The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Seventh Lecture

[ 1 ] Having described various outwardly prominent and also underlying aspects of modern spiritual movements—which, in a sense, are meant to find a path through the anthroposophical movement that truly meets the demands of our time— I would now like, today and tomorrow, to attempt to interpret—based on various phenomena that have arisen in the third period of the anthroposophical movement—what the actual conditions of life within the Anthroposophical Society are.

[ 2 ] We must be clear about where we stood at the time when, for example, the second period of the anthroposophical movement was drawing to a close—that is, around the years 1913 and 1914—and where we stand today. We must try to grasp what these two stages—I would say, at the beginning of the third period and at the end of the third period—mean for us.

[ 3 ] While in recent days I have tried to delve more deeply into the details of the description, today and tomorrow, so to speak, I would like to present more current topics for anthroposophists that are suited to directly inspiring impulses of will.

[ 4 ] Let us look back and see how far we have come as a result of the fact that, during the first and second periods, we essentially adhered to the principle of proceeding on the basis of concrete facts—that is, of advancing the movement, so to speak, at the same pace as the development of inner anthroposophical life. Let us turn our attention to this.

[ 5 ] I said that during the first period, up until the years 1907, 1908, and 1909, some inner spiritual content was gradually developed. The foundations of a truly modern Spiritual Science were laid, and the various implications were elaborated. Until, so to speak, the end of this period, the journal *Luzifer-Gnosis* was also published. It continuously featured contributions from me and others that gradually built up a certain body of anthroposophical content. When the second period began, the writings of particular significance for the spiritual development of the West—the Gospels and Genesis—were, in a sense, also made accessible to the public through cycles of lectures, thereby being approached from the perspective of spiritual research. Once again, concrete steps were taken.

[ 6 ] They began with the Gospel of John and then moved on to the other Gospels. Through the Gospels, certain truths and teachings continually came to light. Thus, spiritual content was added to what had come before, step by step. What was now taking place on the other side—in the expansion of society—had its root cause essentially in this inner progression of spiritual content.

[ 7 ] Certainly, it was necessary to draw up all sorts of programs and the like for external affairs. But that was not the main point. The main point was that positive spiritual work was carried out step by step, and that this hard-earned achievement could then be deepened esoterically in a corresponding manner.

[ 8 ] Toward the end of the second epoch, the essence of anthroposophy was extended to encompass the rest of humanity’s culture and civilization, as we attempted to do in the Munich performances of the Mystery Dramas. By the end of the second period, we had reached the point where we could consider erecting the building that has now suffered this misfortune. One must bear in mind that this was an extraordinarily important stage in the development of the Anthroposophical Society. Constructing such a building presupposed that a very substantial number of people had an interest in erecting such a home for the real substance that had been brought forth in anthroposophy. At the same time, however, it marked the first significant step beyond the step-by-step approach that had hitherto kept pace with the entire development of the Anthroposophical Society. For, of course, a building such as the Goetheanum was bound to draw the outside world’s attention to what has now become the Anthroposophical Society in a completely different way than anything that had existed before.

[ 9 ] Opponents, for example—let’s say—have existed in the past as well, opponents from all sorts of camps. They even had their writings printed back then. However, there was actually no particular audience for these opponents. For suppose that, up until 1914, an opponent as unclassifiable as, say, Max Seiling had appeared. Perhaps, out of a certain sensational interest, some members of the Anthroposophical Society themselves would have read his work, but outside the Society, no one would have paid it any mind. There would have been no audience for it. It was precisely the construction of the building that made it possible for opponents to emerge and find an audience. When one is immersed in a reality such as the anthroposophical movement, one must not view such matters merely as something to be considered theoretically; rather, one must take them with the utmost seriousness, for greater tasks arise from all these things day by day.

[ 10 ] We now had, at any rate, the opportunity to construct this building. But this opportunity presupposed that there was, in fact, something for which this building could be constructed. That something was there. A large number of people sensed it as something that possessed a certain inner vitality. There were also experiences that had been gathered over a truly long period of time—experiences that could not be overlooked. Since a community existed, these experiences could have been made very fruitful, and could still be made fruitful today. Everything I have spoken about in recent days was intended to point to certain events that are just as significant as experiences.

[ 11 ] Now this period has come to an end. We may describe the fire at the Goetheanum as the shattering event marking the end of this period. Just recall that I said these lectures were intended to facilitate a process of self-reflection among anthroposophists; through this self-reflection today, we must recall how we were able at that time to think with a certain confidence about the progress of what was intended with anthroposophy, yet how we also had to foresee—and foresee with our will as well—that now, when anthroposophy steps before the general public, opposition would undoubtedly arise as well.

[ 12 ] Let us first define the starting point and the endpoint. I have just described the starting point. It lies in the fact that people had the courage to build the Goetheanum. Let us consider the form that has taken shape today as a result of what the Goetheanum has brought about: namely, that anthroposophy is now exposed to the judgment of an infinite number of people.

[ 13 ] To that end, I would now like to present the most recent testimony to you, so that we can, so to speak, “stay on topic.” This latest testimony is included in a brochure that has just been published and is titled “The Secret Machinery of Revolution.” On page 13 of this brochure, you will find the following description. I will translate it from the English text: “At this point in my remarks, I would like to briefly address the existence of an offshoot of the Theosophical Society known as the Anthroposophical Society. This was formed as the result of a schism within the ranks of the Theosophists by a man of Jewish descent who was associated with one of the modern branches of the Carbonari. And not only that, but in collaboration with other Theosophists, he has orchestrated certain specific commercial ventures that are not unrelated to communist propaganda; these, incidentally, are quite reminiscent of what the Count of St. Germain organized through his dye works and other commercial enterprises for the same purpose. From these peculiar business groups, which are connected to the Irish Republican movement and to the German groups already mentioned (among the groups mentioned is, for example, the Consul organization), and with another mysterious group known as Clarté, which was founded by Jewish intellectuals in France about four years ago and which counts among its members many well-known politicians, scientists, university professors, and writers in France, Germany, and England. It is a secret society. But a mental image of its true intentions can be gleaned from the fact that it supports the League of Old Fighters, whose aim appears to be the undermining of military discipline in the Allied countries. Although nominally a right-wing organization, it is in direct contact with members of the Soviet government in Russia. In Britain, it maintains close ties with certain members of the Fabian Society and with the Union for Democratic Control, which has set itself the task of combating secret diplomacy.”

[ 14 ] Well, I need only add to this that my trip to England in August is on the horizon, and that you can see from this that the things I have often said are to be taken very seriously: that our opponents are very well organized, and that they know exactly what they are doing in every circumstance and situation. Isn’t it true that the mental image I’ve been presenting for quite some time now is that one should never assume that what was the latest development is also the worst that could happen?

[ 15 ] As you can see, there is indeed an opposition today—and this is the other end point of the third period—that does not shy away from any falsehood and knows very well how to organize all the effects of falsehood. You must by no means believe that it is in any way appropriate to gloss over these things lightly and say, for example: “Well, not only is not a single line of such a thing true, but it is such a crude, blatant lie that no one will believe it.” — Anyone who says this, my dear friends, demonstrates precisely by doing so that they stand, as one who is deeply asleep, within contemporary Western civilization and simply do not know how powerful the impulses of untruth are—impulses that are accepted today as true by, one might say, the very best people, simply out of convenience and a drowsy stupor.

[ 16 ] What lies between these two points is now of particular importance for us to consider. For one could say: By 1914, the anthroposophical movement had certainly reached a point where it could have made its way through the world, at least initially, on the strength of its spiritual heritage and its spiritual content.

[ 17 ] But given the circumstances as they were, it was necessary to continue working actively even after 1914. If you look back on what has happened since that time, you will say to yourself: The work since then has essentially been a deepening toward the spiritual. And in this regard, the right path has once again been taken. This deepening toward the spiritual has been sought step by step, without concern even for the external events of the world, because the situation was—and still is today—such that the primary concern is to truly incorporate into civilization, in whatever form, that spiritual content which now seeks to reveal itself for the progress of humanity. When communicating or working with this spiritual heritage, it can never be a matter of doing anything other than doing everything ourselves from within this spiritual heritage.

[ 18 ] In this regard, a broadening has also taken place in this third period through the incorporation of eurythmy. Nowhere will you be able to say that this eurythmy is connected to anything other than the very sources of anthroposophy itself. Everything is drawn directly from the sources of anthroposophy. Are there not, after all, all manner of movement arts today, all manner of attempts to arrive at something—in one way or another—that outwardly may look a bit like eurythmy? But trace events back to the moment when Dr. Steiner took up eurythmy, and eurythmy has since undergone a development such that—I would say—it was first cultivated more within an inner circle during the World War, then was able to enter the public sphere and has aroused ever-greater interest. Consider everything that has flowed into this eurythmy. Don’t you think that numerous people here and there have repeatedly whispered in your ear: “There’s something quite similar here, there’s something quite similar there—that must be taken into account, that must be incorporated.” — The only way the cause could move forward fruitfully was by not concerning oneself with the left or the right, but by working from the very sources of the cause itself—solely from the very sources of the cause itself. The moment any compromise had been introduced, the cause would no longer be what it is; it could not have become what it is. It is one of the essential conditions for the existence of such a movement that there be absolute certainty: what needs to be drawn from the sources can be drawn from them in ever-widening scope.

[ 19 ] This approach of working solely from the center—which, of course, was relatively easy, because it went without saying, up until 1914—is the one and only thing that makes it possible to move forward in the right way with what anthroposophy is.

[ 20 ] Well, this third period since 1914 was marked by the most diverse of phenomena, within which, naturally—as is the case with every human being and every movement—the anthroposophical movement was also situated. Of course, on the one hand, it must be emphasized again and again—and vigorously—how, during the World War, when nations were tearing each other apart, members from sixteen or seventeen nations were here and worked together, and how the Anthroposophical Society passed through this era while fully retaining its most original character. But we must not forget that precisely everything that went through people’s minds—including the minds of anthroposophists—during this time had a fragmenting effect on the Anthroposophical Society in many respects. This must nevertheless be said.

[ 21 ] After all, by characterizing these things objectively, I do not in any way intend to criticize or disparage the good qualities of the anthroposophists. These should certainly be taken for granted. Certainly, it is true that, to a certain extent, we were able to move beyond—let’s say—what so fragmented people outside the Anthroposophical Society from 1914 to 1918. But those who observe the situation even a little will realize that such waves have certainly made their way into the anthroposophical movement—albeit in a different form than usual—and that, in connection with this, something has come to the fore quite strongly, which I have often alluded to with the words: In this third period, what I would like to call an inner opposition to what I myself am called upon to do within the Anthroposophical Society—a certain inner opposition—began to take shape.

[ 22 ] Of course, most people are surprised when I speak of this inner opposition, because they are not aware of it—at least many of them are not. But I would like to say: all the worse for it. For this inner opposition has emerged very strongly in feelings, particularly during the third period. It also manifested itself in external symptoms. When a movement of this kind has gone through two periods, as I have described them, there is certainly no need for blind trust to prevail if, in the third period—where antecedents already exist, where something has already preceded it—one thing or another is done based on connections that not everyone can immediately grasp. But just consider this for a moment: based on circumstances that certainly not everyone could have grasped at the time—circumstances that required bringing many things together, and in which the most important thing was to establish the anthroposophical movement itself in the right way. Well, in these matters, what might be called an “internal opposition” then became apparent.

[ 23 ] I know, of course, that when I bring up these matters, quite a few people will say: Shouldn’t one have one’s own opinions? Certainly, one should have one’s own opinions about what one does; but when someone else does something—someone with whom one has some kind of connection in life—then trust must play a significant role, especially when there are precedents such as those I have pointed out.

[ 24 ] At a certain point during the third period of the World War, I wrote the little book *Thoughts During the War*. It was precisely then that this inner opposition made itself felt in a most peculiar way. Not only did people approach me and say: “We thought anthroposophy would never get involved in politics”—as if the little book had actually gotten involved in politics!—and so on. And you could already see from their entire stance that something had rubbed off in many hearts—something that is not meant to grow on the soil of anthroposophy, but rather on an entirely different soil. Isn’t that right? I have experienced many objections raised specifically against these “Thoughts During the War,” but I have not experienced—truly not experienced—anyone saying—now I am about to say something terribly arrogant, but it is nonetheless objective, my dear friends: “We don’t really know what to make of this, but we’ll wait until 1935; perhaps by then we’ll know why this little book was written.” — And there have been many other instances that clearly show how strongly a certain attitude came into play—one that effectively amounted to undermining the self-evident freedom and self-determination within the Anthroposophical Society. For it would have been only natural to let me take charge of writing this text. Instead, a sort of consensus has formed: if he wants to be the one with whom we build the Anthroposophical Society, then he may write only what pleases us.

[ 25 ] Isn't it true that these things must be stated in no uncertain terms, otherwise they simply won't be understood? They are symptomatic, and they testify precisely to the fact that a mood has arisen that runs counter to the conditions of life within the anthroposophical movement—that a mood has arisen in society that runs counter to the conditions of life within the anthroposophical movement!

[ 26 ] But what must have been of particular importance during this third period was the awareness of having formed a society that was taking its first steps in a matter in which a large part of humanity would have to follow. Yes, consider this, my dear friends: a relatively small society was formed with the ambition to do something that a large part of humanity would have to follow. This not only entails the obligations that those who follow will then have, but it also entails obligations of a far higher order: it entails obligations that are many times greater than, for example, the duties of those who, as a large number of people, will one day take anthroposophy as their guide.

[ 27 ] Today’s anthroposophists must not think that they have only those obligations that people who profess anthroposophy will one day have, when there are millions—not just thousands—of anthroposophists. When thousands are the vanguard of a movement, these thousands have a much greater, a heightened obligation. That is to say, they have the obligation to exercise greater courage, greater energy, greater patience, greater tolerance, and above all, greater truthfulness in every detail. And in this third period, the test was set specifically with regard to truthfulness and seriousness. In a certain sense, what had once been the subject of discussion in the lectures given to the theologians had to emerge. That is where it was expressed. Within the community of anthroposophists, this should have become—must become!—a feeling, a sense: that anthroposophy, quite apart from the fact that there are anthroposophists, must be regarded as an independent being, as it were, something that walks among us, to which we are accountable at every moment of our lives. This was expressed in that lecture to the theologians: Anthroposophy is in itself an invisible human being who walks among visible human beings, and toward whom—as long as we are a small group—we bear the greatest possible responsibility; it must truly be regarded as an invisible human being, must be regarded as something that exists, and we must consult it regarding the individual actions of our lives to hear what it has to say about them.

[ 28 ] So as long as the group of anthroposophists is still small, and as long as, let’s say, human relationships, friendships, cliques, and the like are forming, it becomes increasingly necessary to consult this Invisible One, so that everything can be justified before this Invisible One.

[ 29 ] Of course, this will be less and less the case as anthroposophy spreads. But as long as it remains the possession of a small group, it is absolutely necessary that everything that happens be done, so to speak, in consultation with the human being that is Anthroposophy. This is one of the conditions of life: to regard Anthroposophy as a living being. It may not die until its followers have multiplied beyond measure. So, this is what is necessary: a genuine seriousness in following that invisible human being of whom I have just spoken. That deep seriousness should, so to speak, grow with each passing day. When this deep seriousness grows, then there is no doubt that all the things that are done will also be initiated and carried forward in the right way.

[ 30 ] I would like to highlight one fact first. While the second period, from 1907, 1908, and 1909 through 1914, was essentially the period that advanced anthroposophy in terms of the spiritual aspect and religious insight, something that had already been present in the first period—as I described yesterday—reappeared in the third period. What occurred was that anthroposophy was once again brought into a relationship, for example, with science and the various branches of science.

[ 31 ] Even during the war, it was already apparent that this or that scientist from this or that field was drawing closer to anthroposophy. As a result, the Anthroposophical Society gained collaborators in the scientific field. At first, these scientists did not yet distinguish themselves. Until 1919 or 1920, scientific activity remained more of a hope, with the exception of what Dr. Unger was able to draw fruitfully from *The Philosophy of Freedom* and other writings from the pre-anthroposophical period for the benefit of anthroposophy. Incidentally, if we set aside what was further developed in this epistemological regard—which was an important substantive contribution to the movement’s future—we must simply say that, at the very beginning of the third period, the scientific aspect was a hope. For in this third period, this scientific aspect initially asserted itself in a sense exactly opposite to that of the first period. In the first period, as I told you, the people I mentioned yesterday were concerned with justifying anthroposophy before science. Anthroposophy was supposed to have its credentials endorsed by science. That was the tendency in the first period. Since it could not do that, the scientific endeavor gradually petered out. In the second period, it was entirely absent, and toward the end, the focus shifted more toward the artistic. General human interests took precedence.

[ 32 ] In the third period, scientific aspirations once again emerged from the margins, but in a different way. Now the issue was no longer—at least not explicitly—to justify anthroposophy before science, but rather to enrich science through anthroposophy. Now all sorts of people were coming forward, saying: We can’t make any further progress with our science; it needs to be enriched. — It was no longer a matter, as it had been in the first period, of inventing atomic structures because people were so accustomed to deriving atomic theories for the etheric and astral bodies from physics and astronomy. Now, after sufficient effort had been made to introduce it into science, the focus had shifted to the exact opposite tendency.

[ 33 ] Well, this tendency—I want to discuss it today only in a positive light —will only be able to bear fruit and will only be of benefit to the anthroposophical movement if it finds a way to work truly and purely from anthroposophical sources, much as has been done in the arts—let us say, in eurythmy—and if this, in turn, is done with the seriousness I have just spoken of. As long as a great deal of what constitutes scientific thinking today continues to be unconsciously carried into the anthroposophical movement, progress will not be fruitful.

[ 34 ] Specifically, progress will not be fruitful as long as the belief prevails that those who are today’s official representatives of science can be convinced of anything without their first embracing the anthroposophical perspective. They must first embrace the anthroposophical perspective; only then can we have a meaningful dialogue with them. Our only task with regard to those who oppose anthroposophy today is to clearly show where they are speaking untruths. That is something we can discuss. But of course, we cannot discuss the merits or the substance of the matter with people who not only refuse to be convinced but, fundamentally, cannot be convinced at all because they lack the necessary foundations.

[ 35 ] Above all, we must work on laying the foundations for ourselves in the various fields, but we must do so by truly drawing from the heart of anthroposophy, working from its central sources.

[ 36 ] And when, after the war, attempts were made to take on all kinds of practical life tasks and world tasks, the point was once again to shape everything from the core of anthroposophy and to recognize that it is precisely with such practical life tasks that it is least possible to count on any compromises. The sole concern must be to tell the world what needs to be said from the anthroposophical center, and then to wait and see how many people understand it. In any case, nothing taken from the anthroposophical centers should be presented to the world in such a way that one says: “There’s a political party we might be able to win over; there’s a person we might be able to win over.” That won’t work. It’s not possible. It contradicts the very essence of the anthroposophical movement. If there is a women’s movement here or a social movement there, and someone takes the view: “We have to get involved here, we have to make compromises, because people on one side or the other are close to anthroposophy”—that won’t work; it absolutely won’t work. Rather, it is a matter of having such inner certainty in anthroposophy that, wherever one stands, one is truly able to represent the anthroposophical perspective.

[ 37 ] I’d like to share another amusing example of this with you. Isn’t it true that whenever people have taken offense at my having made the Theosophical Movement the focus of my work, I always respond by saying: I will advocate for Anthroposophy wherever it is requested, no matter where; wherever it is requested, I will do so. I have done so in places where I was only able to do it once, for the simple reason that people didn’t want to hear from me a second time. But I did not speak in such a way that, given their state of mind, they could have been persuaded by external means to hear the matter a second time. That is precisely what must be avoided. When people ask to hear something, one must bring them anthroposophy—pure anthroposophy—but presented courageously from the innermost core.

[ 38 ] I would like to say that these things have already been done in the course of the anthroposophical movement—merely by way of illustration, truly just by way of illustration. For example, we were once invited to a spiritualist society in Berlin, where I was asked to speak about anthroposophy. It never even occurred to me to say no. Why shouldn’t people have the right to hear something like this? I had given my lecture, and immediately afterward I saw how unsuited these people were and how, in reality, they didn’t actually want to hear anything more from me. For something quite precious happened after this lecture: I was immediately elected, by a unanimous vote, president of this society. Dr. Steiner and her sister, who were there with me, didn’t know what to make of it. “What do we do now?” they said. “We’re the president of a society like this! What do we do?” I simply said, “Don’t go back there!” Because that was, after all, the most natural thing to do. By engaging in the utterly absurd act of electing someone as president who had only been heard speak for the first time, the people proved that they wanted something entirely different from anthroposophy. They wanted, in fact, to turn anthroposophy into spiritualism and believed they could achieve that through such a thing. But one can, of course, have all sorts of different experiences.

[ 39 ] So it is really never a matter of refusing to speak about anthroposophy in front of anyone. For example, I was once invited to speak about anthroposophy at the Gottsched Society in Berlin. Yes, why shouldn’t I have spoken? But the point was to never compromise on anything related to anthroposophy.

[ 40 ] That was the particularly difficult task in the period following the writing of the “Appeal to the German People and the Cultural World” and the publication of the “Key Points of the Social Question.” The real issue then was to do nothing other than assert, on all sides, what could be asserted from this source, and then wait to see who would come around to it.

[ 41 ] I must express my conviction today: Had we done so—had we simply stood on the positive ground of what was contained in that appeal and in that book, without seeking to align ourselves with this or that party, something I have always firmly rejected—then we would not have stumbled today over what has come from that side, but we would likely have some results to show for it. Whereas we have absolutely no results to show in this area, my dear friends.

[ 42 ] It is precisely a condition of life in such a society that one always finds a way to work from the spirit itself. Of course, this by no means implies that one should do the absurd—that one should always get straight to the point, or that one should be out of step with life everywhere, or that one should become impractical. Today, the opposite is even more necessary; today, it is necessary to infuse so-called practical life with some real-life practice. For anyone who truly understands the conditions of life will see today’s life as—well, like that of the “truly practical people,” who are so “practical” in life that they fall over immediately when they try to stand on their own two feet. That is, after all, what is often called “practical life” today. When these “truly practical people” infiltrate a spiritual movement, then that spiritual movement is in dire straits.

[ 43 ] As I said, today I’d like to focus more on the positive aspects of the matter; I don’t want to criticize what has happened—as I’ve often done—but simply show how things should proceed. So it is not a matter of walking the straight path in such a way that one says, “I am walking my straight path,” only to bump one’s head against a pillar when one encounters it; naturally, one steps aside; naturally, one makes use of whatever practically moves one forward. But the point is to thoroughly infuse everything with the impulse that arises from the Center itself.

[ 44 ] If we were to proceed in this way, we would see that the Anthroposophical Society would indeed—not in a trivial or conventional sense, but in a legitimate way—finally move beyond being regarded by the wider world as a mere sect.

[ 45 ] What good does it do to keep telling people over and over again that we are not a cult if we behave as if we were one? For, you see, what the members of the Anthroposophical Society must understand above all else is the very condition for the existence of any society in the modern age. A society simply cannot be a cult. Therefore, if the Anthroposophical Society is to stand on solid ground, the “we”—in reference to our views—must never play a role. Time and again, one hears Anthroposophists say to the outside world: “We, the Society, hold this or that view.” This or that happens to us. We want this or that.” — In the past, it was possible for societies to present themselves to the world in such a conformist manner. That is no longer possible in our time. In our time, it is precisely within such a society that every single person must be a truly free individual. Only each individual has views, thoughts, and opinions. Society has no opinion. And this must be reflected even in the language the individual uses when speaking of society. The “we” must actually disappear.

[ 46 ] There is something else connected to this. When this “we” disappears, not everyone in society feels as though they are in a pool of water that supports them and to which they can turn when it matters. Rather, when they have to stand up for their own opinions and themselves above all else in society, they also feel fully responsible for what they say as an individual.

[ 47 ] This sense of responsibility is what must grow ever greater as long as the Society remains a small group. Since, due to the customs and practices of life up to now, the Anthroposophical Society has not been perceived by the outside world as an eminently modern society—because these customs and practices have time and again led to the expression: ‘We believe this, we think that, we hold this view, this is our worldview,’ and the like—has been presented to the world so often that the outside world now thinks: “There is a compact group that holds this view; if one wishes to join them, one must commit to this shared opinion,” which naturally repels any independent soul—now that this has already happened, we must today consider a measure that perhaps a year ago would not have been necessary. Because things had not yet progressed that far—because at that time we had not yet been lumped together with the Carbonari, the Soviet government, and Irish republicanism—all of this, of course, for certain insidious purposes—it already seems necessary today to give serious thought to how we can eliminate the three points that are cited time and again: brotherhood without distinction of race and so on, and then the comparative study of religions and the study of spiritual realms and spiritual methods. By citing these three points, one gives the impression to the world that one is required to swear allegiance to them. We must find a completely different approach, and above all, we must find a way to ensure that anyone who does not wish to commit to a particular opinion, but who is interested in cultivating a spiritual life, does not feel compelled to commit themselves wholeheartedly to specific opinions. This is precisely what we must reflect on today, because it is part of the conditions of life in society now that we have experienced the particular configuration of the third epoch.

[ 48 ] I have often been asked by this or that person whether they can join the Anthroposophical Society or not, since they are not yet able to profess what anthroposophy prescribes. I have said that it would be a sad society, in today’s sense, if it sought to recruit its members from among those who profess to believe in what is now prescribed. That would indeed be something appalling. I have always said that honest membership can mean nothing other than expressing an interest in the existence of a society that seeks the path to the spiritual world in the first place. One has an interest in that. How that is then carried out is a matter for those who are inside the society. One person contributes this, another that.

[ 49 ] I can certainly understand that someone might not want to belong to a society that requires them to commit to articles of faith. But if one says, “Anyone interested in cultivating their spiritual life is welcome in this community,” then those who have such an interest will find their way here. And the others—well, they’ll stay on the outside, but they’ll be led deeper and deeper into the absurdity of life.

[ 50 ] When one begins to reflect on such conditions of life within the Anthroposophical Society—when one does not wish to simply drift along in the old rut—only then does one truly fulfill the Society’s conditions for life. Only when this Society actually comes to handle matters in a completely free manner—without narrow-mindedness, but only with open-heartedness—will it be possible for this Society to truly become what it is meant to be, by embodying the anthroposophical movement within itself; for the anthroposophical movement connects everywhere in a positive way, without compromise, but in a positive way, to what exists in the present and what may bear fruit in the future.

[ 51 ] One would simply have to develop a subtle understanding of these things. And it is necessary—I would say—that the anthroposophists acquire such a subtle understanding in the very next few weeks. Then the way forward will be found. Practice will take care of that.

[ 52 ] But only those who can radically step outside the narrow confines of their own personality will be able to think in this direction—those for whom the process truly begins of caring about the matter itself, of genuinely recognizing anthroposophy as an independent, invisible being.

[ 53 ] Of course, I had to speak of the third period differently than of the two preceding ones. For the two preceding ones are, in fact, already history. The third, although we are nearing its end, is the present, and everyone should really be aware of the conditions of this present. We must work our way through to such guidelines, down to the very last detail. These guidelines are not dogmas; rather, they simply emerge as self-evident truths.

[ 54 ] I will present what remains to be said tomorrow. We will then see if we can conclude these lectures.