The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourth Lecture

[ 1 ] When discussing what prevents people today from coming to terms with the spiritual world—as it must be understood by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—reference has been made to two aspects of the human soul’s constitution that give rise to this resistance within the human soul. These are a sense of despondency and lack of strength in the face of recognizing the spirit, and a lack of interest in the true nature of spiritual life. Today, I would like to address these matters from a perspective that I have so far touched upon even less. When such matters are discussed, one must always bear in mind that ordinary, sound common sense—as I have often said—is sufficient to understand all aspects of spiritual science and to take them in without prejudice. One has, if I may put it this way, in our time—through the fact that properly applied common sense is sufficient to understand the things of the spiritual world—in a certain sense, through this mere understanding, through this unbiased acceptance, everything that the investigating spiritual scientist himself has from the spiritual world. And if one has the courage and interest to take in these things through common sense, then one has the opportunity oneself to ascend into this spiritual world slowly and gradually, as one’s own karma permits. It is already necessary today—and will become increasingly necessary for all people—to learn to understand the spiritual world simply through common sense, in the way that spiritual science speaks of it. To what extent a person can prepare themselves to look into the spiritual world is an entirely different question—one that can only be resolved in the innermost depths of each individual’s soul, and which everyone will correctly resolve within that innermost part of their soul if they simply seek to understand the things of the spiritual world through sound human reason, unclouded by natural science or other influences.

[ 2 ] The main question is this: Why do so many people today avoid applying their common sense in such a way that they can understand—or are willing to accept—what comes from spiritual science? Well, one can gain some insight into this question by hearing what the things and beings of the spiritual world are actually like when the spiritual researcher enters that world. In earlier times, initiates spoke about many aspects of the spiritual world differently than we must speak of them today. But of course there is also much that could be said in earlier times in a similar way to how it can still be said today. In particular, it has always been expressed—in a way that is still true today—what actually happens when a person in a spiritually immature state wishes to enter the spiritual world. Today, this can happen when a person says to themselves: “Oh, come on, common sense!” — But one must at least exert that common sense if one wants to grasp the spiritual world! People do not like this effort; they prefer to accept this or that based on blind faith in authority. People today really value common sense far less than they think, and so they would like, as it were, to bypass the use of common sense and, through all sorts of brooding—which they then call meditation and the like—penetrate directly into the spiritual world, even if the judgment is perhaps made unconsciously. This is precisely what is very widespread: the desire to penetrate the spiritual world while bypassing common sense. Yet those who have long been initiated into these matters have already spoken the truth and continue to repeat it again and again today. If someone whose entire soul is still immature attempts to enter the spiritual world, it is all too easy for them to see their entire endeavor fail after some time—to fail in such a way that they are left with a feeling similar to that of touching a red-hot coal and being in that liminal state between burning oneself and pulling away. This sensation is one that occurs very frequently among meditators. They do not try to exercise their common sense to the same extent as their zeal in the so-called exercises, which are, of course, very justified in themselves. But it has always been emphasized: Common sense must not be excluded, and it must be applied actively and diligently. If one tries to practice in this way for a while—excluding common sense, and in particular excluding a certain moral self-discipline that one has not yet acquired—then this peculiar phenomenon occurs: one experiences the whole thing as if one were touching glowing coals with one’s fingers, or rather, not quite touching them, but recoiling. This is how people recoil from the spiritual world. As I said, this has always been emphasized. It has been emphasized because it is an experience that countless teachers of spiritual science had in earlier times, when it was practiced in an atavistic manner—an experience that can still be had very frequently today. This is emphasized, but today we must examine the reason why this sensation of touching and recoiling—as if before a glowing coal—actually occurs.

[ 3 ] Now, if we seek to understand this fact, we can recall a fundamental truth of our spiritual science with which we are thoroughly familiar—namely, how we, as human beings, behave when we contemplate our full life, which alternates between waking and sleeping. If we stick to the old terms, we can say that while we sleep, we leave the physical body and the etheric body in bed and, if I may put it that way, have flowed out into the world that otherwise surrounds us with the “I” and the astral body. We are not then within the shell of our body when we sleep; we are poured out into the world around us. Our consciousness as that of a human being is so diminished when we sleep. If the state of sleep is not interrupted by dreams—which signifies a certain increase in the intensity of consciousness—but rather if we consider dreamless sleep, then our consciousness is so limited that we do not perceive the infinitely significant sum of experiences we go through when we are in the state between falling asleep and waking up. Now, what we should really take into account is not the abstract statement—“In sleep, we are in the ‘I’ and in the astral body, outside the physical body”—but rather the fact that our life is immensely rich in the period between falling asleep and waking up. We simply do not know this because our consciousness is weakened at that time; our sleeping consciousness is not yet as strong as the consciousness we can connect to through the instrument of the physical body. In fact, an immensely intense experience takes place for the “I” and the astral body within the world in which we are otherwise also present—an intense experience. It is only that human beings are shielded by their ordinary earthly state from directly perceiving this life—this life that one unfolds by, if I may put it this way, forcing oneself through as the “I” and the astral body, initially through the very same things in which we also find ourselves when, in the waking state, we make use of our physical body and its instruments. Life in the sleeping state is immensely rich. But this life does not cease when we wake up and immerse ourselves in our physical and etheric bodies. Even then, through our “I” and our astral body, we remain connected to our surroundings in a way of which ordinary consciousness has no inkling. It is simply not noticed. We can now examine this relationship more closely. We can ask ourselves: What exactly is this relationship that arises between our soul-spiritual nature and our physical-bodily nature?

[ 4 ] It would be a very bad thing for our present state of experience if we were constantly—which we are not, but if we were, we would have to do it constantly; we could not do otherwise—forced to perceive what we experience while asleep with the things out there in space and time. For our body has a certain peculiarity with regard to these experiences. It attenuates, so to speak, these experiences. Everything that we actually experience in reality with our environment is attenuated by our body, and we perceive only the attenuation caused by our body, not our actual experiences. Our actual experiences stand in relation to what we perceive of our surroundings through our body—and this is a very, very apt image, because it is not merely an image but corresponds to an occult reality— our body—or the experiences of our body—relates to our actual experiences in the same way that sunlight shining on a stone and reflecting back from it—so that we can see the stone—relates to the actual sunlight shining down on us from the sun above. Look at the stone onto which the sunlight falls: you can look at the stone; your eyes can tolerate the reflected, the cast-back light. If you turn away from the stone toward the sun and stare directly into the sun, you will be blinded. This is roughly how the relationship between our actual experiences of our surroundings and what we experience through the instruments of our body compares. What we truly experience in our surroundings has the intensity of sunlight, and what we experience through the senses of our body is merely as much attenuated as the diffused light reflected back to us by any object is compared to the intensity of sunlight. We are solar beings in our innermost being; but we cannot yet bear to be solar beings. Therefore, just as we must look at the dimmed sunlight with our outer physical eyes because direct sunlight dazzles us, we must perceive our surroundings through the dimmed experience of our body and its senses, because we cannot directly confront what we truly experience of our surroundings. As human beings, we are in fact like people who are dazzled by a ray of sunlight, and what we know about ourselves and the world is not of our true nature; it is not as if it were experienced directly in the streaming ray of sunlight, but rather like the light that is reflected back to us from objects and no longer dazzles our eyes. From this, however, you can deduce that when you now awaken into the world—which ordinary consciousness cannot bear—you have the feeling of being inside the sunbeam, as if you were truly living within the sunbeam. And in the actual experience, in the real lived experience, it is even the highly concentrated sunbeam.

[ 5 ] There you have the evidence for what is often said: that people cast aside the spiritual-scientific experience as if it were red-hot coals. You enter a realm of experience where the experience is similar to the psychological experience of physically burning your finger: at first you flinch, not wanting to burn it. Of course, you must not reverse what I am saying: No one can arrive at a spiritual experience simply by physically burning their finger. That is why I said—in spiritual science, one must always speak precisely—that it is like the psychological experience of burning one’s finger.

[ 6 ] In fact, entering the spiritual world is by no means, at first, something that brings about pure bliss in a person; rather, this entry into the spiritual world is such that—and there are, of course, many other such experiences—it must be paid for with that inner, one might even say, misery that one experiences when, for example, one burns oneself with fire. Spiritually, one initially experiences exactly the same thing with the things, beings, and processes of the spiritual world as one does, for example, when one burns oneself. The true experiences of the spiritual world must be acquired through such painful experiences. What brings bliss from these experiences of the spiritual world—what gives satisfaction to life—is the afterglow of thought. Those who receive these experiences through communication and comprehend them using common sense can have this just as much as those who enter the spiritual world. Of course, some individuals must enter the spiritual world; otherwise, nothing could ever be learned about the spiritual world.

[ 7 ] This fact, which I have cited, must be taken into account. It is, in fact, not that difficult to deduce from external facts alone what I have just explained. You will find everywhere—wherever the spiritual world is discussed seriously, not in a charlatanish manner—that there is always talk of a journey not through joyful, but through painful experiences. And you know how often I have discussed this: that anyone who has gained even a little genuine insight into the spiritual world in life does not look back on the pains of their life, on the suffering of their life, with resentment. For such a person says to himself: I certainly accept the joys, the uplifting moments of life, gratefully as a divine gift, and I rejoice in my fate that such joyful, uplifting moments have been granted to me; but I have gained my insights from my pains, I have gained my insights from my. sufferings.” — This is what everyone who has gained genuine insights into the spiritual world will say. Here on the physical Earth, insights into the spiritual world cannot be gained in any other way.

[ 8 ] And now you can understand why people shy away from understanding the spiritual world, even though this understanding can be acquired through common sense. After all, one usually only shies away from understanding things that one does not shy away from in everyday life. Now, of course, you would be utterly unreasonable and foolish if you were to deliberately burn your fingers just to find out what it feels like. And yet, if you do burn your fingers, you pay so little attention to the emotional experience involved that you do not actually gain a true sense of what it is like to burn your fingers. Indeed, there is even a psychological fact that can only be properly understood when viewed in the light that flows from these insights. You may have already noticed—I’m not addressing this to any one of you in particular, for I certainly don’t expect this of any individual, but I naturally assume that you’ve heard of these things—but you’ve heard it from others and observed it in others: when they burn their fingers, they scream. Now, why do some people scream when they burn their fingers? For the simple reason that by screaming, they drown out the spiritual experience involved. People scream and wail whenever they are in pain, in order to relieve it. And so, when they scream, they cannot fully experience the full nature of the pain with full consciousness; this is truly a drowning out of the suffering, the expression of the suffering. In short, in everyday life, people do not have much experience with the things that are experienced in the spiritual world. Nevertheless, it is true that one can understand these things through common sense, because they have analogies everywhere in the outer physical world, where we have our experiences. The things of spiritual life are by no means incomprehensible, but one must resolve to develop certain qualities of the soul, such as courage. One must simply have the courage that one usually lacks when doing something one shrinks from because it hurts. One must have this courage, for entering the spiritual world always hurts. So one must develop certain soul powers. This is necessary, but very many people today do not want to develop these soul qualities in the systematic way described, for example, in my book How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?. If they were to develop these qualities, then what is necessary to understand—through their common sense—the experiences of the finger in the spiritual world—which, in this sense, as I have described, is a painful one—would easily prevail in their cognitive faculties and in their common sense. We are living in an epoch in which such an elevation of the human soul’s condition is necessary, because otherwise humanity cannot achieve its earthly goal; otherwise, catastrophe would follow catastrophe, and ultimately chaos would ensue.

[ 9 ] However, in discussing these matters—especially at this time, when it is particularly necessary—I have placed strong emphasis on something else. That is, with the weakened state of mind that is already present in people today, one can be an excellent natural scientist in the current sense of the word, and with this kind of intellect—which is not common sense, but rather human reason elevated by the authority of natural science—one can understand the external aspects of our physical environment quite well; one cannot understand it inwardly and spiritually, but one can understand the external aspects quite well. What one cannot do, however, with the concepts provided by the natural sciences—nor with the kind of mental effort to which modern humanity is accustomed—is to bring order to the social structure of human coexistence, which is gradually becoming chaotic. In other words: The social demands of the present and the near future will never be resolvable through what can be called thinking about nature and natural phenomena. It is precisely on this point that our contemporaries still have an immense amount to learn. It is precisely on this point that our contemporaries do not align with what spiritual science must say, based on the innermost understanding of the nature of our world. Despite all the objections that are being raised more and more today, spiritual science must say precisely this: No matter how much tinkering and tinkering goes on in the realm of social issues, all this tinkering and tinkering will lead to nothing; on the contrary, it will lead to even greater social confusion than already exists in certain areas of earthly life, unless it is recognized that insights into social issues can come only from a spiritual grasp of the nature of the world. Social issues must be resolved through spiritual science. Everything else in these areas is mere amateurism.

[ 10 ] In order to speak about these things from a certain perspective, we must turn to the other side. What currently prevents people so much from engaging with spiritual science is their lack of interest in spiritual life. Almost all natural scientists today share this lack of interest in spiritual life. They are indifferent to spiritual life. They deny it or reduce to laws what they observe with their physical senses—what can be observed through a microscope or telescope—but they have no interest in what every glance, every true glance into nature reveals: that behind natural phenomena and facts, the spiritual reigns. But this lack of interest in the spiritual is particularly prevalent today among those who want to tinker and meddle with social issues. And there is another specific reason for this.

[ 11 ] From various things I have discussed recently, you will be able to gather that we are in a very special inner state of mind when we stand face to face with another human being. I have expressed quite radically the state of mind we are in when we stand face to face with another human being. I have told you: In truth, this face-to-face encounter between human beings always has a somewhat soporific effect on us. We actually fall asleep—in terms of the innermost characteristics of our human nature—in the presence of another human being. It is not surprising that our outward behavior deceives us about this falling asleep. For certainly, we see the other person with our eyes, we even shake their hand and touch them, but that does not prevent our deeper human being from being lulled to sleep by the other person. Just as we fall asleep in the evening in relation to the external natural world, so something within us falls asleep through the presence of the other person. But when it falls asleep, it does not cease to be effective. And so, in social life, interactions between people are constantly taking place of which people, precisely because they are together with others, cannot have a clear awareness. It is precisely the most important aspect of social life that escapes people in terms of ordinary consciousness, because, with regard to this most important aspect of social life, the power of imagination is actually lulled to sleep, and people act instinctively. No wonder that in social life today—where the intellect is most easily lulled to sleep in the realm of imagery—the most savage instincts reign supreme and are even declared to be entirely justified as such, because clear thinking about these matters is simply lulled to sleep by the mere fact of human interaction. But the moment a person enters the spiritual world, what has been lulled to sleep awakens, and it becomes clear what prevails between people. There, therefore, the solutions to the so-called social questions and social demands can also be found. As I have said here before, these can only be found beyond the threshold of sensory consciousness. And whatever humanity will seek in the future in the way of so-called solutions to social issues—if these are to be true solutions to social issues—can only be attained through spiritual science, that is, the science of the supersensible, because all human coexistence is, in its innermost foundations, of a supersensible nature.

[ 12 ] But if one wishes to experience spiritually those things that relate to the individual and to humanity—that relate to the human social structure—one must bring into one’s entire power of imagination, into everything one experiences, something of which you will soon see that it is scarcely present in ordinary consciousness today. There is only one thing here in the physical world—in terms of sensations and feelings—that corresponds to the sensations and feelings one must have if one wishes to explore social laws and social impulses not superficially but in a substantive way. This exists only to a limited extent here in the physical world, namely when a completely healthy, completely proper relationship exists between father, mother, and child—in the upbringing of father, mother, and child. In everything else that can be experienced in the sphere of human interaction, this does not initially exist for ordinary consciousness.

[ 13 ] Now try to understand this maternal love—the love a mother feels immediately after giving birth to a child, this maternal love for the child that springs quite naturally from nature — you can already do so in this radical sense — and ask yourself now: Does this maternal love prevail in all the scientific investigations that scholars typically conduct—including those scholars who conduct social science research? One must have this maternal love for the ideas one develops regarding social structure if these ideas are to be substantial and not insubstantial. There is nothing else in human life that can be thought of in a socially correct way other than that which is conceived socially with motherly love.

[ 14 ] And now consider the various social reformers and social thinkers. Try, for example, to let something like the writings of Karl Marx, Schmoller, or Roscher—or whoever you like—sink in, and ask yourself whether these thinkers, in devising their so-called sociopolitical laws, allow the same principle to govern this process of devising sociopolitical laws as that which otherwise lives in a mother’s love for her child when that motherly love unfolds in a healthy way? But this must be pointed out: A healthy solution to the so-called social question is possible only if that solution comes from thinkers who—you will understand what I mean when I put it this way—are capable of cultivating a mother’s love in solving their problems. It is a very human quality upon which the solution to today’s social demands depends. It is not a matter of acumen or ordinary cleverness or scholarly belief, but rather a matter of elevating one’s capacity for love to the degree to which maternal love unfolds—or, we might also say, the immediate, intimate love found in the shared life of father, mother, and child.

[ 15 ] Now you will rightly raise an objection. You will say: Well, on Earth things are already arranged in such a way that the social structure has, so to speak, the family as its smallest unit, and on Earth this family as such is, of course, fully justified—but surely all of humanity cannot become one family! — That is an objection that will, of course, arise immediately. But if one were to devise social laws based on a mother’s love, it would actually follow that all of humanity would become one family. That, of course, cannot be. Only those who reflect on what constitutes a true thought—as opposed to a charlatan-like abstract thought—will have to admit that, naturally, a person cannot immediately treat every child as they would their own child, nor can every child relate to every other woman or every other man in the same way they relate to their father, mother, and so on. So all of humanity cannot become one family. That is quite true, but precisely because it is true, another necessity arises. As physical human beings living here on the physical Earth, we cannot possibly form a single family out of all of humanity, and anyone who wanted that would, of course, be seeking nonsense. But we can do so in another sense. And in that other sense, it must even happen. We cannot relate to physical human beings in the same way that a father, mother, and child relate to one another. But when the realization takes hold within humanity that a spiritual-soul element lives within every human being—that a divine-spiritual being shines forth through every person’s eyes, and that the message of a divine spiritual being—in other words, when it is no longer merely acknowledged in the abstract that a human being has an immortal soul, but is recognized through immediate experience in the face-to-face encounter between human beings: When I look into a person’s eyes, an infinity shines out to me; when I hear a person speak, it is not merely the physical sound that speaks, but the divine-spiritual being of their soul resounds— becomes an immediate sensation, just as we perceive a surface as blue or red; we will be able to sense that, in expressing themselves, human beings are of a divine-spiritual nature; we will not merely acknowledge, based on faith, that human beings have an immortal soul, but will perceive this immortal soul directly in their expression: then the moment has arrived when—though not with regard to the physical human being, but with regard to what the human being intimately holds within as a spiritual-soul being—we can relate to one another as if all of humanity were one great family. For we can enter into this relationship with the spiritual-soul aspect of every human being. This is the very thing that alone will make possible the solution to the so-called social question. Therefore, this solution to the social question is simply found in the recognition of the divine-spiritual nature of the human being, in the recognition that what walks here on Earth as the human physical body is merely the outward expression of something that shines into every human being from eternity. We can relate to what shines into us from eternity within the human being in the same way that we relate to our immediate family. We can do this—we can do it in every respect. When we recognize this, we can then muster that love for humanity that is as great as love for one’s family.

[ 16 ] Of course, this objection doesn’t hold water, and it would also be very superficial to view things this way: “Yes, but there are bad people, too!” — My dear friends, there are also bad children whom we simply must punish; but we punish them with love! The moment we see the divine-spiritual shining within a person, we will punish where necessary, but we will punish with love. Above all, we will learn one thing that we practice—I would say—instinctively when we relate to another person as family: When we relate to another person as family, we discipline, but we do not hate the person. We do not hate the person who is our son, even when we discipline him, but we hate the vice he possesses. We love the person; we hate his misdeeds and his bad behavior—we know how to distinguish between the person and what has befallen him. Once people come to understand that great, immense difference that exists between love for humanity and hatred for the misdeeds that befall people, then a proper relationship between one person and another will be established. When we follow our innermost human nature, we never have the capacity to hate a person. Of course, we have many reasons to hate human crimes, misdeeds, human weakness of character, and human lack of character. The great error we commit in our social behavior usually consists in projecting onto the person what we should be directing toward the misdeed and the crime. We do this instinctively today, but we must be aware that the recent development of humanity is moving in the direction of distinguishing between hatred toward the misdeed and the love one nevertheless feels for the person.

[ 17 ] Recognizing such truths would do more to resolve today’s pressing social issues than many other things currently circulating around the world as socialist bungling or socialist doctrinarism. It is difficult to speak effectively about such things in the face of materialism, which everywhere demands the crude and material, for the simple reason that people today—which is more harmful than materialist theories—are in many ways materialistic in their instincts. Crime and moral bankruptcy cannot be seen; they do not exist in a material sense; but because people want to hate what is material, they fixate on the materialistic person and their hatred. This gives rise to countless misunderstandings.

[ 18 ] Another serious misunderstanding that arises from this is that, driven by some misguided sentiments and feelings, people sometimes—in the opposite direction—confuse a person with what he does. People become casual in their judgment of what others do, saying: “Oh, we don’t want to hurt the person; love for humanity compels me to turn a blind eye here and there.” — If the assessment of the matter is made solely by focusing on the wrongdoing itself, without confusing the person—in the innermost life of their soul—with that wrongdoing, then the correct judgment will naturally follow. On the one hand, it is more convenient—if one dislikes someone anyway—to be “fair” toward them, as is often said; but it is also convenient to excuse faults through which a person can cause harm in the outer world, simply because it suits one’s own purposes. In the broader context of humanity, it is of immense importance that we be able to distinguish between that which may rightly be the object of our antipathy and that which constitutes the person as such.

[ 19 ] I have often emphasized: What is expressed here in such contexts is not meant to be a critique of culture and contemporary conditions, but rather a simple characterization. Therefore, you will understand when I say: So-called Western civilized humanity—the people of Europe with their American appendage—had to pass through this stage for a time, not only viewing things from a natural-scientific, materialistic perspective, but also viewing life materialistically, by confusing people with their actions in the sense I have indicated. This was inherent in their upbringing: in order for other qualities to develop properly, people had to pass through the stage of materialism in this realm as well. But people who have remained at earlier stages of culture have preserved many elements from those earlier stages, in which atavistic clairvoyance still existed. And atavistic clairvoyance is accompanied by very specific sensibilities and states of mind. We Europeans can only grow to meet what is rushing toward us from certain quarters if we bear in mind what has been explained today. For let us not forget, for example, the following: Thinkers who are regarded as highly enlightened, such as Immanuel Kant, speak—and this stems not from Christianity per se, but from certain underlying currents within the institutional church—of the radically evil in human nature. And how widespread is this error—we might as well call it that—that human nature is, in its very core, evil! In the civilized world of Europe and its American offshoot, it is said: If human nature is not restrained, it is evil. — This is, in fact, a European view; it is a view of the European church establishment.

[ 20 ] There is a people who do not share this view; they have preserved a different view from earlier times. This is, for example, the Chinese people. In the Chinese worldview as such, the following statement, the following principle, prevails: Human beings are good by nature! — It is a tremendous difference that plays a much greater role than one might think in the conflict among humanity that is about to unfold. Of course, when one speaks of these things today, people are just as unlikely to believe it as they would have been in 1900 if one had spoken of the war in which we now find ourselves. But it is nonetheless true that a conflict is also brewing between the peoples of Asia and Europe. And there, entirely different factors will come into play than those that have played a role—or are still playing a role and will continue to do so—in the catastrophic conflict in which we are currently embroiled.

[ 21 ] There is a huge difference in one’s entire way of perceiving things depending on whether, like the Chinese, one is convinced that human beings are inherently good—or, like the Europeans: human beings are inherently tainted by radical evil—that is indeed a major difference, whether a person thinks one way or the other, from the standpoint of a people’s worldview. The fact that one person thinks one way and another thinks the other is expressed in their entire temperament, in their entire spiritual disposition. People, after all, tend to get caught up in the outward manifestations of life’s conflicts; they usually pay little attention to what lies at the very core of their innermost natures.

[ 22 ] I just want to mention one thing. You see, this fact—that Europeans, even if they do not usually admit it to themselves, are deep down always convinced that human beings are essentially bad and that they must first be made good through education and through restraint, whether by the state or otherwise—is historically and necessarily intimately connected with something else: it is connected—not the fact itself, but the emotional qualities underlying it—to the fact that Europeans have developed a certain inner life in the form we call logic and science. You will therefore find it understandable that true connoisseurs of Chinese—that is, not European connoisseurs, but Chinese people themselves, connoisseurs of Chinese who have also come to know Europe, such as Ku Flung-Ming, whom I have mentioned here on several occasions—emphasize that there are no corresponding terms in the Chinese language for “logic” and “science.” What we call European science, what we call European logic—the Chinese have no word for these at all, because they do not possess these concepts; because what Europeans believe to be Chinese science is something entirely different from what we call science, and what we call logic is something entirely different from what we Europeans believe to be logic in the souls of the Chinese. That is how different people on Earth are! We must focus our attention on this. Without focusing on this, a fruitful discussion of the social problem is simply not possible. But when we do focus on this, our spiritual horizon expands. And it is precisely this expansion of the spiritual horizon that is necessary for a sound understanding of spiritual science.

[ 23 ] And if one asks about various matters—we have already touched on two today and could touch on a third—if one asks why people today still habitually keep such a distance from spiritual scientific insights, one reason, among others, is that the horizons—the spiritual horizons—of present-day humanity are very narrow. No matter how much people may boast or make a show of their spiritual horizons today, the spiritual horizon of contemporary humanity is very narrow. This narrowness is evident, in particular, in the fact that people today generally find it extremely difficult to step outside themselves with regard to certain things. And this affects not only their understanding, but also their entire life of sympathies and antipathies.

[ 24 ] I would like to mention once again a fact that many of you are already aware of—that is, the effect of this fact is known to many of you—which I have mentioned before. You know that a certain relationship existed years ago between the so-called Theosophical Society and those people who today make up the Anthroposophical Society. Now, I have had remarkable experiences precisely with outstanding members of the Theosophical Society. As you know, I published communications from the so-called Akashic Records as early as the beginning of this century—communications about which I may say, just as I do about everything else I convey from the spiritual world, that they are based on personal experience. When these communications were read by a distinguished member of the Theosophical Society, it was simply impossible to comprehend that such a thing could exist. I was asked: How do these messages come about? — And it was simply impossible to reach any understanding at all, because the method of spiritual scientific research truly appropriate to the present day was completely unknown in that circle. There, research was conducted in a more mediumistic manner. Essentially, they wanted to know the name of the medium—or medium-like person—through whom these Akashic Records messages had come about. They considered it impossible that they could truly arise through direct observation of a certain state of the human soul that extends into the supersensible realm. Such matters reveal human narrow-mindedness. Even in such an important field, people consider possible only what is familiar to them, what lies close at hand.

[ 25 ] Well, I just cited “this example” because one simply cannot penetrate the humanities if one is narrow-minded. But in everyday life, this narrow-mindedness is the norm today: always reducing everything to one’s own personal, habitual point of view. This is what those who profess allegiance to our spiritual science movement, in particular, ought to bear in mind above all else. I am now going to say something that—if one were to express these things systematically and inwardly—might not need to be said in this way, but which is necessary to state in the context of external life. Those who take a closer interest in our movement know, of course, how much the sources of this movement are attacked, opposed, and hated by some who were initially good followers. I already spoke about these matters from various perspectives last time. Well, it is not superfluous to clarify the reasons for such opposition from certain quarters. I did, after all, speak last time about the reasons for such opposition here and there. But such opposition very often becomes particularly intense when it arises among people who belong to this or that—let us say—occult society. The hatred felt by some members of this or that society toward what is represented here as spiritual science is sometimes truly striking, and it sometimes takes on grotesque forms; and it is not unnecessary to take these things into account, for we should take into account everything that can lead us to belong to this movement with complete seriousness. It is indeed true that nothing in the world is the subject of more charlatanism than the promotion of spiritual matters by all manner of societies. That is why it is so easy to be suspicious of what presents itself as a spiritual science movement, because there really is so much charlatanism in the world. Anyone who so desires can easily find support by saying: “Yes, there was once a society that claimed to spread the wisdom of the whole world; it later turned out to be charlatanism. And then another one appeared: once again, it turned out to be charlatanism!” — It must be admitted that there is an endless amount of such charlatanism in the world. One really must have discernment to distinguish the true from the charlatanish.

[ 26 ] But another situation may arise. For example, a certain uncertainty may arise in the soul. Such uncertainty may consist of the following: Such a person may then become familiar with what is being done here. If they do not have an open mind, if they are pursuing personal agendas, they may fall into the following conflicted state of mind. They may point out all the dangers; they may say to themselves: Oh, what is this all about? I have heard so often about secret societies and other such groups; yet I have not experienced any real insight there! People talk about all sorts of things, it’s written in the books, it’s rattled off in the rituals, but no such living insight flows from it. Is what is called Anthroposophy here of the same kind, or is it something else? — This can leave him in a conflicted state of mind. If one cannot engage with what is truly alive here, one might—to put it bluntly—ask oneself: Is this the same charade as the one I actually find more pleasant, because it doesn’t make such high demands?

[ 27 ] The things I am saying here are not so unrealistic. And they are stated, above all, because I want to point out that—as I have often said—seriousness, dignity, and discernment are necessary to prevent the unpleasant situation that occurs all too often: that there is genuine spiritual life all around us, while we would actually prefer to merely talk about spiritual life, because that is more convenient. It is precisely the fact that what I emphasized in my book Theosophy—that we speak only of spiritual experiences—is true here; this, in particular, is what provokes so much opposition. The opposition from the Theosophical Society actually began only at the moment when it was realized there that a claim is being made here to discuss genuine spiritual experiences. They could not tolerate that. They were certainly happy to have people who parroted what was presented there—who repeated it with a certain zeal—but independent spiritual research was, after all, the great sin against the Holy Spirit of the Theosophical Society. And this independent spiritual research still does not have it all that easy in the world today. I also wanted to allude to this recently at the end of my reflection. And you will certainly need to face precisely these things with sound judgment, but also with complete seriousness. The times are serious, and what we wish to receive from the spiritual world as the remedy for our times must be serious as well.

[ 28 ] Let's talk more about that tomorrow.