent thought in the field in question, in the field of social, ethical, and political life. I was afraid that some of our members might find that this book also had some value because it was written by the same Oscar Hertwig. So I had to take precautions and have done so wherever I have had the opportunity to point out that I consider this second book by the same author, who has written an excellent scientific book, to be completely fruitless and foolish, written by a person who is completely incapable of talking about the things he talks about. Our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science does not allow us to conveniently infer one thing from another without each time approaching the facts with an open mind. It demands that people examine the concrete details of each individual case. Philistinism is something that will disappear as the impulses of spiritual science spread. That is in the realm of feeling.

And in the realm of willing, there is something that has taken hold of humanity in the broadest sense, especially in recent times, and which I can only describe as clumsiness. The narrowness of what one learns in a narrow circle means that people today can generally do a lot within a narrow circle, but are quite clumsy in relation to everything outside that circle. Today, one can meet men who cannot sew on a button! Clumsiness outside one's narrow circle is particularly widespread in the realm of the will.

Those who are not merely concerned with abstract ideas, but who are wholeheartedly committed to what we call spiritual science, will see that this spiritual science enters into the dexterity of the hands, that it makes people more skilled, that it enables them to extend their interests to wider circles and their will to a wider world. Of course, spiritual science is still too weak to combat clumsiness, but the more we take it in, the more it will combat clumsiness.

So that is what I would say confronts spiritual science today as a trinity: narrow-mindedness in the intellectual realm, philistinism, that is, narrow-mindedness in the realm of feeling, and clumsiness in the realm of the will. And today, even if we are not fully aware of it, we love these three things. Nothing is more loved in the whole world today than clumsiness, philistinism, and narrow-mindedness. And by loving these three, it will not be easy to advance to the great aspects to which humanity must advance: to the aspects associated with the names Ahriman and Lucifer. And it is precisely here that something important must be understood in our time, for in our time, among many other things, there is also a very important transition from the Luciferic to the Ahrimanic. And since this transition is not only evident elsewhere, but also here in Switzerland, we can speak of it here as well. In this area, the first may have gained less significance here precisely because of Swiss customs, but the second has every chance of gaining more significance on this very soil. For in certain respects, humanity is in a transition from Luciferic to Ahrimanic vices, from Luciferic counter-impulses in relation to human development to Ahrimanic counter-impulses.

Certain impulses that were prevalent in education in earlier times were entirely of a Luciferic nature. In education, we all — except for the youngest among us, who know this very well — counted on ambition and vanity. So one counted on ambition and vanity, on orders, titles, and so on, perhaps less here in Switzerland, but quite a lot elsewhere in the world, didn't one? The entire career of many people was built on these Luciferic impulses of vanity, ambition, wanting to be more important than another person, and so on. Try to think back to how education was built on these Luciferic impulses.

Nowadays, people strive to replace these Luciferic impulses with Ahrimanic ones. Today, they cloak themselves in the cute word “talent tests.” This is what the insistence on ambition and vanity in the Luciferic realm was in the Ahrimanic realm. Today, people strive to find the most gifted, those who are already the best in their classes; and from these, individuals are to be singled out. Then these gifted tests are used to test the intellect, memory, ability to give up, and so on. And this is something for which the Swiss constitution has a great predisposition. And even if the Luciferic played less of a role here, this Ahrimanic aspect is already evident in very cute seeds: understanding for these aptitude tests. For these aptitude tests are based on intelligence, on science, on contemporary scholarly psychology. You sit down, don't you, with those whose aptitude you want to test, and you write down: murderer — mirror — victim of the murderer.

Now they sit there, the poor lambs, in front of the three words murderer, mirror, victim of the murderer, and are supposed to find connecting links. One child finds: The murderer sneaks up on his victim, but the victim has a mirror, and the murderer is reflected in it, and the victim can save himself. — That is the first child. His perception is to connect the three words in this way.

Now another one comes along: A murderer sneaks up on his victim, sees himself in a mirror; his face looks like someone who has a guilty conscience, and the murderer lets go of his victim because he sees his face in the mirror. — That's the second child.

The third child makes a different combination: A murderer sneaks up. This murderer finds a mirror. He bumps into the mirror; the mirror falls down, makes a terrible noise, and clatters. The murderer's victim hears the noise and is able to prepare himself against the murderer in time.

The last child is the most talented! The first only came up with the most obvious combination of ideas, the second with an obvious moral lesson, but the third child came up with a very complicated combination of ideas. That's the most talented! Well, it's similar. Of course, if you want to describe something briefly, you have to portray it in a somewhat peculiar way. But this is how they want to test children's talents in the near future, so that they can identify the most gifted ones.

One thing is certain: if the people who invent these methods were to think about who the great people they admire are, such as Helmholtz, Newton, and so on, they would have to admit that all of them would have been considered the most untalented individuals in these talent tests! — Nothing would have come of it. For Helmholtz, who is certainly regarded today by the people who conduct talent tests as a great physicist, had a hydrocephalic head and was very untalented in his youth.

What is there to test? The mere external organism, merely that which can be considered the physical tool of man, the purely Ahrimanic aspect of human nature! If the fruits of these aptitude tests ever mean anything to humanity, then even more gruesome thought constructs will arise than those that have led to the current catastrophe of humanity. But when you tell people today about something that might lead to catastrophic events in a hundred years, they're not really interested. But we're living in this transition from the Luciferic education system to the Ahrimanic education system, and we need to be among those who can see these things coming.

People must transform the effective forces for the future into forces for the present. For that is what is required of us today: what is required is a genuine, true, unbiased confrontation with what is concrete and immediately real.

One can have very strange experiences in this regard. I don't know if I have already mentioned an experience here that is quite interesting. There are writings by Woodrow Wilson, one on freedom, another called “Only Literature,” which have been much admired, even today by many. In the one called “Only Literature,” there is an interesting essay that Woodrow Wilson wrote about the historical development of America. There are also other interesting essays by Woodrow Wilson with broad historical perspectives. When I read these writings, I had an interesting experience. In these writings, I found individual sentences that seemed extremely familiar to me, yet they were certainly not copied from anything; nevertheless, they seemed extraordinarily familiar to me. And I soon realized that these sentences, which appear in Woodrow Wilson's writings, could just as well have been written by Herman Grimm; indeed, some of these sentences appear verbatim in Herman Grimm's writings. I love Herman Grimm; Woodrow Wilson, as you well know, I do not exactly love. But I cannot therefore conceal the objective fact that, in terms of content, sentences from Herman Grimm's lectures and essays could simply be taken and inserted into Wilson's essays, and vice versa, sentences from Wilson could be taken and inserted into works by Herman Grimm. According to the simple, ordinary wording, two people are saying one and the same thing. But in the present day, we must learn that when two people say the same thing, it is not the same thing! For there is an interesting fact: Herman Grimm's sentences are personally hard-won, achieved step by step from the soul. Woodrow Wilson's identical sentences stem from a peculiar obsession. The man is possessed by a subconscious self that drives these sentences into conscious life.

Anyone who can judge such things will come to the conclusion that this is what is at stake here: a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat; but there is a difference between whether the grain of wheat is sown in this soil or in that soil. There is a difference between someone who has an idea so much as their own that they have fought for it piece by piece in their own, most personal way, and someone who has this idea because a subconscious has made them obsessed with it, with this subconscious: everything sounds from a possessed subconscious, from a consciousness that is possessed by the subconscious. So today it is important to understand that it is not the content of thoughts or programs that matters, but the living life that humanity lives.

One can teach materialistic philosophy, one can teach mere thought philosophy, one can teach mere materialistic natural science, one can be an excellent European scholar with mere materialistic natural science, be an ornament to the university and, at the same time, be a good citizen: this type is not so rare, is it? They are to be found everywhere, the ornaments and luminaries of science, who are at the same time quite impeccable, good citizens! That is quite possible. But take any idea of a certain kind, for example the struggle for existence, to name a trivial idea, or an idea such as even tamer people like Oscar Hertwig advocate, or ideas such as those advocated by Spencer or Mill or Boutroux and Bergson, who have no desire whatsoever to penetrate spiritual life, but remain with mere thought philosophies — but even more than that: Take what materialistic scientific ideas are, take these ideas—certainly, they can grow in the brains of good citizens; fine, but a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, yet there is a difference between whether a grain of wheat grows in wheat-fertile soil or in rocky soil, and there is a difference whether the same scientific idea, which in Europe can be regarded as an ornament of natural science and is accepted at the universities, grows in the brains of university teachers, or whether it grows in the brain of a man who has a brother who, already as a young man at the end of the 1880s, is regarded as a luminary of science in a Petersburg laboratory, who is full of fruitful chemical ideas, awarded a special medal, already highly revered as a young man by all who worked with him—and suddenly this brother is no longer there! Just moments before being honored by the university authorities, suddenly no longer there! His colleagues then learn through all sorts of roundabout channels that he has been hanged for participating in conspiracies against Alexander III, the reactionary. Such facts shed light on the events of the present like flashes of lightning. It makes a difference whether the same idea enters the mind of a respectable Western European university professor or the mind of the brother of someone who was hanged under such circumstances. If it enters the brain of this brother, then this brother is transformed into a Lenin—for the brother of this hanged man is Lenin—and then the same idea becomes the driving force behind everything you now see emerging in Eastern Europe.

An idea is an idea, just as a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, but one must recognize whether something is the same idea and now appears, depending on whether it is in the brain of the university professor or in the brain of the brother of the man who was hanged at that time. One must have the will to look into those depths of existence where the real impulses of events lie. And one must have the courage to reject all the empty phrases of programs and ideas of scientists who believe that if they advocate this or that, it will make a difference. One can advocate this or that in terms of content; but what matters is in which sphere of living life this advocacy is expressed, just as it matters in which sphere the grain of wheat falls, whether in fertile soil or in barren soil. Humanity must seek in all areas the path from abstraction, which under today's serious conditions leads everywhere to illusion or chaos, to reality, which can be found solely in spirituality. And no matter how long it takes: it is only on this path that humanity can find salvation and blessing out of the present confusion.

This is what we should take to heart, what should bring us together. This is how we should greet each other in a serious welcome: in the knowledge that we belong to what must heal the infirmities of humanity. They are curable, but they must not be healed with quackery. They must be healed with that which is lacking and which has led humanity into chaos in the first place.

Leninism could never have taken hold in the East if materialistic science, which sometimes does not even consider itself materialistic, had not been taught in the West. For what is being done in the East is directly a child of materialistic science. A changeling has been created by Karl Marx. The real child of materialistic science already exists in the East. But one must have the will to really look into all these things.

That, my dear friends, is, so to speak, the background against which, I would say, our building now stands out. And the individual people here at this building are working and thinking about the building in a way that is truly far removed from the ideas that are moving humanity in so many areas today. One can well imagine that there are many people out there in other areas who think that there are people living here who are separating themselves from what is moving the world today and, as people believe, should be moving it. One could imagine that people look at this place with reproach. Those who are wholeheartedly and whole soulfully involved in this building need not worry about this reproach. For even if this building does not fulfill its purpose, even if it does not achieve its goal, what is being done in this building and what is being accomplished by those who work here with dedication is what is most important in the present, it is what present humanity must bring out of all that it has gotten itself into. And if people outside believe that those working here are working away from the tasks of present-day humanity, then we must be able to say to them: Here, work is being done for the most important thing, for the most essential thing in the present, which only others do not know, of which others still know nothing. But it will depend on this that humanity will want to know something about what is happening here.

Let us emphasize once again: it is not important whether this building achieves its goal—although it would be good if it did—but what is important is that work on this building has been carried out based on certain ideas, that people have come together to work on this building. And it is not the content of these ideas, but the way in which these ideas live that are the impulses for humanity in the future, while what many believe today is nothing more than the ideas of the past, which are leaning toward the grave, passing into dissolution, and maturing for dissolution. We will talk more about this tomorrow.