The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourth Lecture

[ 1 ] When one considers a figure such as A. P. Blavatsky—and specifically from the perspective that should already be clear to you from the preceding three discussions—one naturally considers, on the one hand, this personality as such, set apart, so to speak, on its own. On the other hand, one must consider the fact that she exerted a certain influence on a large number of people. Now, admittedly, this influence has been, in part, quite negative. One might say: Those people who had heard something about Blavatsky’s publications—insofar as they were, let us say, philosophically, psychologically, literarily, or scientifically educated, or, more generally, as the term is used today, of an educated disposition—were glad to be rid of this phenomenon in some way, to be spared the need to pass any judgment. After all, they were able to achieve this goal by the fact that, under circumstances I at least hinted at yesterday, one could simply say: unrealistic practices had been established, and there was no need to concern oneself with something that, as they say, has been proven to be of this nature.

[ 2 ] Then, of course, it was precisely those who possessed ancient traditional wisdom—a possession that, as I have told you, they actually understood very little about, but which they used in one way or another as a means of power—who were members of this or that secret society. One must never forget that countless effects in the world stem from what emanates from such secret societies. Not only were they glad not to have to pass judgment, but above all they were intent on finding every means to prevent such a portrayal of the spiritual world from having a broader impact. For, as we have seen, these matters had been published; they could be read by anyone and disseminated by anyone. And as a result, at least a significant portion of the means of power that such societies wished to preserve had been taken from them. Therefore, behind the matters I characterized yesterday, there are naturally members of such societies, particularly in the formulation of the judgment: “These are unrealistic practices.”

[ 3 ] But what seems even more important for our present purpose is that Blavatsky’s writings—and everything else associated with her—have, after all, made a certain impression on a large number of people today. This has given rise to those movements that, in a certain sense, have called themselves theosophical.

[ 4 ] I would ask you to bear in mind, in the midst of all these debates, that I always try to describe characteristics in a way that corresponds as closely as possible to the facts. Today, however, the very use of words makes this impossible—in fact, it is made impossible in many circles. The situation today is that when a person encounters a word, they very easily—I would say—first establish a kind of lexical relationship with it, seeking a definition of the word in order to spare themselves, as much as possible, from having to delve into the matter itself. When a literary figure—or even someone taken more seriously than a literary figure—hears the term “theosophy,” they look it up in the dictionary—which, for all I care, may well be what goes on in their minds—and find out what it means. Or they go further; perhaps they are much more conscientious and study all sorts of writings in which a word like “theosophy” appears, and then they base their judgment on that. When dealing with writings that address such matters, they must pay attention to how much weight such an approach actually carries.

[ 5 ] This must always be contrasted with the following question: How did that society—or, one might say, those societies—that joined the Blavatsky movement come to be called the “Theosophical Society”? One may have many objections to this Theosophical Society—and I have indeed listed a number of things one might object to— but when it was founded at the end of the 19th century, it certainly was not the case that people took the lexical meaning of the word “theosophy” and then founded a Theosophical Society because they wanted to spread theosophy as it is understood in the dictionary. That was not the case at all. Rather, there was a body of communications from the spiritual world through Blavatsky, which initially existed as such. Now, for reasons I will also discuss, people felt compelled to manage these communications through a society, and for that they needed a name. Then those who were debating the matter—after all, people debate everything today, and back then, too, everything was debated—asked themselves what name to give it: Should it be called the New Mystical Society, the Rosicrucian Society, or the Magical Society? And then they looked into what other terms existed and came upon the words “theosophy” and “theosophical.”

[ 6 ] So the word really has little to do with what has spread, insofar as it is a historically derived word. Therefore, it is quite nonsensical to discuss these matters—and especially to love or hate them—based on the meaning of the word. It is precisely about the very specific, concrete things that have entered the world through Blavatsky’s writings or other communications. And it is, one might say, pure coincidence that the societies that joined together called themselves the Theosophical Society. No one simply could think of a better word. This must certainly be borne in mind, for there are, of course, not only historical judgments but also historical sentiments. Among those who have studied the historical development of this or that science, the term “theosophy” has appeared in many contexts, but what has emerged in their work actually has nothing to do with what, in turn, called itself the Theosophical Society.

[ 7 ] Such matters should at least be taken very seriously within the Anthroposophical Society, and there should be a certain drive for accuracy there, so that the proper sense of all the unsubstantiated writing that has gradually become associated with these matters in the world can begin to emerge.

[ 8 ] But this question must be of particular concern to us: How is it that, in recent times, such a large number of people have felt drawn to these things that have been revealed? For it is from there that we will then find the transition to something that is, in turn, of a completely different nature: the anthroposophical movement.

[ 9 ] However, when considering the figure of Blavatsky, one must particularly emphasize one characteristic of her personality, because it is an outstanding one: namely, that H.P. Blavatsky was, one might even say, thoroughly anti-Christian in her outlook and orientation. In her *Esoteric Doctrine*, she has, one might say, in a single sweeping stroke, revealed the various impulses of manifold primordial religions and the development of religions. She was simply incapable of objective presentation. Wherever one would actually expect objective accounts, she intermingled her subjective judgment—her emotional judgment—into the narrative. She did not merely pass judgment; she demonstrated throughout that she harbored a deep sympathy for all the world’s religions outside of Judaism and Christianity, and, conversely, a deep antipathy toward Judaism and Christianity. Throughout her work, Blavatsky sharply portrays everything that comes from Judaism and Christianity as inferior to the great revelations of the various pagan religions: thus, a distinctly anti-Christian orientation, yet a distinctly spiritual one. She possesses the ability to speak of spiritual beings and spiritual processes in the same way one otherwise speaks of beings and processes in the sensory world, and to discuss certain aspects of this spiritual world in such a way that one can indeed say: She possessed the ability to move among spiritual forces just as a person of the present day otherwise moves among physical and sensory influences. Blavatsky speaks of spiritual phenomena with the same sense of reality as people otherwise speak of things in the physical world. Thus, a distinctly spiritual orientation—and a distinctly anti-Christian orientation.

[ 10 ] This, however, provides the additional ability to bring the characteristic impulses of the various pagan religions and nature religions to the surface and make them understandable to people.

[ 11 ] Now, one might be surprised by two things: first, that a figure should emerge today—and by “today” I mean, of course, in a historical sense—who is so distinctly anti-Christian in orientation and who expects the salvation of humanity to come from this anti-Christian orientation. And second, one might be surprised that, since outwardly very few people are pagan in orientation—but rather, outwardly, people, at least in our civilized regions, are, on the surface, Jewish or Christian in orientation—that nevertheless a decisive, profound influence has emanated from this figure upon those of Jewish and Christian orientation, particularly those of Christian orientation—and even less so upon those of Jewish orientation. These are two questions that must confront us when we speak more generally about the conditions of modern spiritual life among the broad masses.

[ 12 ] Now, with regard to Blavatsky’s own anti-Christian orientation, I would simply like to point out that a figure who has become much better known in Central Europe—or at least in certain circles—was at least as anti-Christian in his orientation as Blavatsky. That figure is Nietzsche. One simply cannot be more anti-Christian than the author of *The Antichrist* was. As dissimilar as Nietzsche is to Blavatsky—and not least because Blavatsky was, in terms of what we today call modern education, essentially an uneducated woman, whereas Nietzsche stood at the pinnacle of learning—and as dissimilar as they were in every other aspect of their spiritual disposition, they nevertheless exhibit a remarkable similarity in that they are both eminently anti-Christian in orientation. It would be thoroughly superficial not to inquire into the reason for this anti-Christian orientation in both of these figures. But one will not find an answer to this question unless one delves somewhat deeper into the matter.

[ 13 ] One must be clear about the fact that today, people— and indeed ever broader segments of the population, are experiencing a profound inner conflict regarding their spiritual life—a conflict they do not always recognize, one they try to suppress through reason, attempting to eradicate it out of a certain intellectual cowardice, but which, as a result, weaves and stirs all the more deeply in the subconscious depths of the soul.

[ 14 ] One need only be clear about what has become of European humanity—all of European humanity, along with its American offshoot—under the influence of the pursuit of education over the last three, four, or five centuries. One need only consider how vastly different, in reality, the content of secular education today is from the religious impulse within human beings. It is true, after all, that most people succumb to the most terrible illusions in this regard. They are introduced to this modern education as early as elementary school; all their thinking, the entire orientation of their souls, is channeled into this modern education. Then they are also given what is supposed to satisfy their religious longings. There is a terrible chasm between the two. But people do not actually get around to truly confronting this chasm in their souls; they do not get around to it—they even love to indulge in the worst illusions in this regard.

[ 15 ] Now one must ask: What is the historical background regarding the emergence of this yawning chasm? You have to look back to those centuries when modern education did not yet exist, when scholarly life was pursued only by a select few who had been thoroughly prepared for it. You must realize that today a twelve-year-old schoolgirl possesses more in terms of formal education than any educated person of the 11th, 12th, or 13th century. These things must not be overlooked. And this education has developed in such a way that it is underpinned by an extraordinarily intense sense of authority, by a virtually unassailable sense of authority. Over the course of the centuries, so to speak, this education has increasingly had at its disposal something that makes this belief in the authority of modern education ever greater and greater. Over the centuries, this modern education has increasingly focused on what the external senses tell us, or what calculations reveal. Well, the less a person consults their inner self, the more it becomes clear to them that what they see—as they say—with their five senses is true, and that what is seen in this way is as certain as two times two equals four. What you see with your five senses, what is as certain as two times two equals four—that is true. By denying everything else and ultimately incorporating more and more into modern education only what is as true as what one sees with the five senses or can count out with one’s five fingers, modern education has gradually been endowed with the sense of authority it possesses—precisely because “two times two is four” and the five senses carry such great authority—since one can say of it that it is as certain as the fact that two times two is four, and as certain as what the five senses tell us.

[ 16 ] But this also gave rise, more and more, to the feeling that everything a person believes, everything a person considers to be true, must be justified in the face of this very specific modern education. And as this modern education focused more and more exclusively on the sensory and the calculable, it became impossible to present to people in any meaningful way truths from those realms where mathematics no longer applies and where the senses no longer apply. How, then, were such truths presented to people in earlier centuries, when this modern education did not yet exist?

[ 17 ] They were depicted in ceremonial images. After all, throughout the centuries, the essence of spreading religion lay not in preaching, but in ceremony and ritual. It was clear to everyone: one could not speak through the intellect, which had not yet developed in the way it has today, but had to speak through images. Just imagine, for example, what it was like in Christian countries as late as the 14th and 15th centuries. There, the sermon was not the main thing; the main thing was the ceremony. The main thing was for people to immerse themselves in a world that was presented to them in powerful, grandiose images. Everywhere on the walls were frescoes that brought spiritual life closer to them: as if our earthly life could reach up to the highest mountains, but there—if one could only climb a little higher—spiritual life would begin. Whether through vivid imagery that appealed to the imagination, through the audible harmonies of music, or—when spoken—in the form of mantras, prayer chants, or ritual formulas, it was precisely the spiritual world that was being spoken of. People in those times were quite clear about this: for the spiritual world, one needs the image, not the concept, not that which can be discussed, but rather one needs the concrete, one needs the pictorial. One needs that which speaks to the senses, but speaks to the senses in such a way that the spirit speaks through what is given through the senses.

[ 18 ] Then modern education emerged with its intellectualist claims, with its claim to justify everything—as they say—before reason. Even Christianity, even the Christian mysteries, even the mystery of Golgotha and its bearers were essentially spoken of in this figurative form—and, insofar as words were used, in the form of narrative. And when the dogmas emerged, they, too, were still grasped in a figurative way. Thus one can say: Up until the 13th and 14th centuries, Christian proclamation took place in a thoroughly ancient manner. But the scope of this Christian proclamation was not contested from any quarter as long as intellectualist education had not yet emerged and as long as there was no need to justify things before reason.

[ 19 ] Just take a look at history and see how it all came about in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries—how it surged forward, with people beginning to want to understand everything through intellectualism! What a world-historical critique that set in! People today usually don’t even realize what a world-historical critique began back then!

[ 20 ] So one can say: People today—and this really isn’t just the upper crust, but rather the broadest strata of society—are introduced to a religious life through Christianity, but also to a modern education. Now both—Christianity and modern education—coexist in the human soul, and it turns out—even if people do not realize it—that the truths of Christianity cannot be proven by what intellectualist education has produced. Christian truths cannot be proven by it. Thus, from childhood onward, people today learn the absolute certainty that two times two equals four, and that one must apply one’s five senses only to this. One learns this absolute certainty, and one comes to realize that if one wishes to adhere to this absolute certainty, it is simply not possible to apply Christianity to it.

[ 21 ] Those theologians—the modern theologians who have sought to adapt it—have, in fact, lost Christ; they can no longer speak of Christ to the broader masses; at most, they speak of the personality of Jesus. Thus, in recent centuries, this Christianity has been preserved only in its old forms, which modern people simply no longer accept in their souls; but it loses, I would say, its inner hold on the soul. Why is that?

[ 22 ] Well, just look at everything that history has brought forth in terms of Christianity. It is the height of dishonesty when modern theologians today attempt to interpret this Christianity in any rationalistic way. It is impossible to interpret this Christianity rationalistically. One cannot interpret this Christianity—this mystery of Golgotha and its bearer—rationally; one must speak of spirituality if one wishes to speak of Christ. One must speak of a spiritual world if one wishes to speak of Christ. One cannot simply believe in the absolute certainty that two plus two equals four, and in one’s five senses, and then still speak honestly of Christ. That is simply not possible; thus, deep within the innermost being of modern people, it appeared that they had no way of understanding or grasping Christ based solely on what is now simply their school education. For rationalism and intellectualism have robbed people of the spiritual world. The name of Christ and the Christian tradition have remained, to be sure, but without their atmosphere—without Christ appearing as a spirit among spirits, as a spiritual being in a spiritual world. For the world that modern astronomy, biology, and the natural sciences have brought about is a non-spiritual world.

[ 23 ] And so numerous souls arrived who had a very specific need arising from these depths. Time truly marches on, and the people of today—as I have often emphasized—are no longer the people of earlier times. You must ask yourselves: Here I am gathering with so-and-so many others to come together in a community dedicated to the cultivation of spiritual truths. Why am I doing this? Why is each and every one of you doing this? What drives you to do so? Now, what drives people to do this is usually so deeply rooted in the unconscious depths of the soul’s life that there is not much clarity about it. But the question must be raised here, where, as I just said in the introduction, anthroposophists are to practice self-reflection.

[ 24 ] If you look back to earlier times, it was self-evident to people that there were not only material things and material processes out there, but that spirits were everywhere. People found a spiritual world all around them in their environment. And because they found a spiritual world, they were able to understand Christ.

[ 25 ] If one is honest, modern intellectualism offers no spiritual world whatsoever; consequently, one cannot truly comprehend Christ either. The modern educated person does not comprehend Christ either. The people who now yearn so deeply to rediscover a spiritual life are, in fact, very specific souls. These are the souls in which two things coexist. Indeed, in most of the souls of those who gather in the kinds of societies we are discussing here, two things coexist today: First, a very vague feeling arises in the soul that people cannot describe, but it is there. And if one examines it using the means available in the spiritual world, it is a feeling that stems from earlier earthly lives, in which one still had a spiritual environment. Today, people are emerging in whom something from earlier earthly lives stirs inwardly within their souls. We would have neither Theosophists nor Anthroposophists if it were not for such people in whom something stirs from past earthly lives. These people are found in all strata of our present-day population. They do not know that this comes from past earthly lives; but it does come from past earthly lives. This gives rise to the striving for a very specific path, for a very specific kind of knowledge.

[ 26 ] Yes, my dear friends, the way you saw the trees in previous earthly lives, the way you saw the external material substances—that has no lasting effect on this present earthly life, for you saw those things with your senses. The senses have dissipated into the cosmos. What continues to have an effect is the spiritual content of your past earthly lives.

[ 27 ] Today, a person can find themselves in one of two situations. They may sense: There is something within me—they do not know that it comes from previous earthly lives, but it does come from previous earthly lives—there is something within me; it is at work; it is there. But no matter how much I know about the sensory world, this cannot be described, for nothing that is not spiritual has been carried over. If, in the present, everything that is spiritual is taken away from me, then this which comes over from previous earthly lives remains unsatisfied. That is one thing.

[ 28 ] The other thing that lives within people is that they have a vague feeling: Dreams should actually tell me more than the sensory world. — It is, of course, a mistake, an illusion, when people believe that dreams ought to tell them more than the sensory world. But where does this illusion come from, which has really emerged to the same extent that modern education has? For there is a peculiar connection with this modern education. When people with a modern education come together today in their educated societies, one simply has to be educated; one speaks in a manner befitting a person trained in the modern sense. If someone starts talking about spiritual influences in the world, one must curl the corners of one’s mouth in derision, for that is what being educated entails. Within our school system, one is not supposed to speak of spiritual influences in the world. To do so makes one a superstitious, uneducated person. One must turn up the corners of one’s mouth. One must make it clear: Such things are only for the superstitious segment of the population.

[ 29 ] Well, in gatherings like that, two groups often form. Usually there’s someone who gets it into their head to talk about such intellectual matters. That’s when people start to smirk. Most of them walk away, heading off to play cards or engage in other more respectable activities. Some, however, become curious. They go into an adjoining room, and there they begin to talk at length about these things, while the others play cards or do something else that I’d rather not describe. Then the people in the adjoining room listen with their mouths agape, unable to get enough of what they’re hearing; but it has to be in the adjoining room, because otherwise one isn’t considered cultured. What modern people can arrive at there is, after all, more or less dreamlike. The things that are recounted there are, after all, usually as disjointed and chaotic as dreams, but people love it all the same. Why do they love it? The others who have withdrawn to play cards would love it, too. It’s just that the passion for card games is even stronger than this love of listening; at least, that’s what they tell themselves.

[ 30 ] Why, in these modern times, does a person feel the urge to pursue dreams? Because they sense—again, quite instinctively, without being fully aware of it—that what is in their thoughts and what the external physical world presents to them is all well and good, but it offers nothing to their inner life. There is something else behind it all—I feel that within me. A secret stream of thought, feeling, and will lives on even when I am awake, as freely within me as the life of dreams lives freely when I sleep. There is something in the background of the soul that is actually being dreamed even while awake. Modern people already sense this. And they sense it because the spiritual is precisely what is missing for them in the outer world. They can only catch a glimpse of it in dreams. In earlier earthly lives, they beheld it in their surroundings.

[ 31 ] Now, souls are being born who, in addition to these impulses that stir within them from earlier earthly lives, also have within themselves the stirrings of what took place in the spiritual world during their pre-earthly existence. This is related to this inner dreaming. Inner dreaming is precisely an aftereffect of the living forces in pre-earthly existence.

[ 32 ] Just think: People of earlier times were aware of a spiritual realm; their earthly existence did not, so to speak, rob them of their spirit. People today feel the spiritual within themselves. But not only does the prevailing mindset of the times rob them of their spirit—a form of education has also emerged that is hostile to the spirit and drives it away.

[ 33 ] If one asks what brings people together in societies such as those to be characterized here, it is precisely through these two characteristics of the soul: through the fact that something stirs within them from earlier earthly lives, and through the fact that something stirs within them from their pre-earthly existence. This is true for most of you. You would not even be sitting here if these two things were not stirring within you.

[ 34 ] And think back to earlier social conditions. In ancient times, social institutions arose from the mysteries and were in harmony with what had been spiritually handed down to humanity. Human beings were woven into, shall we say, a social being that was at one with what their souls longed for.

[ 35 ] Take an Athenian, for example. He looked up to the goddess Athena. He felt in his soul his inner kinship with the goddess Athena. He was part of a social community that was known to have been established according to the intentions of the goddess Athena. The olive trees surrounding Athens were planted by the goddess Athena. The laws of the state were dictated by the goddess Athena. As a human being, one was placed within a social community that was in complete harmony with one’s inner beliefs. Nothing was taken from one that the gods had, so to speak, given.

[ 36 ] Compare this with modern man. He is situated within his social relationships in such a way that a gulf yawns between what he experiences inwardly and how he is outwardly entangled in these social relationships. He feels—though he is not fully aware of it, as it lies in the subconscious—as if his body were constantly being taken away from his soul by external circumstances. Through these qualities, through these impulses from earlier earthly lives and pre-earthly existence—of which I have spoken to you—he feels connected to a spiritual world. His body belongs to external institutions. His body must behave in such a way that it can satisfy the demands of these external institutions. This creates a constant fear in the subconscious of modern human beings that their physical body no longer truly belongs to them. Well, there are already modern states in which one can indeed feel that one’s coat no longer really belongs to one, for one owes it to the tax authorities! But isn’t it true, my dear friends, that on a broader scale, one’s physical body does not belong to one either? It is claimed by external institutions.

[ 37 ] Modern human beings are haunted by the fear that they must, in fact, sacrifice their bodies every day for something that has nothing to do with their spiritual nature. And so modern man becomes a seeker of that which belongs to entirely different world-ages, of what he experienced in his previous earthly life. Thus, modern man becomes a seeker of that which does not belong to the Earth at all, of that which belongs to the spiritual world, and of that in which he existed in his pre-earthly existence.

[ 38 ] All of this asserts itself unconsciously, instinctively—but it does assert itself. And one must say: What our Anthroposophical Society has now become truly grew out of very humble beginnings. At first, it had to work in the most primitive way, in very small circles. There is much that could be said about the way in which we worked out from these small circles.

[ 39 ] For example, during my early years in Berlin, I once had to give a lecture in a small room where beer glasses clinked in the back—because it was a tavern that opened onto the street. And when that room was once unavailable, we were directed to what was essentially a stable. That’s where the people came—the kind of people I’ve just described to you. In a German city, I gave a lecture in a hall where, in some places, there was no floor at all; you always had to be careful not to stumble into a hole and break your leg. But it was precisely those people who had these impulses who gathered there. Admittedly, this movement was designed from the outset to be universally human. And so the satisfaction was just as great when the simplest of souls found their way into such venues as I have just described. But people didn’t find it too uncomfortable, because that, too, was part of being human—even when, I might say, people gathered in such a way that they then launched the anthroposophical movement in an aristocratic manner, as was the case in Munich, for example. One did not rule out any kind of human affectation.

[ 40 ] But what had to be taken into account, my dear friends, was always the fact that souls of precisely the kind I have described came together. So that, in truth, the people who gathered in such societies were marked by fate—and are still marked by fate today.

[ 41 ] If such people had not existed, a figure like Blavatsky would not have been able to attract any interest. For it was precisely in such figures that she found interest. What, then, did these people feel at first? What was most important to them, and what, so to speak, resonated with their feelings?

[ 42 ] Well, for those whose souls were in turmoil, the teaching of repeated earthly lives offered solace. One could now say to oneself: You live as a human being through the ages; you are inwardly stronger than those forces that seek to tear your body away from you every day. So one had to respond to this deepest inner feeling—which was, in fact, already akin to the will within the human being—with the doctrine of repeated earthly lives.

[ 43 ] And this—experiencing the spiritual as something dreamlike, experiencing it as separate from the body—even the simplest country person experiences the spiritual as separate from the body—could never be met with a form of knowledge oriented solely toward matter and its processes. For within this matter and its processes, there was no such thing as what a person experienced in their soul—which was an echo of their pre-earthly existence. One could only meet this need by making it clear to them—if I may use this shocking word—that our deepest human being is as if woven from dreams; that which is woven within us, just as dreams are woven, and which possesses a stronger being, a stronger existence—the things in the physical environment are not equal to it. One is, after all, like a fish that must come out of the water and live in the air if one is to live in the world conjured up before people by modern education with what one carries in one’s soul. Just as the fish begins to be unable to breathe in the air, just as the fish begins to gasp when it cannot breathe, so do such souls live in the modern atmosphere, gasping for what they need. They do not find it, because it is spiritual. For it is the echo of what they experienced in their pre-earthly existence, in the spiritual world. They want to hear about the spiritual, that the spiritual exists, that the spiritual is right here among us.

[ 44 ] Understand, my dear friends, that these were the two most important matters for a certain segment of humanity: gaining insight into the fact that human beings live on beyond this one earthly life, and gaining insight into the fact that such beings exist at all in the world as it is—that there are spirits among natural things and processes. This was first brought forth by Blavatsky. But one had to have that first before one could, in turn, understand Christ.

[ 45 ] Now, the peculiar thing is that—one might say—with an emphasis on compassion for humanity, Blavatsky found herself thinking: These people are indeed thirsting for knowledge from the spiritual world. If we reveal the ancient pagan religions to them, then we are revealing something that meets their spiritual needs. That should be done first.

[ 46 ] It is entirely understandable that this gave rise to an immense one-sidedness—namely, anti-Christianity—just as it is understandable that Nietzsche’s observation of contemporary Christianity, from which he himself had emerged, led to such a strong anti-Christian stance.

[ 47 ] I would like to speak to you about this anti-Christianity and its remedy in the next few lectures. I would just like to emphasize that what appeared as anti-Christianity in Blavatsky’s work was not present in the anthroposophical movement from the very beginning, for the first lecture series I gave was the one titled “From Buddha to Christ,” as I have already mentioned. Thus, the anthroposophical movement stands as something independent among all these spiritual movements in that, from the very beginning, it has followed the path from the pagan religions toward Christianity. But one must also understand why the others did not follow this path. As I said, we will speak about that tomorrow.