The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Eleventh Lecture

[ 1 ] Yesterday I drew your attention to how modern European civilization appears in the judgment of the Orient, and I concluded by pointing out which of the three worlds seen there is the third—namely, alongside this modern European civilization and what constitutes the older Asian culture—Roman Catholicism. We must by no means pass over such a judgment carelessly; no thinking person should do so, for it concerns something that has an extraordinarily profound significance within the currents of contemporary civilization. We will come closest to understanding what is actually at stake here if I remind you once more of what I said from a certain perspective about our present-day civilization last Tuesday in my public lecture in Basel. I would like to briefly mention it again here, in accordance with the customs we have for such reflections within the anthroposophical circle. In the older cultures and in the era I referred to yesterday as the Greek era, there was indeed a full awareness of this, and throughout these ancient cultures reference was made to what is called the threshold and the guardian of the threshold. It was imagined that, based on the prerequisites of human knowledge, one could know something about the world and about human beings; however, one was not permitted to venture beyond what was called the threshold without proper preparation.

[ 2 ] Beyond the threshold—that is, beyond a certain limit of knowledge—people suspected the existence of things that the human soul in those ancient times could not be allowed to encounter unprepared, because people feared that if they entered these realms of knowledge unprepared, they would have to lose their self-awareness—the degree of self-awareness they possessed at that time—and would, so to speak, fall into a state of spiritual helplessness. Therefore, a certain discipline of the will, a certain cultivation of the will, was required of those who were to become students of wisdom, students of the mysteries. Through this discipline of the will, self-consciousness was strengthened to such an extent that the individuals in question could cross the threshold and pass by the Guardian. And then they entered a realm which, had they entered it in their ordinary state of mind, would have caused them precisely this spiritual helplessness and robbed them of their self-consciousness.

[ 3 ] It must certainly be pointed out that, throughout the entire course of human development, what is today the general, popular human consciousness is precisely what was once, in those earlier times, believed to lie beyond the threshold. I did, in fact, point out in that public lecture that, for example, the ancients in their schools of initiation held the so-called heliocentric worldview—that they placed the Sun squarely at the center of our planetary system. But this teaching was kept secret, and only a few individuals—who, in a sense, did not wish to keep it secret—made anything of it public, such as Aristarchus of Samos. People feared that such teachings would affect the soul in such a way that people would lose their footing. So it was precisely this—which today every person actually knows—that people in those ancient times did not want to allow to reach the unprepared human souls. For what can be said about the heliocentric worldview could also be said about many areas that are now generally accepted human views. What is now a popular conception under the influence of the age of natural science was once merely surmised beyond the threshold. Consequently, those religious traditions that clung to the judgments of ancient times have always opposed the spread of this modern scientific worldview. Hence the trial of Galileo, and hence the fact that, until 1827, it was forbidden within the Catholic community to profess or disseminate the teachings of Copernicus. An old judgment on these matters had simply been upheld, and naturally, this could not halt the course of human development. Humanity has entered from another direction into the very realm that was once described there as lying beyond the threshold.

[ 4 ] Why was humanity able to venture into this realm without succumbing to spiritual collapse, as the ancients would undoubtedly have done given their spiritual state? Humanity was able to venture into this realm because—as you can see from the exposition in my *Riddles of Philosophy*—it has arrived at a form of self-consciousness through the specific lived experience of the conceptual world, in which that spiritual helplessness can no longer occur. People can now, without succumbing to a spiritual powerlessness, profess their belief in what is not only the Copernican worldview but also in ideas that point in the same direction. So let us consider this very precisely for a moment.

[ 5 ] What is now a popular view was, for the ancients—and, in fact, well into the 14th century—beyond the threshold; it was regarded as something lying beyond the threshold, and the guardian of the threshold was described as that power—it is more than a personification, it is a real entity—that one had to pass by if one wished to enter that realm which is the domain of the modern scientific worldview. Modern people no longer lose their spiritual self-awareness in the process; they do not fall into a state of spiritual powerlessness. But they do lose something once they have entered the realm that the ancients regarded as lying beyond the threshold. Although people today have not lost their self-awareness, they have, for the time being, lost their awareness of the world. They have acquired knowledge of countless details concerning sensory existence, and through intellectual synthesis they have acquired all manner of laws governing the interrelationships within this sensory existence; yet they have not succeeded in recognizing, within this vast realm of individual scientific findings—which have, after all, already become quite widespread today—what constitutes the spiritual content, the spiritual background of that which sensually surrounds human beings, and what they summarize under the concept of modern natural science. In a sense, as human beings have approached the developmental phases of modern times, they have crossed over into the realm beyond the threshold without any awareness that the world is permeated by spirit everywhere. They have not had to lose themselves, but they have had to lose the spirit of the world. And this spirit of the world has been lost.

[ 6 ] The creed that was specifically committed to not crossing this threshold—to remaining on this side of it—sought to block the paths leading into the realm in which humanity generally finds itself today, in such a way that, as you know, in the year 869 at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, the spiritual as such was excluded from the range of forces that human beings are to recognize. It became dogma to acknowledge only body and soul as components of the human being and to say of the spiritual that the soul possesses certain spiritual qualities. But it was forbidden to speak of the human being as consisting of body, soul, and spirit. It was, therefore, a resistance to the introduction of spiritual knowledge. This resulted in the human being entering the realm beyond the threshold without any awareness of the spiritual aspect of the world. Humanity has thus entered this realm, which the ancients entered only after preparation, and which in the mysteries was handed down only to those students who had undergone rigorous discipline of the will. But it has been entered in such a way that, while humanity has not lost its self-consciousness, it has lost the world-consciousness of the spirit. Therefore, what is at issue today is what I have often referred to in my writings as the threshold that modern humanity must now recognize—the threshold that must be crossed by stepping beyond the limits of external sensory observation and intellectual reasoning into the realm of the spirit, which can be found from within the realm of the senses once they have been opened.

[ 7 ] This is indeed the foundation of the teachings presented within anthroposophical spiritual science, and it differs radically from everything that has appeared, for example, as theosophical doctrine. Theosophical teachings are, in essence, merely rehashes of the old. When they speak of the Keeper of the Threshold, they speak in exactly the same way that the ancients spoke of the Keeper of the Threshold. Look up how the Keeper of the Threshold is described in my book *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?*, and you will find there a thoroughly modern account drawn directly from the consciousness of the present. If those who today presume to judge anthroposophical spiritual science would look only at such things, they would not fall into the trap of slander by lumping anthroposophy together with what amounts to a rehash of old Gnostic teachings or the like.

[ 8 ] Such matters must be closely examined, for they show us at the same time how modern civilization has developed in its deepest foundations; and with the proper preparation, one will then be able to approach a judgment such as the one I cited to you yesterday at the end—one that, from an Eastern perspective, recognizes Catholicism within the crumbling modern civilization as the power that still truly embodies the spiritual. On the one hand, one must certainly understand such a view, but at the same time, on the other hand, one must see through the dangers that arise precisely from endeavors characterized by such views. One must, in fact, be clear about the following: If Roman Catholicism is considered in its entirety today—not, of course, as understood by individual parish priests, who are generally very poorly educated, but if it is considered in its entirety, if it is considered as it can be presented as a theological system, as the content of a comprehensive worldview— then Catholicism is indeed such a substantive system of a comprehensive worldview. This is, after all, the grandeur of Catholic doctrine, as it emerged in the Middle Ages as Scholasticism: that it is a worldview structure that is coherent in every respect and, in its details, logically and ontologically well-developed. It is a worldview that has preserved from ancient times the concept of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a worldview that thus contains certain dogmatic teachings about the Trinity that encompass the entire world, a worldview that, within the Augustinian-Thomistic tradition, has succeeded in developing a conception of the social order of humanity. It is a system that is closed off on all sides, and penetrating it requires, above all, careful study. In order to understand the Catholic system—the Catholic doctrine of faith, if one wishes to call it that—one must be able to handle concepts with the utmost precision; one must have clear and distinct conceptual distinctions; one must be able to handle concepts in a way that modern philosophers already find extremely uncomfortable, and that Protestant theologians in particular also find uncomfortable. This is what should actually be known: that, above all, regarding that which human beings long to penetrate with their understanding—even if it is only revealed knowledge, knowledge of faith, in the higher realms—there are coherent doctrines within Catholicism; that Catholicism will never fall into the error I described yesterday as a worldview that has become stunted; for Catholicism possesses a solidly constructed, rock-solid edifice of faith that proceeds from the principles of nature and works its way upward, building itself up from the bottom and culminating in a comprehensive worldview that a person can then unite with their soul, provided that the higher realms are also recognized as truths that are merely revealed. But what Catholicism carries within itself is that, at its core, it is nothing other than the last remnant of those ancient worldviews that were entirely built on the premise of not crossing the threshold into that realm in which modern humanity actually finds itself.

[ 9 ] This is the great contrast between Catholicism and modern civilization. Catholicism has developed in the most diverse ways over the course of time through councils and other dogmatic decrees. Yet it is merely an echo of ancient teachings insofar as it brings together precisely what the ancient man had grasped without being prepared to cross the threshold. And so Catholicism stands there like an architecturally magnificent building that nevertheless dates back to ancient times, when no account was yet taken of what must now inevitably enter into the entire course of development through modern natural science, through the modern conceptual world, and through what has already entered and what must yet enter through the social concepts we are adopting.

[ 10 ] You see, if Catholicism were to be the only doctrine to spread throughout humanity, then the Earth’s evolution could come to a halt even today. Viewed from a true perspective, it is the case that human souls have already absorbed in their lives to date whatever they are capable of absorbing through Catholicism as a system and through the principles underlying it. If Catholicism were to stand as the sole universal doctrine, the Earth’s development could very well come to an end even now, for Catholicism takes into account only what was, so to speak, characteristic of human development up to the 14th or 15th century. Then came times into which modern natural science had to step, times in which human beings, by devoting themselves outwardly to the world, actually absorbed only that which did not lead them toward the spiritual. Those times came when human beings, so to speak, by devoting themselves precisely to the most acute insights, nevertheless faced a graveyard in relation to the real world. For what we encompass with our scientific concepts is and remains the dead, and remains a graveyard, regardless of whether we acquire our physiological and anatomical knowledge in the dissection room or whether we conduct experiments in the chemistry laboratory. When we acquire physiological and anatomical knowledge in the dissection room, we derive it from the human body from which the soul has departed. When we conduct experiments in the chemistry laboratory, we experiment with the forces of nature in such a way that the spirit is left out. Everywhere we are confronted with a world that, when held up against the fundamental vitality of the world, is a field of corpses. And this also corresponds to the demands placed upon modern humanity. This modern humanity is faced with the task that the more it looks around itself—indeed, the more closely it looks around itself—the more it arms itself with the telescope, the microscope, the X-ray machine, the spectroscope, and so on, the more it penetrates the environment and seeks to examine it through meticulous statistics—the more it becomes alienated from the spirit. Our modern science is entirely geared toward preventing human beings from discovering anything of the spiritual. They must bring what is spiritual—from within—to what they can attain from the outside. He must have a new spiritual science. He must, so to speak, stride across the fields of corpses that appear to him only as dead matter, which, in physical or spiritual museums, show him at most the shadows of what was once present as spirit. He must pass through these shadows and must possess within himself the ability, as he strides across the graveyard of modern science, to carry into this graveyard that which constitutes a new spiritual revelation, that which constitutes a new spiritual science, that which can truly spring forth from the human being in an anthroposophical way. Only in this way does the human being attain his full power. He cannot lose his self-consciousness; but as he strides toward that which for the ancients lay beyond the threshold, he must not only preserve this self-consciousness, he must strengthen it through a knowledge of the spiritual world that can well up from this self-consciousness, so that he may find in the outer sensory world the full world, the true reality.

[ 11 ] But this is precisely what people in modern civilization are now facing. Humanity must become consciously aware that it stands at this threshold, and that this threshold must be crossed. Humanity must become aware that what modern knowledge has brought about must not be condemned or erased in any way; that what the modern view of nature provides must not be rejected out of convenience; but that a completely new spiritual knowledge must be incorporated into this modern view of nature; for through this, what must still come—so that Earth’s evolution can reach its goal—will be woven into what has preceded it in Earth’s evolution. Catholicism can never take people further than where they already are. For three to four centuries, people have made progress in terms of their external understanding of the world. But people must not continue to progress in this way within modern civilization. They must bring spiritual life into this civilization.

[ 12 ] This is precisely what Eastern judgment still fails to recognize in modern civilization today. Eastern judgment sees in modern civilization only a field of corpses—the very thing that gives rise to what I showed you yesterday in my critique from the Eastern perspective. Oriental judgment does not yet realize—because it knows only what has been handed down as divine teachings—that by facing a field of corpses in modern civilization, human beings can, precisely through this, find within themselves the strength to develop from within the truly human spirit, the spirit intimately connected with the human, which in turn spreads light throughout the entire cosmos.

[ 13 ] This is where opinions sharply diverge. We look at what Catholicism has brought about. In recent times, it has brought about Jesuitism, not Christianity. It has introduced within Jesuitism that dogmatic view which portrays Jesus as an emperor, as a triumphant figure, as one who, when all is said and done, possesses—I would say—spiritual qualities that arise from the soul, just as the soul itself possesses spiritual qualities—in accordance with the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 869. In essence, modern consciousness has not yet come to realize the Christ. The Christ, as a superterrestrial, supersensible being, is to be recognized by anthroposophical spiritual science; he is to be recognized as that which has connected itself to Earth’s evolution from extraterrestrial spheres, because this Earth evolution requires something that simply did not exist until now. Essentially, Catholicism does not yet deal with the Christ at all; it deals only with Jesus. And the modern Protestant confessions have followed suit in this regard. A true Christology has not yet emerged outside of anthroposophical spiritual science. And this true Christology is connected to the fact that human beings find the Spirit through their free spiritual consciousness—that they find it even as they stride across a field of corpses with a natural science that shows them—and must show them—nothing but the spiritless everywhere. The Eastern consciousness does not see this. It does not yet see that it is precisely through this that human beings lose their world consciousness in their scientific, technical, and other—and in more recent times, artistic—interactions with the external world. Because human beings lose this world consciousness, they are all the more called upon to find such a spiritual world consciousness from within their own inner strength.

[ 14 ] Indeed, this world consciousness exists. It is present in embryonic form. It emerges from Goetheanism, from what was sought at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century; it thus emerges from what was sought at that time. And one can find a straight path by going further and further, from Goetheanism into modern spiritual science. The crucial point, however, is to become capable of grasping the living spirit and recognizing that modern spiritual science does not present an ideology, nor does it merely offer ideas about the spirit, but rather presents ideas that the spirit itself sends into the world. This is what must be understood: that in modern abstract doctrines, one has everywhere only ideas about something or other, whereas in spiritual science, ideas are presented that spring from the spirit itself—ideas that are, in a sense, a spiritual revelation anew—so that the world, through its spirit, expresses itself in spiritual science, and we once again have the living spirit.

[ 15 ] But now we must be absolutely clear that much of the pettiness in our present civilization must be overcome if we are to take such a stance toward these great matters. Today, people in large numbers and across vast regions are gravitating toward Catholicism, and Catholicism has an inner sense of triumph, for all signs indicate that it is capable of stifling the new spiritual striving in its infancy, that it is capable of eradicate everything that existed in any form as the beginning of such a new spiritual striving—and that, in a sense, it can thereby eradicate everything new that is meant to be added to the old in the development of the Earth. This will to eradicate is very much present.

[ 16 ] In recent times, however, a truly dreadful form of spiritual agnosticism has taken hold in people’s minds, linked precisely to this stunted way of striving for a worldview. People want to instill in their souls the awareness that the soul is connected to a spiritual world; but they do not want to spur on their will; they do not want to lose their “freedom” in order to attain that which does indeed require inner activity: the grasping of the spirit through spiritual science. They want to passively unite their souls with the spiritual; they do not want to go through the difficulties that one must indeed go through in actively grasping the spirit. I would like to say: those lazy minds, who nevertheless develop a longing for eternity, are today seeking a way back to old worldviews because they do not feel the strength within themselves to actively receive God into their souls. People today are, after all, everywhere intent on making their judgments as brief as possible, seeing only what is presented to them on a silver platter. They want to form political and social judgments based solely on what is openly visible, and are so consumed by this kind of spiritual selfishness that they do not even notice when a judgment from another perspective confronts them—one that seeks to build upon the broad foundation of a richer body of knowledge. This is precisely what is so painfully striking in our decadent civilization today—that people are so quick to rush to judgment. To illustrate this point, I’d like to present an example that lies far removed from the considerations we’ve just been discussing. You see, much has been gathered here—not to propagate dogmatic views about the recent catastrophic years of modern civilization, but precisely to provide the foundation for independent judgment. The aim has always been to steer these judgments in a direction that is as broad-minded as possible, yet at the same time true.

[ 17 ] Well, how many people today are satisfied with just a few opinions or this or that which mainstream journalism offers them? For example, people revel in discussions about the origins of this war catastrophe, which has claimed so many lives in recent years, they listen to statesmen speak and the like, and they accept these things because it has died out—within the general graveyard of the modern worldview, such things can indeed die out—the sense that the truth comes to light more strongly in one particular place than in another, that one must distinguish between one place and another. For you see, when it comes to assessing the European situation, the following—which has now come to light—seems to me more important than many of the things people have been led to believe in recent times: in this very place, the judgment has long since been reached in this direction, and the facts that have now come to light are merely further evidence of this—that, among others, the French ambassador Paleologue, who was at the Russian court in 1914, wrote his memoirs with a truly senile kind of verbosity. They all write memoirs, of course; it’s just that one is a little more dishonest, the other a little more talkative; and this French ambassador reported with great verbosity on what he experienced in St. Petersburg. There, magnificent celebrations were held in the presence of the President of the French Republic, Poincaré. On the eve of one such celebration, the two demonic women, Anastasia and Militza—the daughters of King Nikita of Montenegro—spoke with the French ambassador. These two women of ill omen poured out their hearts to the French ambassador at that time. It was July 22, 1914. The French ambassador reports verbatim what they told him: “Do you realize that we are living through historic, indeed sacred, days? ... Tomorrow, during the military review, the military bands will play only the ‘Marche Lorraine’ and ‘Sambre et Meuse.’ Today I received a telegram from my father in the agreed-upon wording. He informs me that war will break out before the end of this month... Oh, what a hero my father is!” ... “Nothing will remain of Austria... They will reclaim Alsace and Lorraine... Our armies will unite in Berlin...”

[ 18 ] One must also take such things into account when assessing the current situation. There is no excuse for claiming that one was unaware of such things—especially no excuse among those who have been working not toward a dogmatic judgment, but rather to lay the groundwork for forming a judgment. But I am only citing this as an example. You can find many other interesting “facts” in Paléologue’s memoirs, for in his senile ramblings he actually reveals the most remarkable things. I am not citing this now to discuss the causes of the war, for example, but rather to highlight what modern humanity so desperately needs to internalize. One hears so much in the world. One must develop a sense for it: here there is some truth to be found, there is none. The world does not reveal itself in such a way that one can be satisfied with a hastily formed judgment. The world reveals itself in such a way that one must have a sense of where the actual truth is to be found. The external sensory world is entirely an illusion, and it is an illusion to such an extent that, even in the realm of morality, ethics, and politics, the judgments of two such harbingers of doom as Anastasia and Militza may, under certain circumstances, be more important than the judgments of ambassadors and ministers. After all, what the ministers predicted in 1914 did not come to pass; but when Anastasia and Militza said, “Before the end of the month we will have a war—what a hero, our father! “Nothing will remain of Austria; they will take Alsace-Lorraine back”—then these demonic women were indeed prophetesses, for what they said came to pass, and not what the ministers or generals said. The world is indeed a complex entity, and only those who have a genuine desire for truth and for the pursuit of truth can grasp just how complex the world that confronts us is—what initially presents itself to us as Maya. In the sciences, we have learned to look at the truth only superficially. But this has carried over in a bitter way into modern life as a whole. This is something that must be thoroughly taken into account, especially in our own context. For if we do not rouse ourselves to awaken from the quagmire of judgments in which humanity finds itself today, we will not be able to find those perspectives that transcend all triviality—perspectives that are necessary to distinguish the modern Guardian of the Threshold from the ancient Guardian of the Threshold, and to know what truly benefits humanity. We must be clear that those minds which are sluggish in themselves, yet possess a living longing for the eternal, and which are, moreover, selfish souls, would like to flock in great numbers to wherever something traditional is preserved, and that they avoid rousing their souls to cooperate in the reception of the divine spirit into the immediate will of the human being. Today is the moment of grave decision, in which it must become clear whether modern civilization possesses the strength to find the Spirit amidst the ruins of modern scientific understanding. If this is possible, then no matter how many people, in their passivity, seek the eternal in what already exists, and no matter how many Eastern critiques may come, they will strike only at what is decadent in European civilization, but not at what is fruitful within it, what is coming into being—though this, of course, requires work.

[ 19 ] This decision is all the more significant because ancient Eastern culture still possesses spirituality, and indeed finds a kindred spirituality in Roman Catholicism. If modern civilization does not attain spirituality, then Orientalism and Roman culture will inevitably flood the world. If modern civilization seeks to attain spirituality from within itself, then Orientalism and Romanism will be powerless against this spirituality, for this spirituality corresponds to the final stages of our earthly evolution. But the great moment of decision has arrived. Only those who see what is essential in this moment of decision—and who are determined to take these matters with the deepest possible seriousness—truly understand what is happening today.

[ 20] For this, however, it is necessary that people develop a thorough, deep, and sincere sense of truth. Anthroposophical spiritual science does not fail to recognize the spiritual content that lives on in the ancient traditions. Anthroposophical spiritual science recognizes the danger that lies in the fact that Eastern “Chineseness” finds kinship with European “Chineseness,” and therefore we understand how intellectuals, in particular, flock to European “Chineseness,” for there they find—if they wish to remain passive—that which they can unite with their soul as something eternal. They find it, however, only in a Luciferic way, by remaining stuck in those epochs of Earth’s evolution that are actually past. If that were to happen, the Earth would be deprived of its evolution. One need not at all be blind to the greatness of Catholic doctrine; but precisely when one is not blind—when one acknowledges it—one also recognizes its connection to what human souls have already gone through, and one recognizes the necessity for something new to emerge. The question may arise, however: How is it that the far more sincere Eastern spiritual striving, which has come down from ancient times, still perceives nothing of what is emerging from and working its way up out of entirely modern European civilization—and which, in its spiritual kinship, could actually be understood by the Eastern mind?

[ 21 ] Yes, people—even if they are from the East—are still attached to whatever they encounter externally. And what do people encounter externally? Certainly, anthroposophical spiritual science is becoming more and more well-known; but do you also see how, in numerous places, ample care has been taken to ensure that anthroposophical spiritual science becomes known! This is a topic that must be discussed again and again, for it is absolutely necessary—for those who wish to profess their commitment to this anthroposophical spiritual science—that it become known.

[ 2 ] Here, for example, is a publication, *Evangelisches Missionsmagazin*, edited by Fr. Wirz, new series, Vol. 65, February 1921, Basel, published by the Basler Missionsbuchhandlung. It contains a review of a book by D.L.J. Frohnmeyer, *The Theosophical Movement: Its History, Description, and Evaluation*, from which it is clear that this book is to be elevated within the Christian-Evangelical community to the status of a leading catechism on what anthroposophy is. This little book by Frohnmeyer is presented as the very work that, with great conscientiousness, reveals to humanity the essence of the anthroposophical movement; in other words, the message being spread is: “If you want to know what anthroposophy is, read Frohnmeyer.” These people know how to do it. They present a catechism from which their followers can learn. And immediately appended to it is a review of the book *The Smear Campaign Against the Goetheanum*, in which, among other things, it is quite eloquently stated that this rebuttal—this smear campaign—is regrettable because the responses from the anthroposophical side are not exemplary either. In this way, Dr. Steiner is led, against his better judgment, to tell an untruth.

[ 23 ] I then looked on page 20 of the little book, *Die Hetze gegen das Goetheanum* (*The Smear Campaign Against the Goetheanum*), to see if there was anything there that could be characterized in this way. But it says: “Dr. Boos, in order to take up the gauntlet, wrote: ‘That is a deliberate falsehood.’ It is, of course, a deliberate falsehood, for one must know that the Akashic Records cannot be found on any bookshelf, because they cannot exist as a physical document. They do not exist as such.”

[ 24 ] There is no definition here; there is nothing here that would, for example, violate the “definition” that this is a falsehood told against one’s better judgment; for anyone who writes about the Akashic Records as if they were a physical document must know that they cannot have them in their library, just as one does not have the Upanishads or the Bhagavad-Gita on one’s bookshelf.

[ 25 ] It is, in fact, clearly demonstrated that this must have been said against one’s better judgment, and yet the reviewer writes that I have provided a “definition”! There is no definition on the entire page; rather, it has just been demonstrated that this Kully claimed, against his better judgment, that the Akashic Records are a physical document. Nevertheless, it is claimed here that I have defined a deliberate falsehood—against better judgment! Of course, the view that Heinzelmann advocates is also a hideous one, because anyone can hide behind it by later claiming that they did not say it against better judgment, but simply believed it. Whether that is even possible at all is yet another question that concerns our entire decadent, superficial, and complacent scientific establishment. But the other thing stated here is, in turn, a deliberate falsehood, for what is written here can only be written against one’s better judgment. There is no definition on page 20; it is pointed out that something was asserted there against one’s better judgment. So here, once again, a falsehood has been stated against one’s better judgment by the very same person who says above: “Certainly, there are also erroneous statements about anthroposophy in Frohnmeyer’s work.”

[ 26 ] Because people have been confronted with the facts, they can no longer spread this falsehood, but they are now beginning to make excuses for it by saying that Pastor Frohnmeyer had, in fact, taken this claim from another pastor who is widely regarded as truthful. — Well, just how true it is can be seen from the fact that this other pastor probably witnessed the incident himself and yet still made this claim. That is how people handle the truth. And those who handle the truth in this way call themselves bearers of theology—they are the teachers of our youth! My concern here has never been to say anything against Frohnmeyer or Heinzelmann or the like because they have attacked anthroposophy; my concern is that people who handle the truth in this way, who have such a concept of scientific rigor, are the destroyers of young minds; my concern is to show where our science has ended up, quite apart from whatever attacks are made against anthroposophy. I am completely indifferent to them, because I know all too well that such a statement has a different meaning than the one this Heinzelmann attributes to me. It is said that Pastor Frohnmeyer is geographically close to the current center of anthroposophy and has, as far as possible, thoroughly familiarized himself with the writings. — I know so well that this possibility is not a great one that, fundamentally speaking, I have nothing in particular to object to regarding what Pastor Frohnmeyer says against anthroposophy. For all these people—they simply cannot understand the matter. The main thing is that one must resolutely rebel against the spirit that has crept into scholarship here. That is what matters, for it is the spirit of untruthfulness; it is the spirit that conceals this untruthfulness behind all manner of disguises. And this is what cannot be emphasized often enough or strongly enough: As long as the truth is treated in this way at the universities, we cannot move beyond the situation in which we are so deeply mired, for it is these people who systematically shape public opinion. When Frohnmeyer’s work is issued by authoritative sources as if it were a catechism, and when these things are read in the East, then, of course, the Eastern reader first reads in the presentation of theosophy all that drivel, which is merely a watered-down version of what he, in his Orientalism, naturally knows much better, and he finds anthroposophy classified as a chapter within this European watering-down of Eastern theosophical teaching, according to the concepts of Heinzelmann and Frohnmeyer—and naturally he cannot form any conception of what is actually intended there. For it is drummed into him that this is merely a rehash of old Gnostic teachings and so on. In short, the Oriental is taught a picture that can give him absolutely no idea of how one can, from within modern European civilization itself, arrive once again at a spiritual worldview. No wonder, then, that even someone in the East who would be capable of seeing such things must view them in a false light.

[ 27 ] This is what must be stated among us again and again, because it must penetrate modern consciousness with great clarity and intensity; and the question must also be addressed: Why is such a deluge of falsehoods being unleashed against anthroposophy? Yes, because these gentlemen feel threatened! Just think: when teaching and working in the Frohnmeyerian manner before the faithful, one naturally expects that nothing will be checked or verified. One can write this way only when faced with an uncritical crowd that, like a herd, follows a blind sense of authority and blind faith in whatever has been imposed upon them by higher powers. It is unpleasant for these gentlemen that, within the Anthroposophical Society, a group of people is to be cultivated who will become capable of making their own judgments about these matters and who will investigate them.

[ 28 ] But then it must also be the case that those who are members of the Anthroposophical Society feel obligated to truly look into the matter. What matters to me today is not so much making a big deal out of defending ourselves against the slanders and untruths of our opponents, but rather holding up their own reflection to them—for example, by characterizing the kind of truthfulness that prevails in our modern scientific life. The person who serves us best is the one who holds up a mirror to this modern science based on the facts, which can be found at every turn. Of course, we will get nowhere if we merely defend ourselves against what appears today as slander and falsehood, for such defenses result in nothing but a back-and-forth of arguments; and when one contrasts the truth with falsehood, those one is facing will talk the issue to death so that one never comes to terms with the matter. Just imagine what tangled webs have already arisen because opponents have constantly twisted and turned the issues. What matters is to draw attention to the spirit—or lack thereof—that lies at the heart of modern science, modern religious institutions, and so on, and to hold up to people their own image in the mirror of a genuine spiritual characterization that can be provided from the perspective of spiritual science. So that a genuine discussion can finally arise about what needs to be discussed in the present. Merely defending ourselves will not lead to such discussions. Of course, this must happen at the decisive moment, and it must happen again and again. But fundamentally, it is secondary. What is important is that we familiarize ourselves with the anti-spirit that prevails, and that we characterize this anti-spirit everywhere—there is no need to mention its hiding places, for it parades itself openly on the public streets—that we characterize it everywhere. That is what matters.

[ 29 ] That is, however, somewhat more difficult than simply defending it. For one can, of course, very easily go through the process and demonstrate the truths and falsehoods on each side. But that is not the sole issue; rather, it is a matter of characterizing this phenomenon against the backdrop of the decadence of the present day—and above all, of emphasizing what kind of decline it signifies when such a spirit prevails, for which what we encounter here as a characteristic of anthroposophy is meant to serve merely as an example. We should not care if people rail against us, but we should care deeply about the nature of the spirit that is expressing itself—this spirit of untruthfulness and a thirst for slander that is emerging. The example should serve as a symptom, offering broader insights into what currently prevails. This is something I simply had to say, particularly because the work is becoming increasingly difficult anyway. As the anthroposophical teachings spread, one is truly glad when one comes across a newspaper article that says nothing at all about anthroposophy. One can see references to it emerging from the most unbelievable nooks and crannies. You read a feature article about Carlyle and Nietzsche in the *Neue Zürcher Zeitung*, and suddenly you come across a line that has nothing to do with the rest of the text, stating that Nietzsche distorted Goethe just as Steiner does.—You find such things here and there everywhere. And that is the method by which judgments are formed.

[ 30 ] Unless we stick to the plan and present this entire spiritual realm to the world in all its incredible, decadent form—so that the world can understand it—we will not make any progress. That is precisely what is increasingly coming to the fore for us at present, to the point where the expansion of our tasks is indeed overburdening my capacity for work—I think I can safely say that today—and I am unable to attend to many things I would very much like to address. But there is also the fact that the number of those who are truly working actively on what is necessary today is, unfortunately, far too small. The issue today is that, as a result of the needs arising through the Anthroposophical Society, the movement has taken on forms that necessitate the presence of many collaborators. A single person could certainly represent the teaching in question on their own; they would then also find the means and ways to do everything necessary to bring this teaching into the world, to the extent that a single person is capable. But since this is a society, obligations arise from within the society that need not at all correspond to what a single individual is capable of. The point here, therefore, is that now that the Society has undertaken certain tasks, it is absolutely necessary for more and more people to emerge from within this Society who will actively and effectively advocate before the world today for the cause at hand. Unfortunately, however, the number of those who are actively working and advocating today is very small, and for the most diverse tasks, one must repeatedly appeal to the same people over and over again.

[ 31 ] When the topic here was the founding of something, I said that nothing else concerned me except the fact that, in the present day, there are so few people who are truly up to the task in any given situation. That is what one must take into account on the one hand; on the other hand, however, it is also the fact that this is not a matter of assessing innate abilities—those abilities are there, but they are not being drawn out of people’s minds. People do not want to draw activity from their own souls. That is what is at stake today. They would rather passively surrender to whatever is already there. It is easier to ask oneself, “Which party should I join?” than “What is the truth about a matter?” For the party is there, the church is there, and so on—one can adopt a passive stance toward them. But what is at stake for people today is to seek their own path to the truth and to actively collaborate with the truth. If this is not sufficiently understood, then the great decision facing humanity in modern times will also not be understood, and then we will not make any progress. Today, we can only move forward by truly taking to heart what spiritual science can so forcefully present to the world, by truly finding the means and ways to work within the necessary guidelines, and by not shying away from delving into what is, in order to present it to the world in the appropriate manner from the perspective of spiritual science, as if from a mirror.

[ 32 ] I am about to embark on a trip to the Netherlands, but first I must stay in Germany for a while. Before I leave, I will give one final lecture on the only day available—Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., so as not to disrupt the eurythmy exercises—in which I will summarize various points that I still consider necessary to share with you at this time.