The Rudolf Steiner Archive

During these lectures I have often seized the occasion to point out to you that particularly in connection with the most important problems of life, modern men may learn something from the trenchant, penetrating, almost flood-like events of the present time, though this learning from events is a method practised by few people to-day. As a rule, they think that they can learn something from the events if they simply pass judgment on them, and then these judgments are locked upon as experiences. This can be very satisfactory for some people, but it does not suffice, indeed it is quite unsuited, for what we so sorely need at present, and that is an understanding of social life. The essential thing in such matters is to learn from the events themselves; we must allow the events themselves to develop our judgment, instead of pronouncing judgment over the events. Many explanations which I have given you can show you the true methods of spiritual science; and how spiritual science applies these methods to external physical events—for instance, to the events in social life. Here I think that particularly a significant event of modern times connected with social life may teach us something. I have already drawn attention to it, but let me open to-day's lecture by developing thoughts relating to it.

Were we to discuss the social question with a member of the working class now constituting the majority of the population which counts most in the concerns of modern life, and which has, on the other hand, obtained the inner impulse for its views chiefly through Marxism—were we to speak with him on the social question, we would always find that in regard to social work and social thinking he would not attribute much importance to so-called good will, or to ethical principles. Again and again, you would come across the following attitude: Suppose you were to tell him that according to your views the foundation for a solution of the social problem lies therein that all the people who have certain leading positions, particularly those who belong to the class of the so-called employers, should begin to develop a feeling of social responsibility and feel that it is absolutely necessary to create for everyone an existence in keeping with human dignity.

To a man of the working class you speak, for instance, of raising the moral level of the middle classes. When you voice this view to the working man, he will at first smile, and then he will tell you that it is very naive of you to believe that the social question can now be solved through feeling, or an activity engendered through feeling. A member of the greater mass of the working population will tell you: Everything that flows out of the feeling of the leading class of employers does not count at all. This class of employers may think what it likes in regard to ethical or moral feelings… but since the world is now divided into employers and employees, the employers must necessarily be the exploiters. A working man does not even listen to proposals that the feeling of social responsibility should be raised, for he argues: This is quite useless, for everything depends upon the following: The working class must become conscious of the prevailing conditions, so that the working class itself may bring about a change in the social conditions, a change which ends, or at least alleviates the general misery. The essential point is not that of increasing the sense of moral responsibility, but that the oppressed, miserable working class should bring about, in the present struggle, a new non-capitalistic economic order, a change in the prevailing conditions, a new economic order.

This means, in other words, that no trust should be put in the power of thought; we should not believe that a right comprehension, a right understanding of life can bring about a change in social conditions. One might well imagine the following taking place in one of the many “Councils” which are now being formed in central European countries. A comic paper recently published the picture of a man with a long body and with tiny little legs, stating that he was the only man in Germany who did not “govern”, for everybody else already belonged to some “Council”; but the man with the short legs had always remained behind, so that he was the only one in Germany ,who did not belong to a council and who did not govern! People felt that there was a great deal of truth in this picture. If we were to speak at one of these councils of what must now be considered as right, through an insight into the development of humanity and the needs of humanity, the listeners who belonged to the working classes would answer: “What are you talking about ? You belong to the middle class! Because you are a member of this middle class, your thoughts are a priori influenced by the modern economic order. If social conditions are to be improved, it is far better to incapacitate you in one way or the other, so that you have nothing more to say in the matter; this is better than listening to any proposals you can make for a useful development of social conditions!

Things have already gone too far. Because of this, it is necessary to see things clearly. Of course, the majority of people does not wish to see things clearly to-day; least of all those who come together in councils, for they do not in any way desire to judge things clearly.

Every proletarian, every member of the great mass of the working population, should be taught to see the following, and he will do so, if we approach him at the right moment (this is the essential point!): As a proletarian, he denies the possibility of any social improvement in human development through the means of thought. We may ask him how he arrived at the view that an improvement of social life can only be brought about only through A change in the conditions of social life. There is only one answer to this question; which the facts themselves reveal. You see, the whole tremendous impetus of the modern proletarian movement in social life is based upon the idea of Karl Marx and his followers, and it is a very vigorous idea, to be sure. The idea that thought is worthless is a marxistic theory. Consequently this idea has produced the present socialistic way of feeling. But this socialistic feeling, which refuses to have anything to do with the impulse of thought, is nevertheless: based upon the impulse of thought.

In a lecture which I once delivered to proletarians I explained: Those who investigate world-history and the true forces which are active in the development of humanity, will find that with only one exception, a truly scientific impulse has never become a world-historical impulse. Investigate things everywhere and try to discover the real impulses, and you find that these impulses were never of a scientific kind; with one exception, the renewal of the proletarian movement through Marxism. Lassalle felt this truth, when he delivered his great incisive speech on science and the working class. For the only political, social movement having a scientific foundation, is the modern working class movement. It is encumbered with all the errors and the hopelessness of modern science, just because it sprang out of modern science. But it proceeds entirely from thought.

Imagine this colossal contradiction which has found its place in modern life! During the past sixty or seventy years, the idea that thought is worthless has exercised the greatest influence of all: The course of development during the past sixty or seventy years shows this. It is a significant lesson, because it shows that the influence of thought is something quite different from the content of thought. An idea, the idea of Karl Marx, exercised a particularly strong influence. But if we examine this idea in regard to its content, we find that the content as such is quite unimportant; of importance are only the economic conditions. If we have the capacity to immerse ourselves in this contradiction, in this living contradiction of thought, we find something tremendous in it: If we can penetrate into this contradiction, we discover in it a truth of tremendous import for an understanding of the present time.

What must now be grasped at all costs is the fact that the content of theories, the content of programmes„ is really of no importance whatever, for the influence of thought is based upon something quite different: Upon the relationship of the corresponding thought to the state of mind of those who absorb this idea, etc. You see, if Karl Marx had not voiced his idea from 1848 onwards up to the seventies; had he not given expression to the ideas contained in the Communist Manifesto and developed in his system of political economy and in his great work Capital, just at that time, had he spoken of these things in 1800, or in 1796, his ideas would have exercised no influence whatever, nobody would have shown any interest in them.

Here you,have a key for a most important fact. Imagine that Karl Marx's works had appeared, for instance, fifty years sooner—they would have been waste paper! But from 1848 onwards, when general conditions of the proletarians had reached a definite stage, his works did not become waste paper, but an international impulse, and now they continue to live in Russian Bolshevism and in the whole central European chaos, which has already begun and which will increase more and more, they continue to live in the chaos which will spread over the whole world.

With this I wish to draw your attention to the fact that far more essential than the content of a truth is the circumstance whether it is uttered fifty years sooner or later. The content of an idea is only significant for a definite time and it is no mere fad on my part when I say, for instance, in regard to Anthroposophical spiritual science, now is the time to speak of it, now it must enter the hearts of men, for now is the right moment in which human beings should absorb it. But something else should be borne in mind: Marxism was kindled of its own accord; but spiritual science is something which must be taken up by people in freedom.

If we bear in mind that human understanding is really something which is subject to evolution, it will be easier to understand many things which are,we can really say, not only possible, but also necessary to understand, and which people really do not wish to understand. In a certain connection, we discover tremendous things if we encounter the thoughts which now exist in the so-called spiritual life, which is, however, no real spiritual life! Those who can understand such things, will come across plenty of evidence.

We may open, for instance, a certain number of a periodical published here in Switzerland, in which the, author, who frequently writes for this paper, discusses a topical problem. In the article in question he speaks of what he understands by “the people”. He speaks of various personalities and of their responsibility or guilt in regard to the outbreak of war; he discusses the fact—and in many ways he is right—that certain leading men of central Europe must be blamed for it. (I have often explained that here it is not possible to speak of guilt) Then he finds it necessary to explain what he really means by—“the people”. This is how he defines “the people”; They constitute nine tenths of civilised countries, such as Germany? Austria, England, France, etc. and he says that the people are the sum total of the uncultured unfree persons, who are in the widest sense dependent on leaders, and who therefore need leadership.

Consequently we may say that this writer defines “the people” as being the uncultured, unfree, dependent persons, who, in the widest sense, need a leader. But if we were to examine conscientiously the majority of those who belong to the middle classes, or even to the higher classes, they would also answer more or less the same, if they were asked for their opinion as to the meaning of the expression “the people”: The uncultured, unfree, dependent mass, needing guidance, and constituting nine tenths of the whole of humanity.

If we now take the opposite view, we would have to say that only one tenth of humanity is cultured, free and independent, and that it doe's not require a leader! Those who think that they can express an opinion as to the true significance of “the people”, generally think that they belong to this one tenth.

In the face of such a view, which is preeminently important for the development of a social judgment, it is above all necessary to face the question, as to whether it is justified, in the widest sense of the word, to accept the idea that nine tenths of the population consist of uncultured, unfree, dependent men who need a leader! This is the question which each one of us must face, if we wish to form an independent social judgment. Of course, if views are to be exchanged on such questions, it is necessary to build up that intensity of thinking which spiritual science can offer. F For everything else which intensifies thought to-day, does not suffice; this can be seen in the thoughtlessness which now rules the masses.

There is a saying which I have come across again and again during the last months—I do not know if one can call it a coincidence, for in reality no such thing exists. I have found this saying quoted by one or other, whenever social conditions were discussed in public. It is the following: The stupidest calves choose their own butchers. People find it natural to quote this saying and everyone finds an obvious meaning in it. I do not find any meaning whatever in it, for I think that not the stupidest, but the cleverest calves would choose their own butcher, for in that case they would choose one who would kill them as, painlessly as possible, whereas those who do not choose their butcher would fare worst of all. The very opposite is true: Only the cleverest calves choose their own butcher.

Important judgments which require changing, are accepted just as thoughtlessly as this saying. Or when a human being surveys life, he would gladly forego the activity of thought, he has no wish to apply power of thought!

What we need to-day is a keener thought-activity, so that we may reach concepts which correspond to reality. An “advanced” modern thinker—“advanced”, in the meaning of modern academic wisdom, modern illumined thought, modern democratic consciousness may find the idea tempting that nine tenths of the whole of humanity constitute the uncultured, unfree dependent people who need a leader. Nevertheless this idea is quite worthless for the following reason:—

Let us proceed from a historical fact which can teach us a great deal in this connection. Christianity arose, as you know, in an unknown province of the Roman Empire, through the Mystery of Golgotha. Within the Roman Empire of that time, which had already absorbed the Greek civilisation, there lived a population which really possessed a wisdom of deep significance. The Church had to make a tremendous effort in order to eliminate every trace of the ancient Gnosis. (I have already spoken of this) Gnostic wisdom existed at that time. A highest wisdom existed in those days. When Christianity first arose this highest wisdom existed within the Roman Empire. This can in no way be denied. Yet it was impossible for this highest wisdom to absorb the historically powerful impulse of Christianity. The strong impulse of Christianity (I have spoken of this recently) was absorbed by the barbarians of the North, who did not possess the wisdom of the southern populations. When the barbarians of the North encountered the strong wave of Christianity, then Christianity began to exercise the influence which it had to unfold for the remainder of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch and for the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. New conditions have only arisen at the present time.

We should bear in mind the fact that the strongest impulse in history could not be absorbed by the most highly developed and abstract spirituality of a certain epoch; this impulse could instead be absorbed by men who were apparently retarded in their development and whose being was connected with the more instinctive part of human nature.

The view which has just been mentioned in regard to nine tenths of humanity, constituting the uncultured, unfree mass in need of guidance, is not worth much more than the fact that as far as spirituality is concerned, these nine tenths of humanity differ from the people who believe to be the leaders. For these so-called leading men have a degenerated intellect, a degenerated understanding. The nine tenths of humanity constituting the so-called uncultured, dependent people in need of guidance, still possess, as it were, a latent kind of intelligence, which is far more able to absorb the strong historical impulse which must now be received. This impulse is far more powerful than the one to be found among the so-called “intelligentsia”, among the people with a decadent intelligence. What now separates the bearer of spiritual impulses from the masses which are able to receive these impulses, are not the masses themselves, not the souls of these great masses of humanity, but the leaders, the men who have the guidance. These leading men, even the leaders of socialistic proletarians, are completely permeated with the decadent intellect of the “bourgeoisie”.

What is needed above everything else is a clear admission of the fact that the true impulses of spiritual development are accessible to the so-called uncultured, unfree, dependent people in need of guidance; these impulses can reach them, if we gain an insight into the characteristic form of intelligence of these people, and of the way in which it works.

No class of humanity has ever been so fantastic as the bourgeoisie which mocks at fantasy. Practical life to-day is truly fantastic! The practical things in life are “practical” only because they have been given the legal possibility to assert themselves, to enforce themselves, whereas people who do not have the chance to push themselves forward, cannot assert themselves, no matter how skilful and practical they may be.

To-day we should really learn to feel that in the great masses which are not led, but misled by their leaders, there is something which asserts itself as a remnant from that time which is designated—but erroneously—as the migration of the people. At that time, certain barbarian tribes came to the fore, as it were, and they absorbed the very impulses which the more highly developed nations were no longer able to receive.

During the present time we also have a migration of people; this migration, which is forcing its way to the surface, does not start from any definite place, but it comes from the whole sub-stratum, the proletarian sub-stratum of humanity. This is the essential point.

It is necessary to, face this migration of people, to meet it. Let us take the following hypothesis. Suppose that everything which is described in history books as the migration of people had really taken place—all these migrations of the Goths, the Huns, and later on, of the Mongolians, the migrations of the Vandals, the Suevi, etc. Imagine that these tribes had not encountered the stream of Christianity, when they migrated from the East to the South-West. Imagine that this stream of Christianity had not come; think what a difference this would have made in the world! The whole subsequent epoch can only be thought of, if we bear in mind the fact that these barbarian tribes came over from the East to the South West, and that they encountered the stream of Christianity.

Today the proletarian element rises out of the depths. And this proletarian element must be met with a spiritual element which comes from above! You might say that a Spiritual-scientific influence should be exercised upon social conditions, upon the conception of the world. Those who do not wish to believe that a new spiritual revelation comes towards this migration of people, which now follows a vertical, and not a horizontal direction, those who remain by the old spiritual revelation suited to the horizontal direction, in short, those who prefer to remain by the Roman way of propagating Christianity and do not wish to become acquainted with the new revelation of Christ Who passed through the Mystery of Golgotha, those people lose a great deal; they lose as much as might have been lost in the Middle Ages if the barbarian stream, which rolled from the East to the South West had not encountered the spreading current of Christianity.

Also at that time, the cultured men of Greece and of Rome stood between the current of Christianity and the barbarian stream.

To-day all the people who cling to old ideas, under the guidance of the so-called intelligentsia, particularly under the guidance of modern science, which has proved so unfruitful in the social field, to-day all these people stand between,the spiritual stream which should flow down to the proletarian stream and this current which flows upwards.

In such matters, we should chiefly strive to become unprejudiced in regard to ideas enabling us to develop a social judgment. But if we do not understand the social organism, we cannot develop a social judgment.

Do you know what results when a modern professor of national economy, who is a guide to others, or when a real political leader speaks of social or of economic questions, etc.—do you know what results in such cases in regard to the social organism?—The social homunculus! This is a fact which we should really try to grasp; we must bear in mind that all those who wish to understand the social organism, without grasping the truth of the threefold structure, give rise, within the social organism; to the homunculus, to nothing but the homunculus! Goethe also believed that the ordinary understanding, based upon the senses and the intellect, could not reach the “homo”, but only the “homunculus”!

You see, in regard to the social organism, the great majority of men is to-day absolutely unable to think; the leading motifs for real thought are lacking.

I have already explained to you that in the social sphere people set out from the strange and grotesque idea that a single state or national territory is a complete organism. Indeed, they even aim at setting up national organisms, complete in themselves! But this is nonsense! I have already told you that if anything on earth which is connected with social life is to be compared with an organism, then it is only possible to look upon the whole earth as an organism; and a single state, or national territory, can only be a part of this organism of the earth. If we wish to apply this idea of an organism, it can only be applied to a complete whole.

Those who wish to establish political economy upon the foundation of one single nation, resemble someone who seeks to establish the anatomy of the whole human being by studying only the hand, or a leg, or the stomach. This should be borne in mind, for it is far more important than people generally believe.

The threefold structure which I have explained to you, does not give any abstract resume and none of the recapitulations to which people are accustomed to—day, but it places itself livingly within the economic structure, within the social structure.

Those who only study the anatomy of the stomach, cannot understand the anatomy of the head or of the throat. But those who study the anatomy of the whole human being, are also able to form a right idea of the stomach, of the head, or of the throat.

Those who know the inner life—conditions of the social organism (and this knowledge can only proceed from the above-mentioned threefold structure) are indeed able to identify themselves with the real conditions, and they are able to have an insight into them, whether they have to judge the social conditions in Russia, England, Germany, or in any other country.

To-day we come across the strange and distressing circumstance that people speak of the different nations as if they were separate countries, and they believe that social reforms, etc. can be brought about in single, separate regions. This constitutes one of the fundamental errors of our time and it may lead to the greatest mischief in practical life.

It can only cause harm to believe that it is possible to do something within a certain limited territory, without taking into consideration that from a social standpoint the earth is an organism which is complete in itself, ever since the middle of the nineteenth century. It is absolutely necessary to reckon with reality, otherwise we cannot progress in any way.

You will see from this that the essential thing is to acquire an unprejudiced attitude, for such an unprejudiced attitude alone enables us to develop judgments out of the things themselves. For we can only judge things rightly, if we have no prejudices.

When social conditions are discussed in the way in which we discuss them here; you will hear over and over again that it is hardly conceivable not to separate economic values from human labour. That this is possible, can't be grasped least of all by the learned political economists of to-day.

If these men were willing to learn something from history, they would say to themselves: Plato and Aristotle were as yet unable to think that slaves are not connected with economic values. Plato and Aristotle still considered the existence of a fairly large slave population as an economic necessity. But to-day no sensible person looks upon the existence of a slave population as an economic necessity, in the meaning of ancient Greece and Rome. Yet people still consider that human labour should be a merchandise, that it should be treated as goods.

You see, when we strive after the gradual realisation of the above-mentioned threefold structure (it can only be realised little by little; we do not aim at sudden reforms or revolutions, but merely indicate a new direction; single measures in keeping with this new direction can be introduced, indeed, everything which calls for reform to-day can be in all details in such a way as to follow these guiding lines, this new direction; this can be done if one does not stupidly adhere to programmes, but to real life and if one moves, in the direction of real facts. This is the essential point)—we divide into three the parts which have merged together during the last phase of human development, thus producing a diseased social organism—indeed, the last catastrophe (the first world war) has clearly revealed this diseased condition. A sound course of development, in keeping with reality, can be reached if we strive to separate into three parts that which has melted together into a whole.

This will lead of its own accord to the separation of human labour from economic values. Even as the slave has ceased to be merchandise, so human labour will cease to be merchandise. But this will not be brought about by laws forbidding that “human labour should be merchandise”, but by keeping asunder the spiritual; the economic and the state concerns. This alone will separate goods representing an economic value, or merchandise as such, from that which has now become crystallised within the merchandise, the human labour employed in it.

In this connection it is really terrible to come across the mistaken and confused thoughts of people who have something to say, or wish to have a say, in the reorganisation, in the necessary reorganisation of social conditions. Let me give you an example:

You have the great mass of the so-called Marxists; these men have a clear idea of the fact that human labour is stored in goods which we purchase, in any merchandise which we purchase; human labour has produced this merchandise. In paying for the goods, I must also pay for the human labour contained in it. This is of course the case under modern conditions, but it is essential to separate human labour from the true goods, to separate it not only in thoughts, but in the real process. But this entails that we should really develop clear thoughts in regard to these matters.

Now it is easy to argue that manufactured goods do not contain human labour as an economic value. A non-Marxist, for instance, would say: It is not right to state that in political economy human labour and manufactured goods have been fused. Non-Marxists, who consider things from another angle, say that in the capitalistic economic structure manufactured goods exist in order to save labour. In fact, there are some goods with a certain purchasing power, which can save labour. Let us suppose, for instance, that you are a painter and that you have painted a picture which is worth £500.00 and that under present conditions you can actually sell this picture for £500.00. This sum enables you to employ so and so many people to work for you. Because you possess an object of value in this picture, you can make so and so many people work for you. Suppose that you do not sell the picture, and that you would have to do the work which others would have done for you, if you had sold your picture for £500! In that case, you would hare to make your own shoes, your own clothes, and even weave the material for your clothes, etc. But first of all, you would have to get the raw material ,for your work, and so forth, for the economic process is an extremely complicated one.

Nevertheless, some economists think that it is not at all a question of labour being stored in goods, but a question of being able to save labour through goods which can be sold. According to these economists, the economic value of a merchandise is therefore based upon the fact of how much labour can be saved through it, and not upon the quantity of labour which was needed to produce it.

We therefore have two sides to-day; one declares that the economic value consists in the amount of labour which has been put into the goods. Take the case of the picture; there, the work put into it can really not be compared with the work which has been saved through the fact that the picture was sold in accordance with the value which it possesses in the economic structure, in the circulation of goods. Under given circumstances, a gifted painter may produce a picture ready for sale in about a month's time—is it not so? His “labour” is, in that case, what he “crystallizes” into the picture in one month's time. This is, however, far less important than the work which he thus saves for himself. He becomes a capitalist through the fact that he saves labour; a capitalistic economic structure arises through the very fact that he can now employ so and so many people to work for him, by saving work through the sale of his picture.

Here you have two opposed definitions. One definition is that the economic value of a merchandise or of goods consists in the labour employed for the production of these goods. The other definition is that the economic value of goods consists in the labour saved through having these goods. These two definitions are diametrically opposed; they are opposed in regard to their real significance. For it would be an entirely different matter if the goods were really valued according to the labour employed for their production, or according to the labour saved through having them.

But in the process of economic circulation goods are valued neither in the one nor in the other way. Let me elaborate my example: Bear in mind the following: Suppose that the picture of which I have spoken, valued at £500 in accordance with prevailing ideas, still hangs in the painter's studio. He sells it, and it now hangs in the drawing room of Herr Mendelssohn, who is not a painter. There it hangs, and only a few people see it. Now, if you wish to define the economic value of the picture, you will say that it consists in the amount of labour, employed to paint it. Yet this definition does not hold good, either in regard to the painter—let us say, Lenbach—or in regard to the buyer, Herr Mendelssohn. As far as they are concerned, the economic value of the picture is not based upon this fact. For Lenbach, or any other modern painter, the immediate value of the picture of course consists in the work which he saves through it; yet this is not true, as far as Herr Mendelssohn is concerned, for he does not save any work through it. The definition of labour saved may therefore be applied, from an economic aspect, to the painter who has produced the picture; you may apply this definition to him, if you think in a one-sided manner. But from the aspect of the person who buys the picture and hangs it up in his drawing room, the above definition no longer holds good; the political-economic definition of the picture's value cannot be applied, if we bear in mind real facts.

You see, what is so important to bear in mind is the fact that to-day people are so easily inclined to define things; when they think to have discovered something in the existing conditions, they immediately look out for a definition. Under such circumstances it is not at surprising that one side should have one view and one side another. It is natural that someone who draws the economic definition of a picture from Lenbach's studio, has quite a different opinion from someone who draws the economic definition of the picture from the drawing room of Herr Mendelssohn. This of course gives rise to disputes.

This is the character of every dispute which now exists in social spheres; differences arise because people do not go back to the original impulses. This calls for sense of reality, which can only be acquired through a spiritual-scientific training.

To-day you may come across hundreds of definitions in the political-economic sphere, but they will only make your heart ache, because they are so very unreal. These definitions fall far short of the reality, though it is possible to “prove” them over and over again, for they always fit into a certain sphere. If you only consider the aspect of the spiritual worker, you may say that the economic value of something consists in the amount of labour saved. But if you only bear in mind the aspect of the proletarian workman, you may say that the economic value of something consists in the labour employed for its production.

I have now given you another example from the field of political economy? In this field, we have—in regard to the theory of money—the so-called nominalists and the metallists. On the subject of money, they have the most terrible disputes, for the latter look upon money as goods, and attribute to it the value which it has as gold or silver; the former only consider money as a symbol for an existing value. The nominalists, on the one hand, and the metallists, on the other, wage a war to the knife on this subject of money; they try to define it and they quarrel over it.

But these people have no idea whatever of reality. As far as money is concerned, nominalism is right at a time when the production of goods is very weak; nominalism is justified when there is a crisis. But metellism is right, when there is superfluity. From the aspect of reality, both are right—at one time this, and at the other time that direction. You see, if we take ideas in the one-sided manner in which people generally take them, we can never apply them to a totality in a healthy way. When we regard a totality, a whole, it is essential to collect all the facts; we should not apply one-sided definitions, and we should develop a feeling which shows us where we can take hold of the facts, throwing light upon reality.

Now the following question might be raised: Where does the economic value arise? It does not arise where human labour accumulates, or becomes crystallised in the goods; it does not arise where labour can be saved through goods; the economic value does not arise in any of these fields. The economic value is a condition of tension.

If here, at this point, you have an electric conductor (a drawing is made), discharging electricity, and if the electric current is intercepted here at this point, we have a tension between the two, between the discharging apparatus and the apparatus which collects the discharge. There is no discharge if the tension is too weak, for a discharge can only take place if the tension is strong enough.

Similarly, the economic value must be sought within a kind of tension, and we can describe this economic value by saying: On the one hand, we have the goods, the wares; then we must consider their different qualities and also the place where they can be consumed. We therefore have, on the one hand, the goods. On the other hand, we have the human requirements, and this is the same as the artificial or natural interest which people have in the goods. We have therefore, on the other hand, the goods in a certain place at a certain time. This tension, and nothing else, gives rise to the true economic value.

The true economic value does not contain the idea of human labour. Within the social organism, labour should be associated with the circulation of goods in quite a different way. The peculiar tension, which resembles the tension existing between an electric accumulator and an electric receiver, is that which produces the true economic value. This tension arises through the existence of definitely qualified goods at a definite place and time and the demand for these goods. This alone determines the real economic value.

Lenbach's efforts in producing a picture within a certain time, through his gift as a painter, and the labour which he could save for himself, through this picture as an object of value, can only determine the picture's value as Lenbach's private property. This applies to every other kind of labour in regard to goods. All this does not determine the economic value.

The economic value at any given moment is determined, on the one hand, by the demand, or the requirement, and on the other hand, by the definite, qualified goods which exist at a given time. This constitutes the true economic value of a merchandise, and this value can always be applied.

But this leads us away from the mere political-economic organism, and leads us instead into the social three partition. For, on the one hand, we have the goods, the wares, leading us into the economic sphere, which can, however, never come into being through the mere circulation of goods, but which depends upon the soil and ground, upon other foundations of Nature This foundation of Nature must exist. It cannot be saddled on to the state. It must exist, on the one side.

On the other side, we have the demand, the requirement. This leads us into the spiritual sphere; it leads us into the spiritual world of man, for consider how different are the demands of uncivilised barbarians and of civilised men!

Here we have two entirely different elements which penetrate into the political-economic life. The essential point which must be borne in mind, the chief thing which we must consider, is that there are other elements which penetrate into the political-economic life.

The social organism thus resembles the human organism which consists, on the one hand, of the chest and of the head into the head penetrates the spiritual world. On the other hand, it consists of that part of the body which takes in nourishment, and the physical world penetrates into this part. But also the social organism is threefold, for on the one hand, we find that it is influenced by all that which gives rise to demands, to requirements, which must never be produced by the economic process itself; and on the other hand, it is influenced by that which Nature produces. This leads us to a threefold structure, for in the middle lies that which unites these two spheres.

In order to perceive the immense fruitfulness, the social fruitfulness of the above thought, it suffices to consider the following fact:—According to the explanations given above, an isolated process, an economic process, should never give rise to demands, but demands should instead come from outside, through some other cultural process, through an ethical process, or something similar.

During unsound times, demands arise through purely economic processes, and people who cannot think soundly rejoice over this. During the time which led to our present social catastrophe, during the time in which the social cancerous growth, the present social cancer, gradually began to develop, people tried in every way to produce demands for goods through processes which did not come from the social structure itself, but which entered it from outside, which came from some other cultural task of humanity, from social processes which were called into being artificially. You could, for instance, read over and over again the following advertisement: “Cook good soups with Maggi!”—Well, the demand for “Maggi” would certainly not have arisen, had it not been advertised!

Advertising has come out of the purely economic sphere. It does not give rise to real demands. To produce demands in such a way as to arouse an artificial interest in certain goods, is unsound and a source of illness to the social organism. It is just the same as if a physician were to induce a boy to learn more diligently by giving him a stimulating powder, so that his stomach makes him more diligent, instead of his being stimulated to study by moral forces.

This social bungling, these social tricks, which arise by saddling everything on to a so-called “monon”, on to a social homunculus, have led to the catastrophes of the present time. For the social organism itself, should never produce, on the one hand, demands, and on the other goods. The goods must be supplied to the social organism by the foundation of Nature. And the course of human development itself, must supply to the social organism the demands for goods.

A social problem should never become, for instance, a problem of population, for this would imply a misunderstanding of the connections which exist between the human being and political economy. This would mean that in our time we do not know the difference between a pig and a human being, as I explained to you yesterday, at the end of my lecture, and it would lead to our making a social problem out of the problem of population.

Political-economic reasons should never determine whether an increase in the population is desirable, or whether it is to kept upon a certain level; other reasons, of an ethical, spiritual kind, should be called in for this. When considering such a problem, we should particularly bear in mind that if a considerable increase in population is obtained through artificial means, we force the souls who would only have incarnated after four or five centuries, to come down prematurely, and consequently, in a deteriorated condition. Under certain conditions, an increase in the population implies a coercion for souls who are thus forced to incarnate in a physical body under unfavourable conditions. This would give rise to moral corruption.

The problem of increase, stability, or decrease in the population, should never be a political-economic problem, but a moral-ethical one in short, a problem connected with a spiritual conception of the world with a spiritual conception of life.

All these things can only follow a sound course of development if they are grasped in a spiritual-scientific manner. You will therefore recognise the necessity of giving a spiritual-scientific foundation to all the thoughts which are connected with social problems. If you really wish to study the horrible things which are now said and written in connection with the social problem you would see that the unfruitfulness contained in all these calls for the application of that sharp, clear way of thinking which these questions entail.

Even as the blind follower's of Plato and of Aristotle had to come to the point of saying: “Man, as a slave, cannot be considered as goods”, so the followers of modern humanity must learn to say: “In no case can human labour be considered as goods”, for other impulses, not the value of products, should induce men to serve and to work for their fellows.

The economic value of goods produced by labour should never be fixed in accordance with the labour accumulated within the goods, nor by the labour saved through the goods, but only in accordance with the justified tension which exists between the goods and human demands. Neither the labour accumulated in the goods, nor the labour saved through them, constitutes the decisive factor, for our labour does not place us within an economic process, we do not work in order to save labour, but we produce goods in order that there may be a certain tension between the goods produced and the corresponding demand .

The corresponding demand may determine that goods which entailed a great amount of work must, under certain conditions, be sold cheaply—and, within a sound economic process, the demand may determine that a product involving little work obtains a higher price. Consequently the work involved can never be the decisive factor.

This is evident from the explanations given above. Those who have an insight into such things, consequently recognise the radical necessity of not seeking the impulses which give rise to human labour in the economic value of goods, but on quite a different direction, which is determined by the above-mentioned state of tension.

Only those who have an insight into such things can arrive at a decision in connection with the two important social problems which face us at the present time: compulsory labour, which is the aim of the Bolshevists, and the right to work, or any other name which we may give to it. Those who do not penetrate to the depths indicated to-day, will always talk in a confused way, no matter whether they speak officially, of compulsory labour, or the right to work, or whether they simply follow certain aims. Only those who penetrate to the depths of reality have a right to speak of such questions. Indeed, it is a serious matter to-day to acquire the right to have a say in such things.

In my next lecture I shall continue to speak on this subject.

We can really say that at the present time a deep tragedy lies over humanity. Many of the lectures which I have recently delivered to you, will have shown you this, for they dealt, to a great extent, with the development of the social problem, of the social riddle of our time. Particularly in regard to this social riddle we may say that a certain deep tragedy now lies over humanity. For we can see that the social problem, which many people—particularly the so-called intellectuals—consider more or less as a theoretical question, is now taking on a truly significant and a very practical form, throughout vast territories of the civilised world.

The tragic aspect of this matter is that wherever the social problem now rises to the surface in practical life, we find that men of every profession and of every social class, are very badly prepared to face the social situation of the present. People of every standing, who are now confronting this situation, which does not only oblige them, as in the past, to speak about the social problem, but also to form a judgment concerning this or that question connected with the social development, (it is easy to see that this is entailed by the conditions of the present do not find any starting point which might enable them to form a judgment. They do not find the possibility to develop the right way of thinking which might enable them to form the judgments which the present time so urgently requires. Do we not see that the leading men of the bourgeoisie adopt for daily use—and even for the weekly and yearly use of their thinking!—certain forms of thought coming (though this is not always clearly evident) from the modern natural-scientific way of thinking. People who think at all to-day, think in natural-scientific terms, even though they do not have any ideas concerning natural-scientific subjects; they think in the way in which it is right to think in natural science; they think in the direction developed through modern natural science.

But this kind of thinking does not make us progress one stop in social matters! As a rule, people do not want to admit this. They prefer to ascribe, the present chaos to all kinds of different causes. They are not yet willing to face the fact that they should really admit to themselves: We are confronting a social chaos, as far as the great majority of the civilised world is concerned; we must learn to judge things, yet through our present habit of thinking we cannot obtain any essential fact enabling us to form true judgments.

If we really wish to bear in mind the whole weighty tragedy of the above-mentioned fact, we must consider the following: The events which are now rising to the surface have slowly prepared themselves ever since the 16th and 17th century; since that time, the leaders of humanity have not really done anything to develop true judgments in regard to that which is really needed. The economic orders which existed up to the 16th and 17th century have been dispersed; now they exist no longer. We might say that up to the middle of the 19th century, they were replaced by a kind of economic chaos, or rather, an economic anarchy. Ever since the middle of the 19th century, humanity has been striving to form social corporations able to break the existing economic anarchy. But it strove after this with insufficient means.

Let us now consider this situation; lot us observe it at least more closely.

If we look back to the time which preceded the 17th and 17th century, we find that people were then gathered together into more or less stable associations, in accordance with their profession or trade. To-day we do not know much about the inner structure of these associations, but they were organised and structured in such a way as to offer a certain satisfaction to the people of that time. In these professional associations, which existed in the form of corporations, guilds, etc., the individual human beings were able to take a full human interest in the organisation of their particular sphere of work. One might say, that every man had a full share in the interests of his corporation; all his own aspirations were connected with it. If he was an apprentice and belonged to such a corporation, he could hope to become a journeyman and finally a master. He could cherish the hope of climbing up the social ladder. Under certain conditions, these organisations were more or less useful in the development of humanity.

Then the new age dawned. Through our spiritual-scientific studies, the true inner character of this modern age is known to us. In a conscious way, man seeks to place himself at the very summit of his own personality. He seeks to unfold the consciousness-soul. This is the inner impulse of the forces which are now struggling to come to the fore and which are now developing, though various conditions mask this. The old organisations, which had arisen from entirely different aspirations, were no longer suited for the development of the personal, individual element, after which humanity was now striving. We therefore see that from the 16th and 17th century onward, a certain individualism begins to develop also in the sphere of economic life and that the old associations, the old communities, are demolished.

During the time of transition, we discern certain transitional phenomena in this process of demolishment: during the 16th and 17th century, we discern a transitional form of development which we might call a monopolisation of various branches of production. Particularly under the influence of the economic individualism, we can discern the development of a kind of anti-monopoly movement, and this really lasts until the middle of the 19th century. Then it passes over to the modern capitalistic production.

In a certain way modern production reckons with individualism. The old communities were dispersed, and the economic initiative was now taken over by individual human beings, by the capitalists. They became the contractors and employers, and from their daring and initiative it depended whether the economic life prospered or not.

By the side of this, we have the development of modern technical life, which entirely transformed the whole economic life. It was this transformation which really gave rise to the modern proletarian class. As a result, we have on the one hand the development of capitalism, and on the other hand the development of the proletariat. Through a hand to mouth existence, and finally through the lack of interest and understanding on the part of the leaders of economic life, a complete misunderstanding arose between the leading capitalists and their followers, and the working proletarian population.

You see, the great majority of men who are now bungling with the social problem in this or in that way, really overlook the great differences which now exist throughout the world in regard to the social life of humanity. We should bear in mind that in recent times, the western states and North America have completely turned towards a direction which might be called a bourgeois democracy.

This bourgeois democracy reckons with certain ideals of liberty and of equality, and applies those ideals to economic life. But to a certain extent, this bourgeois democracy has remained behind, for it applies the principles, or rather the programmes of the bourgeoisie, in the form in which they arose before the time of modern engineering. In the western countries we therefore see the development of this bourgeois democracy, and we see it calling into existence its own corporations and a certain social structure; yet it gradually becomes permeated by an element which results from the modern engineering age, it becomes permeated by the proletarian element. These western countries, however, do not reckon seriously with the proletarian population.

In Central Europe, the development of the modern age has shown the trend of things in a fearfully clear way. What has been the fundamental character of the central European states? Their essential character consisted in a state-structure based upon very old, traditional forms. In Central Europe, and even in Russia the ideas which influenced the mentality which was connected with the state, had been handed down from very ancient times. These ideas had been preserved—no matter whether they were monarchical or non-monarchical, for this is not so important—but they had been preserved in such a way that the old corporations developed into the so-called modern states. These modern states of central Europe, stretching as far as Russia, are in reality remnants of medieval thoughts and feelings. Their structure is in keeping with medieval elements. But life does not adapt itself to obsolete ideas. In the countries where such obsolete structures arose, something else appeared as well, out of a necessity which was far stronger than that which had been transplanted from the Middle Ages: the economic structure, the economic body arose. And this economic body has laws of own, it demands its own laws.

The thoroughly pathological process now arose that modern economic life and its requirements turned to the old government structures; people thought that economic life could be permeated with these old state-structures. Economic life, which was, or rather is, a completely new element, was to be incorporated with the body of the state, although this had grown out of entirely different conditions.

Than came the modern catastrophe, the terrible catastrophe of the past years. This catastrophe clearly showed (what I am telling you now, helps us to understand its course) that it is impossible to unite modern economic life with an obsolete state structure, with the ideas connected with such a state. That this catastrophe has become a crisis during the last months, is evident through the fact that the central European structures have been swept away. They do not exist any more, and also the economic body has disappeared. Any man of insight can perceive that in the future course of events it would be impossible to couple together the new economic demands with the old state corporations, because these old corporations were swept away, instead of becoming modernised in accordance with the requirements of modern life.

Here, we face a very strange outlook. This movement which must spread over the whole of humanity, has, for the time being, been arrested in the western countries. But it can only be arrested so long as the old bourgeois-democratic impulses, which do not take into account modern economic life, are still strong enough to suppress the proletarian life. But when this proletarian life can no longer be suppressed in the western countries, the short-sighted people there, will realise that they have been gambling with life! Yet they do not wish to listen to this, before it is too late!

In the central European and in the eastern countries of Europe the spark has already fallen into the powder barrel. It is an anachronism to speak—out of pure laziness—of ideas which no longer exist, of concepts which have disappeared completely. Yet in certain circles, people still speak of Russia, of Germany, and even of Austria which has ceased to exist externally, they still speak of these countries, and do not realise that they should turn instead to new ideas. Some people still talk in this way, whereas in these countries it is clearly evident that impulses which have been handed down from the past must be abandoned. Even in thought, they should be given up. People, however, find it difficult to understand that they should not merely judge the things that lie under their very nose, for those judgments will never be conclusive; they should learn instead to develop now thoughts, new ideas. Yet modern people find it so difficult to understand this!

This unwillingness on the part of modern men to understand how necessary it is to-day to acquire new ideas, new concepts, is chiefly based upon the fact that these modern men have a firm belief in the ideas which have been developed during the past centuries, they are firmly convinced of a manner of thinking which is wonderfully suited to natural-scientific spheres of work, but which is absolutely unsuited to social problems, it cannot be applied to the solution of social problems! Yet people do not want to grasp this. They are not willing to see that they have developed a definite kind of thinking, and that the life which has now come to the fore in the external world calls for a kind of thinking which entirely differs from the existing kind. Yet people find it so difficult to understand this, although the facts themselves speak a tremendously clear language.

Let me indicate one fact, which is eminently instructive, if we consider it in the right way. Men who took a more unprejudiced interest in modern life, experienced, one might say, a kind of theoretical surprise in the early nineties of the past century, when the German social democrats, who were the most advanced people in this direction, passed over from their old ideal to that of the so-called “Erfurt Programme” (elaborated in the early nineties at Erfurt, during the Congress of the Social Democratic Party). The old ideal, if I may use this expression for certain propagandistic aims, still contained an unscientific way of thinking, it contained thoughts which had nothing to do with natural science. But the Erfurt Programme led the modern proletarian movement into a superstitious attitude in regard to natural-scientific thought. From that time onwards, the proletarians endeavour to master the whole social question by applying to it scientifically trained thoughts.

We might say: Before the elaboration of the Erfurt Programme, the social-democratic ideals of the proletariat converged in two points, two ideals. These two points were in the first place, the suppression of the system of paid labour, and in the second place: the elimination of every social and political inequality.

These two points were still based upon a far more universal way of thinking; which proceeded from judgments which were based more upon instinct and feeling. During the last centuries, these judgments rose up into human consciousness, and people began to look upon the human being as the centre of every social endeavor. Paid work, the system of paid labour, was to be suppressed. That is to say, man should be given the possibility to lead an existence in keeping with human dignity (this was a rather muddled idea, but we can develop it clearly with the aid of spiritual science), human labour was no longer to be placed on an equal footing with objects sold as goods, it was no longer to be treated as merchandise. The system of paid labour was to be suppressed and replaced by something which would no longer compel the human being to sell his personal labour. This concept still took into account something universally human. And it was the same with the idea of suppressing social and political inequality.

With the so-called Erfurt Programme, this thought which lay at the foundation of the socialistic ideal of earlier times was given up at the beginning of the nineties of the 19th century. Two other points were now taken as real goals, as aims. These two points were: In the first place, the transformation of capitalistic private property into collective property, that is to say, the collective control of the means of production. Machines, landed property, etc. were to pass over from private proprietorship into collective proprietorship. This was the first point. The second point was the transformation of the production of goods into socialistic production, controlled through and for the communistic body.

These two items on the programme are altogether adapted in their manner of thinking to the purely natural-scientific thoughts of modern times. In this programme it is no longer a question of man acquiring or conquering something; it is no longer a question of suppressing the system of paid labour; it is no longer a question of eliminating social and political inequalities, but it is a question of something which completely eliminates the human being as such, of a process which ignores the human being, a process which takes its course under the influence of cause and effect, in the same way in which processes of Nature take their course under the influence of cause and effect. It is simply a question of transforming the private property of means of production into a collective property, and what the human being experiences through this transformation is quite an indifferent matter. And the economic order is no longer to be a production of goods, but a socialistic production; the community itself is to produce, and the goods produced are to exist for the collective community. Goods produced by private individual initiative, and brought on to the market in order to be purchased by others, is a process which differs from the socialistic production of goods. The socialistic production applies, as it were, the principle of individual production, where the producer himself consumes the goods which he produces, to the whole community. The production of goods reckons with individual human beings. One individual produces something, brings it on to the market, and another individual takes it away from the market by purchasing it. But the socialistic production returns to the primitive form of production, where every human being produces the goods which he consumes (at least people imagine that this was once the case!); now this is to be done by the whole community. The market ceases to exist, for the community produces the goods which it consumes. The goods produced are no longer merchandise, but they are distributed among those who belong to the community. Those who produce the goods are also the consumers.

In this case, purely natural-scientific concepts are applied to the social organism. You see, modern men do not like to bear in mind differences such as these in the socialistic programme before the Erfurt Congress and after the Erfurt Congress, they do not like to bear in mind such differences, because to-day people do not like to think, in spite of the fact that they are so proud of their thinking.

Now we must consider another misery. We can study it particularly well if we consider one of the classical writers, who have dealt with the social problem, when this problem was still: a more theoretical question—for instance a writer such us Karl Kautsky.

In one of his books, Kautsky tries to prove that the capitalistic economic order should be transformed into a socialistic order, and he says that in this transition the production of goods must cease. It must be replaced by self-consumption, so that the consumer is at the same time the producer, that is to say, a community is producer. At the same time, he advances the problem: What people are to form this community? And he replies: This can only be the modern state, the government. That is to say, he gives an answer which he should not have given. He did not realise, and people of his type do not even realise this to-day, that the state, which they call a modern state, is in no way a modern structure. The states of central and of eastern Europe which were swept away, were not modern structures, for they existed upon the foundation of old traditions, and not upon those contained in modern economic life; it was therefore impossible to establish a connection between modern economic life and these obsolete state-structures, as people of Kautsky's type imagined.

These states were therefore swept away, and what has remained of them is something spectral and ghostly, which continues to haunt the minds of men; this too will be swept away… nothing will remain except problems in every sphere of practical life,—only problems will remain.

A completely new way of thinking will be needed in order to reply to these questions, which are not theoretical questions, but facts. This new way of thinking exists, as I have explained to you in our lectures, in our spiritual-scientific conception. This new way of thinking consists in the realisation of the fact that it is necessary to study the fundamental laws of a human organisation in the same way in which spiritual science studies the fundamental laws of the individual human organisation.

When we study the fundamental laws of the individual human organism, we come to the threefold structure of the nerves and senses: the rhythmic system and the metabolic system. And we can only understand the human being within the course of time if we understand the interplay of these three systems in the human organism.

In the sphere of external life, this corresponds to the understanding of the three members of the social organism. The social organism must be subdivided into a spiritual system, an economic system, and a juridical system, which should however exclude jurisprudence as such, which should only contain the external juridical system, the political juridical system.

Even as modern natural science does not wish to kn0w anything concerning the threefold structure of man and treats alike everything which exists in the human being, so modern social thinkers do not wish to know anything concerning the body's threefold structure. Just because they do not wish to know anything concerning the threefold structure of the social body, they are so helpless and perplexed, and they will continue to be without advice, so long as they refuse to know what must really be done in the face of the great practical requirements of daily life. A regeneration of thinking is needed. It is necessary to perceive that modern natural-scientific concepts, which are very useful in certain fields, cannot bring us forward one step, in the sphere of social life.

We my thus observe some very strange phenomena. Indeed, it is not astounding that people begin to think in a more or less social way, and before the fearful catastrophe of recent years broke out, which partly revealed the original aspect of the social enigma, it was not surprising that certain people began to think in a social way. Particularly if we study the thoughts and conceptions of some of the leading teachers of national economy, we can perceive how helpless they really are in the face of the phenomena which now present themselves.

As an example, let me read you a definition which Jaffe, a national economist of some repute in certain circles, gave for the ideal condition of a social organism. In thoughts which entirely come from ideas developed in this field by modern humanity, Jaffe describes what he thinks he ought to describe and then he recapitulates and gives an idea of the social condition which would correspond to modern requirements and to the requirements of the modern industrial development, as well as to other forms of development. Consider this definition, which is, I might say, exceedingly clear and does not constitute one of the insignificant products of modern national economic thinking. Let me read to you quite slowly what Jaffe indicates as the ideal future condition of the social organism. It is that condition of the economic order in which all parts of the nation grow together into an organic whole, and in which every part has its assigned place. Each part belongs to the whole as a serving member of the community, which in the end serves each single part. This condition not only guarantees outwardly an existence which is in keeping with human dignity, but it also ennobles man's work and confers dignity: upon it, because it does not pursue individual aims, but is service on behalf of the general welfare.

I believe that a great number of people who think altogether in accordance with modern habits of thought, will find that this is an extremely clever definition and quite to the point. They will even say that it contains everything that can be desired. Within an ideal economic order, every individual human should have his assigned place, the place which suits him and where he can fulfil his tasks. His work should not only guarantee him an existence in keeping with human dignity but through the fact that he places' it at the service of the community, the community: should to at his service. Such a definition impresses many people, who believe that they can think soundly; it will give them the impression:“My God, how clever I am, for at last I have discovered how matters really stand!

Poverty comes from pauvreté—this too is a definition, and Jaffe's definition does not differ much from it! For it can be applied to the present social organisation, at least to the one which existed before the war, and also to the conditions which existed in various countries, for example, in Germany, during the war. Yet we can say at the same time that this definition does note apply to any State, Such a definition is the very pattern of abstraction.

We therefore find to-day that people think out many systems, yet the definitions which they advance do not in any way approach reality,

Take, for instance, Jaffe's definition. He describes an ideal economic condition of the future. This is an economic organisation in which every member of the nation forms part of an organic whole. In reality, this occurs whenever a state arises,even in the worst kind of state. In spite of everything, all parts of the nation have somehow grown together into an organic whole; they form an organic whole in spite of everything. But when a man has leprosy, every part of his body is leprous, and all these leprous parts form an organic whole. Consequently, the same definition may be applied both to a sound and to a diseased body.

Nobody notices this, so long as the definition remains mere theory. But when a situation such as the present one arises, that is to say, when the disease has broken out and a healing treatment becomes necessary, then the concepts which people generally have, prove absolutely useless.

Jaffe continues: “Where everyone has his assigned place, as a serving member of the community”. Well, this is really the case in Germany, for example… With the exception of a few men who do not wish to have anything to do with the state, the great majority of people are serving members within a whole. At least, they give their votes. “Serving member of a community which finally serves each one”: This, too, is correct, for it can be applied even to the worst form of government. “It does not only guarantee him outwardly his existence” there may be some meaning in this, but it is a phrase, an empty appendage, for it is simply one of the usual phrases. In the words, “which ennobles his work and confers dignity upon it”, it is essential to bear in mind what is meant by “ennobling” and “dignity”… “Because it does not pursue individual aims, but is service on behalf of the general welfare”—this can be applied even to the worst state!

You see, therefore, that a smart definition advanced by an economist of repute is not much better than the definition, poverty comes from pauvreté! The great majority of men now suffers under such abstract unrealities. For people hardly have an idea of the reality which lives and weaves behind the phenomena. Think how far they are from considering and applying a truth such as that of the threefold structure, which we have advanced as something fundamental and essential! People still believe that
they can discover a formula, let us say for the “socialisation” of life, for this has become a catchword.

Though the comparison may be somewhat lame, this is not much better than the discovery of a science through which one can digest! In real life, the human organism must digest. In order to do this, it must have a threefold structure, and it can maintain its life-functions through a right cooperation of the three members. If we give a threefold structure to a community, it will not be necessary to discover formulae for the socialisation of life, for this will take place of its own accord.

Think how immensely complicated are the processes which take place within the human organism! Imagine how difficult it would be to think out all that occurs within you during the two hours after your lunch! You have eaten your lunch and you digest the food, but this is a tremendously complicated process, which consists of innumerable details. Imagine that your digestion were to depend on the fact that you have to think it out—in that case you would not be able to live one single day!

Committees assemble at this or at that place and they discuss ways and means of socialising life. Yet the public life of humanity is through and through g complicated process; and its details can be grasped just as little as, for instance, the details of the digestive process, or the thinking process, or the breathing process. But the right thing will take place, if we allow the impulses of a threefold structure to work together!

Take the following example: To-day it is hardly possible to read the books of socialistic or social writers, without wondering at their surprising store of knowledge. Socialistic writers, even more than those of the middle classes, have collected a mass of statistical and historical material, reaching as far as the present time, in order to find out what course of development would be needed at present. The course of human development is to teach them, let us say, how to socialise life.

Yet a strange thing arises within this process which takes place in the human community. These writers grasp a phenomenon by one of its ends, but immediately it slips away from them at the other end! If they begin to socialise life in the way which they consider best, by taking hold of things at one end, everything slip away again at the other end.

An example can illustrate this: Let us, consider the following fact: In 1910, an American factory of rails produced in two and a half days as many rails as one week's output of ten years previously. That is to say, this factory put on the market in two and a half days the number of rails which they produced in 1900 in one week. In spite of this, the workmen worked for a whole week.

In order to obtain a conception of the relationship existing between employer and workmen, we must say: The workmen who continue to work for the whole week after the year 1900, really produce in that time the double amount of work. Of course, each workman produces the double amount of work for the market, and many conditions show him this. This increased labour on the part of the workman is naturally expressed in the proletarian problem. The workman is of course fully aware of the fact that the employer earns twice as much, and factors arise which induce him to demand twice as much pay from the employer. If we now theorize and say, it is not necessary to pay the workman twice as much, but he ought. to receive so and so much more, we only take hold of things by one end. But at the other end, they slip away, for the rail of course become so and so much cheaper. The cheaper price of the rails then reflects itself in other phenomena of social life, and corrects the proletarian problem which arises, on the one hand. We can really say that conditions are so complicated within the social organism, that if any question is tackled from one aspect, other aspects immediately arise which paralyze the solution which we advance.

Let us now take another example:—Take the national economy of Germany. I have already explained to you in past lectures that engines, mechanical labour, relieve humanity, as it were, from human labour. Particularly in the economic life of Germany, which has developed enormously, we can say that in the last decades engines—apart from locomotives—have done the work of 70 to 80 millions of men, which is more than the population of Germany. Only a part of Germany's population consists of workmen; consequently, in the years before the war, and through the new economic order, a workman in Germany did the work of four of five men together, he worked four or five times as much as a workman before the introduction of mechanical labour.

Think what a change this meant to life in general! But the phenomena which thus arise, appear at so many different points in life, that a socialisation carried put from any one standpoint, would bring about the worst possible results from other standpoints.

Social life is just as complicated as the life of an organic being. It is not our task to discover formulae for that which should take place, but we should instead give the social organism a structure which enables it to work spontaneously, so that it orders its processes, in the same way in which the human organisms brings in order its functions. This is the only point which should be borne in mind.

You therefore see that matters should be grasped from quite a different standpoint; we should namely bear in mind that it is necessary to penetrate into the real being and essence of the social organism. This is far more important than any discussion connected with the building up of a community.

For the countries of central and eastern Europe, it will be an excellent school to realise very soon that it is no longer possible to talk in the usual way of the socialization of the means of production. People still talk of these things in accordance with old habits of thought, and they forget that the States no longer exist, that they have disappeared, and must be replaced by something quite new. These people will elect, to begin with, statesmen whose heads are still filled with obsolete concepts, and these statesmen will do things in accordance with these old ideas. The result, however, will not be real and living; it will resemble a human being just as little as the Homunculus in Wagner's test-tube. In the end, they will realise that it is impossible for them to continue along the old paths. Practical life itself will convince them that the confused ideas which arose during the past decades cannot possibly cope with the practical situation which must be faced in the present time.

This will draw your attention to the fact that it is necessary above all to investigate real life, so that reality, real life lead us to the question: What shape can the demands of social life take on at the present time?

There is one thing which I have emphasized again and again: Let the proletarians say whatever they like… As a rule, it is quite indifferent what people say to-day, for they only voice that which exists in their upper consciousness, whereas that which they really need, the essential thing which they require, lives in their sub-consciousness.

We hardly ever learn to know people through what they say. We gain a far better knowledge of their true being, by considering that which confusedly comes out of their sub•;consciousness. The way in which they talk, tells us far more than the actual content of their words, far more than what they say. For the content of their words is generally handed down from a moribund or already lifeless epoch. The new element is something which is rooted in man's sub-psychical regions.

We find that the proletarian population propagates everywhere categorical ideas. These are mere words learnt by rote through Marxism, or derived from some other source. The true impulse (and how many impulses there are!) is that human labour should not be allowed to be considered as a merchandise.

If we were to ask a modern proletarian, what he is really striving for, he would reply: I want State-controlled means of production, I want socialisation, etc., etc. But he would speak the truth, if he would stress the following point, among the many which we learn to know in their true aspect: “What I really want, is that my labour should no longer be treated as a merchandise, but as something quite different.”

Modern thought is therefore a compound off' the very oldest elements And of something which the human souls contain in their sub-conscious depths, as the newest, most modern requirement. But the human beings are not conscious of this demands arise which have lost every meaning for a great number of educated people, old forms of community life are to take the place of private employers.

In the case of States which have ceased to exist, it is really grotesque to think that the government should take the place of private employers. People think that something which no longer exists can replace the employers and they blunder over this problem. Modern thinking and feeling have really ended in a blind alley!

To-morrow we shall speak more in detail concerning the question of how a government or any other community can or cannot take the place of private employers.

Socialistic thinkers believe that what they designate as the socialistic economic order is an immediate and causal continuation of what has gradually arisen within the economic order during the past centuries of human development. Those. who now adopt the proletarian socialistic conception of life, think as it were, that the capitalistic economic order must gradually, and of its own accord, pass over to the socialistic economic order, for the simple reason that the socialistic economic order is already contained within that which has developed through capitalism during the past centuries. In order to define this train of thought more precisely some people say: When any human order, or any life-structure has reached its culminating point, the summit of its development, then it already contains the seed of the following course of development.

You see, from an external aspect, from a statistical aspect as it were (and socialistic scientists above all love statistics),. there is a great deal in what I have explained to you as the socialistic order. The process can shortly be characterised as follows: In certain spheres, modern technical engineering has led over into industry a process which was formerly entrusted to the individual human being, and which could be fully surveyed by him. As a very characteristic example, it suffices to consider the modern steel industry; quite a number of manipulations had to be comprised within it. Finally, these all culminated in the production of certain goods, which could only be produced by amalgamating certain complicated processes. Great masses of capital are needed in order to run the gigantic industrial concerns which modern economic life has called into existence, great accumulations of capital, against which the economic life of earlier times appears ridiculous. This accumulation of capital enables individual owners, or group of owners of such gigantic concerns to employ a large number of workmen. Through the fact that these industrial concerns have taken on such a gigantic size, they are able to assemble and to employ a large number of workmen. Moreover, the conditions of transport have led, to the circumstance that these large concerns cannot isolate themselves, because they must reckon with competition, so that, in a certain way, they had to amalgamate, thus creating still larger groups of employers and of workmen belonging to certain definite spheres of life. Modern socialists believe that the modern socialistic idea has led to the socialisation of industry, and that the accompanying phenomena of this socialisation must necessarily continue the whole process.

The continuation of this process would be that a community of workmen is no longer brought together by individual employers, but that they are instead employed by a common body, the State, the Commune, or Syndicates. Consequently, the socialistic process which has already been called into existence by the technical economic life of modern times, can continue in a regular way.

The above idea has a tremendously suggestive influence upon the modern proletariat. If the conditions of social: life are to be understood, it is also necessary to study the soul constitution of the modern proletariat. There we find that such ideas exercise a strong, suggestive power over the minds of modern proletarians, which consists therein that workmen believe that they are completely at the mercy of their employers. They think that they can only escape from this bondage if they have a share in the activities of the employers.

It is characteristic trait of modern men (and this is due to many reasons) that they have a predilection for one-sided thoughts. Yet many conditions of the present can only be healed if modern men lose this habit of surrendering to one-sided ideas, and if they learn to consider things from all sides. If we view the development of capitalism end the technical economic life of the present merely from the aspect that it must finally culminate in the socialisation of industrial life, we simply apply modern natural-scientific ideas to economic life. I have already explained this to you yesterday, from another standpoint.

But if we merely consider things from a natural-scientific aspect, if we merely apply to them the natural-scientific forms of thought developed in modern times, certain impulses necessarily fall away, remain unnoticed. Of course, when such things are explained, many things can be misunderstood and consequently contested. But you know what methods are required, particularly from a spiritual-scientific aspect, so that it will not be difficult for you to see that the following explanations throw light upon things only from one aspect, namely from the aspect which is required in this particular case.

The purely natural-scientific aspect, which considers things only in accordance with the law of cause and effect, can be applied both to a sound and to an unsound organism. A sound organism can be studied from a physiological aspect, and by following natural science it will always be possible to ascertain the connections of cause and effect, But if this abstract connection of cause and effect is maintained, this same manner of thinking can just as well be applied to a diseased organism, it can be studied in this way from a pathological aspect. Even in a diseased organism, everything can be found to be in accordance with the law of cause and effect. But if we base a sequence of events upon this one-sided, abstract foundation, the law of cause and effect, then the impulse which must in one case be designated as impulse of health, and in the other case as the impulse of disease, necessarily falls away, remains unnoticed. It is not contained in such a manner of contemplating things. This has no serious consequences in natural science itself, and in tasks immediately connected with natural science. But if the natural-scientific way of thinking is applied to the study of social processes, it can have very serious consequences, for it is not possible to distinguish without further ado the difference between something that is sound or unsound in the course of human development. This is impossible

It must be emphasized that the way in which people now face social questions, which have become so urgent, does not enable them to distinguish whether a process is sound or unsound, whether it should be furthered of healed. Indeed, we can say that the deep tragedy of the present has befallen humanity, because people cannot see this difference, which has just now been characterised to a certain extent.

If we consider the development of humanity during the past three or four centuries, if we study above all the development of what has been designated as capitalism, another standpoint must be borne in mind, as well as the one that smaller industrial concerns were swallowed up by the gigantic industries of modern times, etc. We must, for example, face this question, which is a decisive on: What position does the capitalistic production take up within the social process of humanity as a whole?

Things can only be judged in the right way if we compare the modern capitalistic production to the craftsmanship of past times, and if we make this comparison from a certain definite standpoint. The artisan of olden times produced his goods and delivered them to the consumer, and the money which he thus earned enabled him to live, provided the foundation for his existence.

If we study the life of such a craftsman and the industrial process of the past, if we go back to about 1300 B.C., we shall find that people were paid for the goods which they had made, or else they exchanged them for other goods. The articles which they manufactured, provided the foundation of their existence.

In a certain sense, this economic life was a restricted one, but it was closely linked up with the individual human being., Lad every form of production was therefore linked up with personal skill, personal diligence, and the personal ambition to do something as well as possible, and so forth. Significant moral impulses were connected with economic life in those days of simple craftsmanship.

During the past three to four centuries all this changed. After a period of transition, which went from the 15th century to about the 16th/17th century, a complete change took place during the past three to four centuries. For, what may be designated as the capitalistic production, as capitalistic industry, only developed during the past three to four centuries.

If we wish to understand that which really lies at the foundation of the social question, if we do not only base ourselves upon that which people think, the following characteristic must be borne in mind: For a capitalist, in so far as he is a member of the capitalistic economic order, the essential point is not that of providing for his own existence, of forming a life foundation through his capital, but the essential point is for him that of increasing his capital, of seeing to it that it grows. This increase in capital constitutes the profit. Consequently, the aim of the capitalistic economic order is not that of earning money enabling the capitalists to meet their cost of living, but its aim is that of making profits, of increasing the capital. This is its characteristic trait, and this gives capital, as such, a high degree of independence.

When the process of production or the industrial process grows in the course of the years through the accumulation of capital, when this industrial process grows and forms the incentive of accumulating capital, then the chief element in this economic process really becomes separated from the individual human being from every personal element. If we wish to understand the social question, we must bear in mind above all the following standpoint: that the economic process becomes emancipated from the personal element, from the individual human being.

Unfortunately to-day only a small minority belonging to the cultivated classes really feels inclined to deal with such things; for if people were to occupy themselves with such matters they would see that the human being has, as it were, become separated from everything which constitutes the economic process. Tell me, where can we find to-day genuine pleasure in the production of goods, and with the exception of a few restricted circles, where do people find true enjoyment in the production of goods? The decisive element of past economic orders, that, for instance, a man felt the keenest pleasure in every key made by his own hands, and that he saw a point of honour in making it as perfect as possible—this belongs to the past. The human beings have become separated, as it were, from the economic process as such. Only in the artistic field or in that which is related to the sphere of art, we may still come across that element which once permeated craftsmanship.

Even in spiritual life, we cannot say that man is still connected with what he brings forth. Think of all the professors who are active in his or in that field; and ask yourselves whether they are really humanly connected with what they produce!

But these are facts which are intimately connected with the capitalistic economic order, which extends its influence over everything. The concluding remarks of yesterday's lecture will have shown this to you.

The fundamental character of the capitalistic economic order reveals that in regard to his personal aspirations, man is; as it were, cut off from the economic process which has become more and more objectivated, This has brought about a far-reaching result, which influences the whole socialistic conception of today, for it has given rise to the belief that it is necessary to establish this unnatural separation within the economic order of the present time, so that the human being himself is cut off from that which interests him. Where do we find people to-day who think that it is necessary to re-establish the connection between the human being and that which he produces?

We do not find them anywhere. On the contrary, people think that the economic process should be distanced as far as possible from man, should be separated from the human being. What is the result of this? All that is connected with the human personality; the needs of the human being as such, have to satisfied in other spheres. This is the consequence of that prejudice which is designated as the socialistic ideal.

Let us now consider what this socialistic ideal really means to-day among large circles:

There are four points which recapitulate everything that constitutes the socialistic ideal, as far as the structure of the social organism of humanity is concerned. In the first place, the socialistic ideal aims at appropriating all industrial concerns for the community, no matter whether this community is the State, the Commune, or a Syndicate. In other words, industrial concerns or means of production which are private property are to be eliminated, so that these concerns are run by a community.

The second aim of the socialistic ideal is that production be regulated according to the requirement, or the demand, that is to say, production should no longer be regulated by the free market, where offer and demand hold sway, but when there is a demand for some article in this or in that direction, a corresponding branch of production should be opened, with the provision that the State, the Commune or a Syndicate determine, as it were, that this article is needed and that the community accordingly opens an industrial concern for the production of this article.

The third point is the democratic regulation of the conditions of work and pay.

The fourth point is that profits belong to the community.

This constitutes more or less the four points of the socialistic ideal, which we have now set before you.

You see, millions and millions of people see in these four points the aim of their ambitions. In view of these facts, it is absolutely necessary to ask ourselves: How can we make people realise that these four so-called ideals are absolutely impossible within a real human community?

If thirty years ago there had been as much zeal for social questions as is the case to-day in countries where the old governments have been chased away (a genuine interest in social questions has not yet awakened in countries where. the old governments still exist);we might even say, if thirty years ago people had shown the same interest for social problems which they show for them to-day, matters might have taken another course of development, a better course of development. But unless people are near to drowning, no genuine interest can be awakened to-day for social questions. What the leading men of the so-called intelligent bourgeoisie have missed in this direction, during the past two or three decades, is immense. And they continue in this direction, they go on ignoring this, but in another sphere.

What is needed to-day, above everything else, is that people should realise that not only the individual human organism, but also the social organism, must now be understood in a spiritual-scientific manner. Meaningless abstractions must be abandoned. For a connection can be found with deeper human interests, with deeper human impulses, and these are beginning to work in the present epoch of human development.

The sleepiness of modern humanity is immense, and an awakening is urgently needed. Where spiritual science is at all noticed to-day, we frequently hoar the strange view that people who believe, do not need spiritual science, that it is not needed by those who are Christians in the good old meaning. We also hear the argument that faith is simple and spiritual science complicated, so why should simple faith be replaced by something so complicated. Yet this comfortable adherence to faith, this truly nefarious simple faith, the comfortable argument, “We don't need to think of such things, we don't, need' to investigate truth, for we have it through faith”, this is, in a deeper sense, responsible for the catastrophic events of the present. Again and again it must be emphasized that this easy way of thinking is the cause of the present catastrophe!

Great would be the misfortune if not enough people could be found whose hearts and minds are inclined to devote themselves to the investigation of truth, in earnest fruitful, inner thought-activity!

The time of mere belief in the spiritual world is past; it is no longer possible, at present, to be bone-lazy and to believe that we shall be saved by spiritual powers about whom we do not concern ourselves, confiding in the fact that they will do their best to save us: The essential point for the progress of human development is that we should not content ourselves with mere belief in God and in divine beings, but that we should allow God and the divine beings to be active within us, so that the forces of the spiritual world flow into our own deeds, into everything which we do in everyday life. From morning to night, our actions should be done in such a way that a divine-spiritual power is contained in them. This spiritual power will only permeate our actions if it is contained, above all, in. our thoughts. The task of modern humanity is to take in God's essence not only as a content of faith, but as an active force. We should not only think of God, but we should think in such a way that God lives in our thoughts. This is the essential point! If we surrender to such an ideal, we shall surely develop the required interest in things for which the great majority of modern men unfortunately has shown no interest whatever during the past decades.

The chief point is to find the possibility to make people understand that a change is needed in the field of thought. The whole way of thinking must be transformed. It is high time for this. The intellectuals have neglected to work in this direction, and as a result, the most repulsive instincts of humanity are now awakening in the whole civilised world, at least in a great part of the civilised world. The most repulsive human instincts are waking up! Do you think that it will be easy to drive away these instincts, when they have reached a certain climax, a certain culminating point ? A long, longtime will elapse before they die of their own accord. These instincts in humanity can only be controlled or subdued through the influence of good teachings or by good example, for a certain length of time. This beast in man breaks through, because the nobler human instincts have been neglected. Here we have come to a point which 'renders it necessary that we should speak of the moral aspect of the social problem of the present time.

I have already explained to you that the increase of capital, the growth of capital, which I designated as characteristic trait of the capitalistic economic order, because it does not strive after achievements, but after gain and profit:, separates the human being from that which he produces. This separation of the human being from that which he produces, is an essential characteristic of the whole course of development of modern humanity.

In the surrounding world, we generally find that one phenomenon does not appear without another, and that different phenomena are connected in different ways. You cannot walk over a soft ground without impressing your footmarks upon it. This is an example which can be applied everywhere, in order to show that in the world of reality one thing is always connected with another. The m0dern world has been driven in the direction of capitalism and increase of capital. And this development of capitalism is on the other hand connected with the lack of interest which modern men have for the deepest impulses of the human soul. This lack interest in the deeper things of life characterizes modern humanity.

We have oh the one hand the emancipation of the human personality from .the economic process, and on the other hand the fact that the human personality which has thus been separated from the economic process has become withered and dry; the most intimate qualities of man's soul-spiritual being have grown dry and withered. Both these things are connected. Both factors have given rise to that terrible activity which exists in a modern metropolis, where capitalism has set up its thrones. We have there, on the one hand, the influence exercised by capitalism, and on the other, the lack of interest in the most intimate questions concerning man's innermost being.

In the external phenomena these things are to a great extent hidden and they only become manifest to a closer observation. Of course you may say: There are many people who are not involved in the modern capitalistic process. To be sure, there are but a few who are directly involved in it, but indirectly, the whole of modern humanity, particularly civilised modern humanity, is involved in the capitalistic process, through the fact that the existence of many people depends upon the capitalistic economic order. An artist who would, in the past, have worked for a prince or for the Pope, must now work for the capitalist. If you follow the threads which lead, as in the case of art, from different spheres of life into capitalism, you will see that capitalism stretches out its tentacles in every direction, particularly in the direction of spiritual life.

Of course, these things contain many unconscious elements, which do not immediately manifest themselves if we merely look upon the surface of life. Let me now characterize to some extent an unconscious or subconscious process, for the objectivation of the process of production and its emancipation from human aspirations, must in a certain way be explained and justified. People. always need justification for their actions, and when they wish to justify themselves, they do not bother about investigating the truth, for their chief aim is to justify themselves.

Let us take tin example. The Entente “won” the war—this victory had to be justified. Consequently the things which were said about the Entente were not said because they were true, but because the victory had to be. justified. It is the same in the case of individual men. Do most people care at all for a real investigation of truth? No, their chief interest is to justify the things which they do. And this is the aim of capitalism: it seeks above all to justify its existence. But it can only justify it by turning its attention to the most material economic process in its mirrored reflexion, the increase of capital. If the capitalistic economic order is to justify its existence in the physical world, it must, however, do away with every soul-spiritual interest. Soul-spiritual things must be reserved to a special sphere. Let clergymen preach as they like of things connected with faith—I may believe and others may believe, or I may not believe and others may not believe—clergymen talk of things pertaining to quite another world. But in the real world in which we live, things do not take their course in accordance with the sermons of clergymen; they follow the capitalistic course of development.

Extreme capitalism thus has on the one hand this terribly abstract moral-spiritual life, which seeks to separate itself entirely from all the external realities of existence. There is, however, another attitude in modern life which has exercised just as evil an influence: as materialistic capitalism, namely that attitude which induces people to say: “What do I care about Ahriman! Let Ahriman be Ahriman; I devote myself to the impulses of my innermost soul, I surrender to the spiritual world. I seek the spiritual world within my own being; my chief interest is the soul and its concerns. What do I care for Ahrimanic things, such as credit, money, income and property! What do I care for the difference between profit and assets, etc! I care for the things which concern my soul!” But even as man unites within himself body, soul and spirit, which are linked together during the life between birth and death, at the impulses which we may find through our soul's innermost structure are connected, in external physical life, with the impulses contained in the external economic order. Those who are merely devout, even devout in spiritual science, are just as much responsible for the catastrophes of the present time as the capitalists with their materialistic attitude and mentality; they are just as guilty as the capitalists, through the fact that they enclose spiritual-scientific truths within their own abstract limits and are not willing to permeate everyday reality with penetrating thoughts.

This fact has again and again induced me to tell you that the Anthroposophical spiritual movement should not be regarded as something which gives you the opportunity to listen to Sunday afternoon sermons, which caress the soul because they speak of an everlasting life, and so forth, but the Anthroposophical movement should be taken as a path which enables us to cope in a real, concrete way with the modern problems of life, the burning problems of the present. One of the first requirements is this: to understand from where we must set out, and that everything will be of no use whatever unless people find access to a really unprejudiced way of thinking.

Now, at the conclusion of my lecture, let me express something which I shall explain further tomorrow, from a practical. social aspect. What I shall tell you now, is apparently far away from socialistic thoughts, from thoughts concerning the socialistic question, but tomorrow you will see that apparently distant connections: are in reality closely related, so that we shall be able to throw light on the four points which I have designated as the parts of the socialistic ideal. People frequently say that opinions differ, that there are different convictions in life, for one believes this and the other that… Does it not seem as if one person may cherish this thought, and the other that idea, and that the ideas of both can be justified? Apparently it is so, but in reality this is not the case at all. Taking into consideration the circumstance that in a higher meaning every characterization of something is, as it were, a photograph from one aspect only, so that things can be viewed from many sides—by taking for granted that this must be considered, we nevertheless find that in the innermost-depth of their being all men have the same view concerning one and the same thing. We cannot find two people in the world (as stated, the above condition must be taken for granted) who do not have the same opinion. But why do they speak of different opinions? Because egoistic prejudices insert themselves between truth and that which people gather from their inner being; emotions and egoistic prejudices distort things and turn them into caricatures. People only differ in regard to their emotions, but not in regard to concepts and ideas. If a real concept has once been gained, we cannot think of it differently from others, who have also gained access to this concept. It is the greatest soul-frivolity to think that we are entitled to have subjective opinions. We do not have the right to cherish subjective opinions, but as human beings it is our duty to go beyond our subjective views to objective truths! In order to have a clear outlook in this point it is necessary to bear in mind all the sources of error which result from human emotions. A man may believe that he is fully convinced of something. Yet the reason why he believes that he is fully convinced of something may frequently be the fact that he is too lazy to penetrate into the idea. Indeed, my dear friends, it is necessary to indicate this inner moral side of human nature, if we wish to indicate that which the present time really needs

The present time is, above all, filled with pride and with emotions, even in regard to what is designated as objective science and it is not at all inclined to discover the judgment contained in, real ideas, in real concepts. But what will be our goal, if the burning social riddles which now confront us, are to be solved emotionally, out of human emotions?

You know that there are imaginations, inspirations and intuitions In reality, everything connected with economic, economic-juridical questions, should be grasped through imaginations, it is contained in imaginations. In the case of most people, these imaginations can only well up from unconscious depths, in the form of vague notions. But these are better than the constructed ideas which now come to the fore so eloquently and play a certain role. Everything contained what we may call spiritual life, the spiritual life which we have characterised as a part of the future social structure, is based upon inspirations. And ever thing which may exist apart from the human being, which must indeed be separated from him, that wherein all human beings must be equal, equal—so to speak—before the law—all that can only be based upon intuitions. This constitutes as it were the foundation of the political organism.

Imagination: Economic organism.

Inspiration; Spiritual organism.

Intuition: Political organism.

This is how inspiration, intuition and imagination must work together in order to shape the conditions of life. And we should bear in mind that this is so. For then we shall realise that in reality the social questions which do not only confront us to-day, but which burn like fire, can only be solved with the aid of spiritual-scientific methods. The essential point is that we should discard carelessness and laziness of thought, and really set out in the direction of that which connects the human soul with reality. This alone can lead as to the goal which we must reach in the present time. To-morrow we shall characterize and discuss the four parts of the so-called socialistic ideal from this standpoint.

Yesterday I mentioned the four principal parts of the present socialistic programme. As you will remember, these four parts 1) The socialisation of industrial concerns. 2) The production is to be governed by the demand. 3) The conditions of work and of pay are to be regulated democratically. 4) Profits of any kind go to the commnity.

Attention has already been drawn to a few things showing that the currents of feeling and opinion which called into life this fourfold programme contain certain facts which are not entirely out/off from the human being, as is the case with the materialistic conceptien of history and the theory of an economic struggle among the different social classes, for these aro conclusions arrived at by the social-democratic mentality. Spiritual impulses, spiritual potentialities, now influence the development of things contained above all in the views and aspirations of the proletariat. It will indeed be fatal if we fail to acquire the required insight into the strength of the impulses which influence the development of modern socialistic thinking and of modern socialistic aims. We might say: What most strikes us in socialistic thought and in socialistic aims is the absolute lack of confidence in any sort of help or cooperation to b e gained from man's moral, ethical impulses: when socialists set about to organise the social structure, they show an absolute distrust in the power o f ethical impulses. This distrust is a sediment, as it were, or proletarian thinking and willing; the proletariat simply does not believe that the ruling classes can in any way contribute moral impulses, or even spiritual impulses, towards the solution of the social problem.

We should not allow ourselves to be deceived by such things, particularly not by the phrases which socialists sometimes use. Particularly when socialists criticize the mistakes of the ruling classes, they like to condemn their moral shortcomings. But whenever the socialistic proletariat considers in a fully conscious way the source of its hopes for the future, it merely says: Even if the ruling classes were guided by moral impulses when striving to improve the social conditions of the proletariat, they could not succeed. A real improvement can only, result from a class struggle, from a struggle between different economic interests and the economic forces as such. It is most important to realise this. For even the last remnant of trust in the moral forces of the ruling classes still extant to-day, will disappear.

We should bear in mind that the capitalistic foundation, of which I have spoken to you yesterday, will gradually lead the so-called intelligentsia, the intellectual loaders of modern humanity, to an ever growing lack of confidence in the power of moral or spiritual impulses. This will spread more and more. For in the depths of their hearts, even the middle classes do not attribute much importance to the real power of moral impulses. They do, of course, talk a lot of such moral impulses, but the way in which things manifest themselves, shows that their words often contain a more or less conscious untruthfulness. Do not let us forget one of the most fatal facts in the development of modern humanity, a fact which we have already considered from various aspects. It may be characterized as follows: On the one hand, there is a certain confidence inthe science dealing with the external phenomena of Nature, a science which is, as it were, devoid of morality, devoid of spirituality. Our contemporaries wish to develolp natartal science in such a way that there is no connection between the ideas relating to Nature and those relating to the moral order of the world.

A characteristic fact is, for instance, the following one: The Roman Catholic Church, some of whose priests are really very learned men, emphasizes that the scientists in its ranks should concentrate their attention exclusively upon physical facts, and that they should in no way attempt to mingle spiritual or moral things with the so-called causal science dealing with external phenomena.

Take, on the other hand, all the books dealing with moral, ethical or spiritual questions, written by men who are looked upon as authorities. These books undoubtedly contain many unctious or not unctious, pathetic or not pathetic impulses and ideals which seek to arouse compassion or abhorrence. But try to form an opinion by consulting one of these books and asking ourselves: What can be gained to-day from these modern books on ethics and other spiritual subjects, in regard to the burning problems of the present, which we designate as the social questions, the social riddles?—Nothing, truly nothing, can be gained from such books! That which constitutes ethical thought has, in a certain way, withdrawn from the impulses which influence social life in ordinary everyday existence. Again and again you may find in books on ethical life ideas relating to benevolence, tolerance, love… love is a very favourite subject and similar things. But the way in which they are dealt with, do not enable them to exercise any influence upon human beings. The moral concepts which are advanced in such an abstract way have no moral force and contain no moral impulses.

We therefore have, on the one hand, a rhetoric dallying with,ethical subjeats, so that no moral impulse can take hold of men. The economic order which thus results, cannot exercise any ethical influence, but works upon the foundation of the causality which can be found in Nature, and it aims to bring into the economic structure of human life nothing but this causality of Nature. Do you find in the words or writings of modern men, belonging to the so-called intellectual circles, anything which can influence humanity in such a way that ethical requirements become at the same time social-economic requirements?—The most essential point which should be borne in mind to-day, is that a straight path must lead from the field of ethics, religion and spirituality, to the most common, daily questions of economic life, of national-economic and social life.

This path must not be ignored, if greater misfortune than that of the past years is not to befall humanity. In regard to such things, the modern proletarian' party, from the extreme, right to the extreme left, has taken over the inheritanoe of the capitalistic bourgeoisie, in the way in which it, has,developed during the past centuries. The characteristic trait of the bourgeoisie is that it has completely severed man's personal aspirations from the economic structure of life, from the development of capital, and quite independenly of any traditional religion or sectarian. movement of modern times, it cultivates at the same time a soul-life which is entirely separated from the interests of daily life; the middle classes think that it is a superior attitude to separate soul-life from the concerns of daily life, and so they completely lose that survey of life which is so badly needed to-day.

I have, for instance, come across members of the Anthroposophical Society, who said: Can we admit into our Society a man who works in a brewery, for such person contributes to the fact that people drink beer!—Now I am not speaking either for or against the drinking of beer, but the point from which these members set out, was that they were against beer drinking. In similar cases one can only say: You do not see further than your own nose, and this “nose-judgment” induces you to see, or not to see, that person who has a comparatively unimportant situation in a brewery. But let us consider real facts. You are the owner of shares, including all kinds of bank shares. Do you realise how much beer you brew with your shares and bank papers? But this does nut trouble you, for you do not see further than your own nose!

But, I do not intend to blame anyone for his opinions; the essential point is to draw attention to the lack of consistency and insight contained in such a manner of thinking. The greatest misfortune of our time is that love of ease leads people into this disconnected, incoherent way of thinking and they remain in it, because they do not wish to throw a bridge which leads from ethics religion and spirituality to the other side, constituting real life in its immediate form—the social and economic dethands, the social riddles as such, which now face us.

Indeed, many things have to be learned in this direction. You will remember that I have emphasized again and again that when we deal with social matters, the most essential thing to be borne in mind to-day is the spiritual aspect. Education, schools, spiritual life in general—these are the most important questions.

If we look more deeply into things, we may even say: So long as spiritual life continues to be dependent upon the political community (you already know that in future the social organism will consist of three communities, or parts), so long as the spiritual community, or spiritual life, is obliged to depend upon a merely political.structure which absorbs it, no solution can be reached and people will continue meddling about with social questions! Schools must be quite independent, spiritual matters must be dealt wits quite independently of economic or political life: this is :the essential point.

There is really not much time to reflect over those things and to set them right, and very soon it may be too late. Something can only be achieved if man's innermost being can still be reached, if the wild instincts which have become unfettered can still be controlled. But try to preach to-day to those men whose wild instincts have become unfettered in the social chaos of the present time—try to preach to them, and you will find that they will only laugh at you!

It is our earnest endeavour again and again to appeal to the hearts and souls of men, that they may listen to that which is so sorely needed. Even as the development in the direction of capitalism has in the past centuries utterly confused the activities connected with spiritual interests, and consequently with the world as such, so the spiritual science of Anthroposophy seeks to bring light and order into these things.

Let us consider the first point in the four-fold socialistic ideal: Industrial concerns, production, is to become common property, communal property.—But the essential point here, depends above all upon spiritual questions, upon a clear insight into certain answers to spiritual questions. What can spiritual science offer to human souls, if it is not only taken as an abstract, dry theory? Spiritual science can offer human souls three things:—In the first place, not a mere faith in a divine-spiritual element, but a conception of it, though it may perhaps only be one transmitted through thoughts, but it is a conception of the spiritual worlds which is accessible to sound common sense. Instead of a confused, often pantheistic and unclear manner of speaking of the spiritual world, the spiritual science of Anthropesophy transmits a real conception of the spiritual world, speaks of definite structures of spiritual Beings, of a hierarchical order within the spiritualal world; it transmits ideas of the spiritual world which are just as concrete as the ideas relating to the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms of the physical world. In the course of development during the past centuries, these spiritual ideas were completely pushed aside. Consider how much importance is attributed to-day to faith without any concepts. The spiritual science of Anthroposophy is characterised by the fact that it transmits a conception of the spiritual world.

A second thing which spiritual science offers to those who do not only take it as a dry and lifeless theory but who allow their heart and soul to be touched by it, a second thing which spiritual science can give is the following: people really learn to respect and prize the human being, they acquire a boundless feeling of respect and appreciation of man: if a spiritual conception of life, as set forth, for instance, in my Occult Science, is not only grasped theoretically through the intellect, but with the whole soul, can it then it lead to anything but a genuine respect and appreciation of the human being. Consider that the whole cosmos is contemplated from the standpoint that man has his place within it. After all, it is man whom we consider, when we speak not only of the evolution of the Earth, but of the Moon, Sun and Saturn stages of development.

Compare in this respect, anthroposophical spiritual science with the ordinary natural science of modern times. The latter leads to hypotheses such as that of Kant-Laplace. Compared with spiritual science, which goes back to the Moon, Sun and Saturn stages of development, natural science does not go far back; it only reaches back to a certain stage of earthly development. Man has been lost long ago in that philosophical-scientific madness-designated as the Kant-Laplace theory! He is no longer contained in this theory; there we have a grey nebula, and this insane theory, which is now looked upon as science, speaks of this fog, of this nebula.

Against this fact, that even in the earthly sphere natural science can no longer find the human being, stands the conception of Spiritual science, which goes in search of the human being in the whole cosmos. This is possible, even if we pursue such things with intellectual thoughts, even if we study such things in a purely theoretical way. But those who do not only study spiritual science theoretically, but to whom such studies are an earnest amd deeply human concern, will obtain through such a contemplation of the world a boundless feeling of respect and of appreciation for the human being as such.

The modern scientific conception which turns its attention merely towards physical things, cannot appreciate the human being as such. Spititual science remains within reality, and it considers the external physical things as semblance. For if we remain standing by the external reality, we do not have the corrective of which spiritual science disposes, by contemplating the cosmic human being and thus arriving at a feeling of respect for man, in contrast to the statements concerning man which are sometimes advanced by the upholders of a physical-sensory conception. This materialistic conception cannot lead us to respect and appreciate man, for in that case it would have to deny its own theories. It would have to appreciate and respect the single empirical human being, the everyday man, that is to say, the facts which, it known about him… but this would not do!

In the first place, spiritual science is therefore the path loading to a spiritual conception, in contrast to mere faith; it is the path leading to a genuine appreciation of man, in contrast to that indifference towards man which necessarily results from a purely materialistic conception.

Then there is a third thing: In the cosmos there are of course objects and processes which are outside the human being. How does spiritual science observe these objects and processes outside man? It observes them all in relation to man. Spiritual science considers the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms in relation tb man. This enables one to appreciate that which exists besides, or
one might say, beneath the human being in the physical world outside. Take a feeling which is a truly spiritual-scientific one, a feeling which Christian Morgenstern drew out of spiritual science and to which he gave poetic expression: The human being feels himself at the top of the physical kingdoms of the earth: Below him is the anjmal kingdom, then the vegetable kingdom and the mineral kingdom. But if the vegetable kingdom were able to have feelings and thoughts in regard to the mineral kingdom, what would it say? “I bow down reverently before thee, o stone, for to thee I owe my existence. Although thou art below me in the hierarchical order of Nature, I could not exist without the soil which thou givest me.” Similarly the animal would have to bow down reverently before the plant and say: “I owe my existence to thee". And so on, throughout the higher kingdoms. Each higher kingdom bows down reverently before the lower kingdom.

Spiritual science thus renders it possible to consider also the remaining world in relation to man. It can look upon it in the right relationship to the human being. Whenever spiritual science can influence spiritual life, it exercises its influence in three directions:—

1) Through spiritual contemplation;

2) throdgh a Sense of respect and appreciation for man;

3) through a right appreciation of everything in the world by considering it in relation to man.

Unless the above-mentioned three conditions arise, any demand) as for instance the socialisation of industrial concerns, must remain an empty unsubstantial requirement. Unless the three above-mentioned conditions arise, which determine man's position in relation to the world, to his fellow-men. and to spirituality, no true impulse can penetrate into the social life of men and it will be impossible to arrange, anything within it.

In the same way it will be impossible to materialise the second point of the socialistic programme: That the demand should govern production. Demands, or the market-requirements, do not constitute anything which can be noted down statistically, it is nothing stable which can govern other processes. In real life, the demand continually fluctuates and changes. Can anyone, for instance, determine the demand for electric railways in 1840? This is a demand which was conjured up by the cultural process. itself. If production is to be ruled by some existing demand, if no initiative is to be left-to-it it will stagnate. A true relationship between production and demand can only be established if the social organism has a threefold structure. In that case, a living cooperation will regulate of its own accord, as it were, the relation betweea demand and production, and this also applies to the other impulses within the social organism.

Let us take the third; point, that conditions of work and pay be settled democratically. Here it is essential to beqr in mind that a democracy is useless unless it is based upon true respect of the human being, and this feeling of reverence for man can only be impressed upon the soul by spiritual science. Democracy contains the seed of its own decay, if it does not contain at the same time a genuine feeling of respect and reverence for the human being.

Then the fourth point, that any excess value should be handed over to the community. My dear friends, one can say that there one detects the absolutely impossible way of thinking in such a direction. What is surplus value? In the eyes of the marxistic proletariat, surplus values, or profits, are something impossible which must be eliminated. To abolish profits, they wish to establish a socialistic order. An essential point within such socialistic order, is the abolition of surplus values, of profits. But one of its ideals is that these profits should be handed over to the community. This represents, in fact, one of its ideals. Why? Because surplus values will be there, and this very fact throws its shadow upon the socialistic programme. It is the shadow which unquestionably darkens tbe programme. And this throws its whole darkness upon the whole theory.

Modern humanity thus sways in a fearful darkness; light can fall upon it only if men overcome their love of ease, and pass over from faith to a spiritual conception, from man's purely empirical position in the world to that other position which calls forth a real feeling of reverence and. respect for the human being; from a mere devouring of things, etc. to that true appreciation of the things which exist in the universe in addition to man, which can only arise if one can place everything in relation to man, through Anthroposophy.

My dear friends, you can therefore realise how closely the fate of spiritual-scientific aims is connected with the social problems of the present time. An earnest need arises in the souls of those who take spiritual science seriously, a need even greater than that of spreading spiritual science: it is that of calling up in the hearts of mon the feeling how necessary it is, particularly for the most important and justified requirements of the present, to spread the ideas, feelings and will impulses which can only arise out of spiritual science. But we shall continuo to speak of these things.

VERSES BY RUDOLF STEINER

(Discovered among his papers)
Original Text in German

Du selbst, orkennender, fühlender, wollender Mensch,
Du bist das Rätsel der Welt.
Was sie verbirgt,
In dir wird es offenbar, es wird
In deinem Geiste Licht,
In definer Seele Wärme,
Und deines Atoms Kraft
Sie bindet dir die Leibeswesenheit
An Seelenwelten,
An Geistesreiche.
Sie führt dich in den Stoff,
Dass du, dich menschlich findest,
Sie führt dich in den Geist,
Pass du dich geistig nicht verlierest.

(TRANSLATION OF ABOVE)

Thou, o cognising, feeling and, willing man
T hou art the riddle of the world!
What it conceals,
Reveals itself in thee, and becomes
Light in thy spirit,
Warmth in thy soul,
And the power of thy breath
Binds thy bodily being
To soul-worlds
And spirit-realms.
It loads thee into substance,
That thou mightst find thyself
As man,
It leads thee into spirit,
That thou mightst never lose
Thyself as spirit.

Published in The Golden Blade, 1977. It is the seventh of twelve lectures in the volume Goetheanism as an Impulse for Transformation ... Human Science and Social Science.

It seems that it would be useful to consider matters concerned with the social life of the present in the light of our recent studies of Goethe. The nineteenth century represents a very significant turning-point in the history of mankind, particularly in relation to the social life of our own time. The middle of the century brought a much greater change in ways of thinking than is generally appreciated. When considering this change one could certainly start from personalities who were not German, for example Shaftesbury and Hemsterhuis. But these examples from England or Holland would not lead us so deeply into our theme as the study of Goethe can do. At the present time, when so much—far more than people realise—is tending towards the destruction of all that springs from middle Europe, it may be of use to link up with these things, which should live on in humanity in a way quite different from the way imagined by most Germans today.

If one looks at the present situation honestly and without prejudice, one cannot help feeling oppressed if one remembers a saying by Herman Grimm—the saying of an outstanding man who lived not very long ago. For this one need not be a German, but one needs to have some feeling for the culture of middle Europe. Herman Grimm once said that there are four personalities to whom a German can look if he wishes to find, in a certain sense, the direction for his life. These four are Luther, Frederick the Great, Goethe and Bismarck. Grimm says that if a German cannot look in the direction given by these four personalities, he feels unsupported and alone among the nations of the world.

In the nineties many people had no doubt at all that this remark was correct (though I was not one of them), but today it can give us a feeling of oppression. For one must admit: Luther does not live on effectively in the German tradition; Goethe has never been a living influence, as we have often had to emphasise, and Frederick the Great and Bismarck belong to conditions which no longer exist. Thus—according to Herman Grimm's remark—the time would have come already in which a German would have to feel unsupported and alone among the nations of the world. People do not feel deeply enough to realise fully in their soul what this signifies: less than three decades ago something could be taken as a matter of course by an enlightened spirit—and today it is quite impossible. If present-day men were not so superficial, many things would be felt much more deeply. It can sometimes be heartbreaking how little the events of the world are felt.

Looking back before the nineteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century, we can observe a significant impulse. It was the impulse working in Schiller when he wrote his Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man; this was the time, too, when Goethe was stirred by his dealings with Schiller. They led Goethe to express the impulse which lay behind Schiller's “Aesthetic Letters” in his own tale, The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily.” You can read about the connection between Schiller's “Aesthetic Letters” and Goethe's fairy-tale in my recent small book on Goethe.

When Schiller wrote these “Letters”, his intention was not merely to write a literary essay, but to perform a political deed. At the beginning of the “Letters” he refers to the French Revolution and tries in his own way to say what may be thought about the will behind it, and behind the whole revolution at the end of the eighteenth century. He had no particular expectation as to what would be achieved through a great political change, of which the French revolutionaries hoped so much. He hoped much more for a thorough self-education of man, which he regarded as a necessity of his time.

Let us consider once more the basic conception of these “Letters.” Schiller seeks to answer, in his own way, the question: how does man achieve real freedom in his social life? Schiller would never have expected that men would be led to freedom simply by giving the right form to the social institutions in which they lived. He asks rather that by work upon himself, by self-education, man should reach this condition of freedom within the social order. Schiller believed that man has first to become inwardly free before he can achieve freedom in the external world. And he says: Man has his existence between two powerful influences. On one side he faces the influence coming from physical nature; this Schiller calls the influence of natural necessity. It includes everything produced by the sense-nature of man in the way he desires and so on. And he says: If a man obeys this influence, he cannot be free.

Opposed to the influence of the senses there is another—the influence of rational necessity. Man can commit himself to follow rational necessity, as the other pole of his existence. But then he cannot be a truly free man, either. If he follows in a logical way this rational necessity, it is still something that compels him. And if this rational necessity is consolidated into the laws of an external State, or something of that kind, in obeying such laws he is still compelled. So man is placed between reason and sensuality. His sensuality is a necessity for him, not a freedom. His reason is also a necessity, though a spiritual one; under it, he is not free.

For Schiller, man can be free only if he does not follow in a one-sided way either the influence of the senses or that of reason, but succeeds in bringing the influence of reason into closer accord with his humanity; when, that is, he does not simply submit like a slave to logical or legal necessity, but makes the content of the law, the content of rational necessity, truly his own.

Here Schiller, in comparison with Kant, whom unfortunately he otherwise followed in many ways, is a much freer spirit. For Kant regarded absolute obedience to what he calls duty—that is, rational necessity—as the highest human virtue. “Duty, thou great and sublime name ”, Kant says, on the only occasion when he becomes poetical, “having nothing that flatters or attracts us...” Schiller says: “I serve my friends willingly, and unfortunately I like to do it. And so it often worries me to find that I am not virtuous.” That is his satirical comment on Kant, who would regard serving one's friends as a duty. Schiller means that while an unfree man may serve his friends as a duty, in obedience to the “categorical imperative,” a free man carries his humanity so far that he does it because he likes to do it, out of love, as an inner matter of course.

Thus Schiller seeks to draw down rational necessity into his human realm, so that a man does not have to submit to it, but is able to practise it as a law of his own nature. The necessity of the senses he seeks to raise up and spiritualise, so that the human being is not simply driven by his sensuality, but can ennoble it, so that he may give it expression, having raised it to its highest level. Schiller believes that when sensuality and reason meet at the centre of his being, man becomes free.

It seems as if present-day man is not properly able to share what Schiller felt when he described this middle condition as the real ideal for human beings. If a mutual permeation of rational necessity and the necessity of the senses were constantly achieved, Schiller held, this ideal condition would be expressed in the creation and appreciation of art.

It is very characteristic of the time of Schiller and Goethe to seek in art a guide for the rest of human activity. The spirit of Goethe rejects everything Philistine and seeks for an ideal condition which is to be achieved in the likeness of genuine art. For the artist creates in a visible medium.  Even if he creates in words, he is working in a sense-perceptible medium. And he would produce something terribly abstract if he gave himself up to rational necessity. He must learn what he is to create from the material itself, and from the activity of shaping it. He must spiritualise the sense-perceptible by giving matter form. Through the formal pattern (Gestalt) that he gives it, matter is enabled to have an effect, not just as matter, hut in the same way that the spiritual has an effect. Thus the artist fuses spiritual and perceptible into one creation. When all that men do in the external world becomes such that obedience to duty and to the law comes about through an inclination akin to that of the artist, and when all that comes from the senses is permeated by spirit, then for individual human beings, and also for the State and the social structure, freedom is achieved, as Schiller understands it.

So Schiller asks: how must the various powers of the soul—rationality, sensuality, aesthetic activity—work together in man, if he is to stand as a free being in the social structure? A particular way for the forces of the soul to work together is what Schiller thought should be aimed at. And he believed that when human beings in whom rational necessity permeates sensual necessity, and sensual necessity is spiritualised by rational necessity—when these human beings form a social order, it will turn out to be a good one, by necessity.

Goethe often talked with Schiller, and corresponded with him, while Schiller was writing his “Aesthetic Letters.” Goethe was a quite different man from Schiller. Schiller had tremendous inner passion as a poet, but he was also a keen thinker. Goethe was not in the same way a keen abstract thinker and he had less poetic passion, but he was equipped with something that Schiller lacked: with fully human, harmonious instincts. Schiller was a man of reflection and reason; Goethe was a man of instinct, but spiritualised instinct. The difference between them became a problem for Schiller. If you read his beautiful essay on “Naive and Sentimental Poetry,” you will always feel that Schiller might just as well have written, if he had wanted to become more personal: On Goethe and Myself. For Goethe is the naive poet, Schiller the sentimental poet. He is simply describing Goethe and himself.

For Goethe, the man of instinct, all this was not so simple. Any kind of abstract philosophical talk, including talk about rational necessity, sensual necessity and the aesthetic approach—for these are abstractions if one contrasts them with one another—was repugnant to Goethe in his innermost being. He was willing to engage in it, because he was open to everything human and because he said to himself: A lot of people go in for philosophising, and that is something one must accept. He never rejected anything entirely. This is most evident when he has to talk about Kant. Here he found himself in a peculiar position. Kant was regarded by Schiller and many others as the greatest man of his century. Goethe could not understand this. But he was not intolerant, or wrapped up in his own opinion. Goethe said to himself: If so many people find so much in Kant, one must let them; indeed, one must make an effort to examine something which to oneself seems not very significant—and perhaps one will find a hidden significance in it after all. I have had in my hands Goethe's copy of Kant's Critique of Judgement; he underlined important passages. But the underlinings became fewer well before the middle, and later disappear altogether. You can see that he never reached the end.

In conversation about Kant, Goethe would not let himself become really involved in the subject. He found it disagreeable to talk about the world and its mysteries in terms of philosophical abstractions. And it was clear to him that to understand the human being in his development from necessity to freedom was not as simple as Schiller had believed. There is something very great in these “Aesthetic Letters,” and Goethe recognised that. But it seemed to him too simple to ascribe all the complications of the soul of man to these three categories: rational necessity, aesthetic impulse, sensual necessity. For him there was so much more in the human soul. And things could not simply be placed side by side in this way.

Hence Goethe was stirred to write his Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily, in which not only three but about twenty powers of the soul are described, not in concepts, but in pictorial forms, open to various interpretations. They are headed by the Golden King, who represents (not symbolises) wisdom, the Silver King who represents beautiful appearance, the Bronze King, who represents power, and Love who crowns them all. Everything else, too, indicates soul-forces; you can read this in my article.

Thus Goethe was impelled to conceive this path for the human being from necessity to freedom in his own way. He was the spiritualised man of instinct. Schiller was the man of understanding, but not in quite the usual sense: in him understanding was led over into perception.

Now if we consider honestly the course of history, we can say: this way of looking at things, developed by Schiller in an abstract philosophical way, by Goethe in an imaginative and artistic way, is not only in its form, but also in its content, very remote from present-day men. An intimate older friend of mine, Karl Julius Schröer, who was once responsible for examining candidate teachers for technical schools, wanted to examine these people on Schiller's “Aesthetic Letters:” they were going to have to teach children between the ages of ten and eighteen. They staged a regular agitation! They would have found it quite natural to be questioned about Plato and to have to interpret Platonic Dialogues. But they had no inclination to know anything about Schiller's “Letters on Aesthetic Education,” which represent a certain culmination of modern spiritual life.

The middle of the nineteenth century was a much more incisive point in man's spiritual history than people can realise today. The period before it is represented in Schiller and Goethe; it is followed by something quite different, which can understand the preceding period very little. What we now call the social question, in the widest sense—a sense that humanity has not yet grasped, but should grasp and must grasp later on—was born only in the second half of the nineteenth century. And we can understand this fact only if we ask: why, in such significant and representative considerations as those attempted by Schiller in his “Aesthetic Letters” and represented pictorially by Goethe in his Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily, do we find no trace of the peculiar way of thinking we are impelled to develop today about the structure of society—although Goethe in his “Tale” is evidently hinting at political forms?

If we approach the “Aesthetic Letters” and the “Tale” with inner understanding, we can feel the presence in them of a powerful spirituality which humanity has since lost. Anyone reading the “Aesthetic Letters” should feel: in the very way of writing an element of soul and spirit is at work which is not present in even the most outstanding figures today; and it would be stupid to think that anyone could now write something like Goethe's fairy tale. Since the middle of the nineteenth century this spirituality has not been here. It does not speak directly to present-day men and can really speak only through the medium of Spiritual Science, which extends our range of vision and can also enter into earlier conditions in man's history. It would really be best if people would acknowledge that without spiritual knowledge they cannot understand Schiller and Goethe. Every scene in “Faust” can prove this to you.

If we try to discover what main influence was then at work, we find that in those days the very last remnant, the last echo of the old spirituality, was present in men, before it finally faded away in the middle of the nineteenth century and humanity was thrown back on its own resources. It lived on in such a way that a man like Schiller, who thought in abstractions, possessed spirituality in his abstract thinking, and a man who had spiritualised instincts, such as Goethe had, had it living in these instincts. In some way it still lived. Now it has to be found on the paths  of spiritual knowledge; now man has to find his way through to spirituality in freedom. That is the essential thing. And without an understanding of this turning-point in the middle of the nineteenth century, one cannot really grasp what is so important today. Take, for example, Schiller's way of approaching the structure of society. Looking at the French Revolution, he writes his “Aesthetic Letters,” but when he asks, “How should the social order develop?”, he looks at man himself. He is not dealing with the social question in a present-day sense.

Today, when the social question is under review, it is usual to leave out the individual human being, with his inner conflicts, his endeavours to achieve self-education. Only the social structure in general is considered. What Schiller expected to come about through self-education is expected to come through alterations in outer conditions. Schiller says: If men become what they can become at the midpoint of their being, they will create a right social structure as a matter of course. Today it is said: If we bring about a right social structure, human beings will develop as they should.

In a short time the whole way of feeling about this has turned round. Schiller or Goethe could not have believed that through self-education men could bring about a right social structure if they had not been able to feel in man himself the universally human qualities that social life requires. In every human being they saw an image of human society. But this was no longer effective. In those days beautiful, spiritual descriptions of the best self-education could be written—it was all an echo or in a sense a picture of the old atavistic life, but the power to achieve real results was not in it. And today's way of thinking about the best social conditions is equally powerless. It places man in an invented, thought-out social structure, but he is not effectively present there. We must look at human society in general, we must look out at the world and find ourselves there, find the human being.

This is something that only real Spiritual Science can do, in the most far-reaching sense. Take what is objected to most of all in my Occult Science: the course of evolution through Saturn, Sun, Moon, and Earth; everywhere man is there. Nowhere do you have the mere abstract universe; everywhere man is in some way included; he is not separated from the universe. This is the beginning of what our time instinctively intends, out of impulses that remain quite dark. The time before the middle of the nineteenth century looked at man, and believed it could find the world in man. The time after the middle of the nineteenth century looks only at the world. But that is sterile; it leads to theories which are entirely empty of man. And so Spiritual Science is really serving those dark but justified instincts. What men wish for, without knowing what they want, is fulfilled through Spiritual Science: to look at the external world and to find there the human being. This is still rejected, even regarded with horror; but it will have to be cultivated, if any real recovery in this connection is to come about in the future.

At the same time there must be a development also in the study of man. A real understanding of the social organism will be achieved only when one can see man within it. Man is a threefold being. In every age—except for our own—he has been active in a threefold way. Today he concentrates everything upon a single power in himself, because he has to stand entirely on the single point of his own self in this age of consciousness, and people feel that everything proceeds from this single point. Each man thinks to himself: If I am asked a question, or if life puts a task before me, I myself form a judgment, out of myself. But it is not the entire human being who judges in this way. The human organism has a “man in the middle,” with something above it and something below it; and it is the “man in the middle” who has the capacity to form a judgment and to act on it at any moment. Above is Revelation: what is received through religion or some other form of spiritual revelation and viewed as something higher, something super-sensible. Below, underneath the faculty of judgment, is Experience, the totality of what one has passed through.

Present-day man takes little account of either pole. Revelation—an old superstition that must be overcome! To experience, also, he pays little attention, or he would be more aware of the difference between youthful not-knowing and the knowing that comes through experience. He often gathers little from experience because he does not believe in it. Most people today, when they have grey hair and wrinkles, are not much wiser than they were at twenty. In life a man may get cleverer and cleverer, and yet be just as stupid as before. But experience does accumulate and it is the other pole from revelation. In between stands immediate judgment.

Today, as I have often said, one reads critical judgments written by very young people who have not yet looked round in the world. Old people may write lengthy books and the youngest journalists may review them. That is no way of making progress. Progress can be made when what is achieved in later life is taken as a guide, when age is held to be more capable of judgment through the experience that has been acquired.

Thus man is a threefold being in practical life. If you read my book, Riddles of the Soul, you will find that revelation corresponds to the head of man, the man of nerves and senses; immediate judgment corresponds to the breast man; experience corresponds to the man of the extremities. I could also say: the man of the life of nerves and senses, the man of the rhythmical life, and the man of metabolism. No consideration is given today to this threefold nature of man, and so there is no recognition of what corresponds to it in cosmic terms. This cannot be discerned because of the general unwillingness to rise from the sense-perceptible to the super-sensible.

Today, when a man eats—that is, unites external nourishment with his organism—he thinks: There inside is the organism, which cooks the stuff and takes from it what it needs, and lets the rest pass away unused, and so it goes on. On the other hand, I look out into the world through my senses. I take up the perceptible and transform it by my understanding; I take it into my soul, as I take nourishment into my body, What is out there, what eyes see and ears hear, I then carry within me as a mental picture; what is out there as wheat, fish, meat or whatever, I carry inside me, after having digested it.

Yes, but this leaves out the fact that the substances used in nourishment have their inner aspect. The experience of food through our external senses is not related to our deeper being. With what your tongue tastes and your stomach digests, in the way that can be confirmed by ordinary scientific research, you can maintain your daily metabolism; but you cannot take care of the other metabolism, which leads for example to the change of teeth about the age of seven.

The essential thing in this other metabolism lies in the deeper forces at work in it, which are not observed today by any chemical study. What we take as food has a deep spiritual aspect, and this is very active in man, but only while he sleeps. In your foods live the spirits of the highest Hierarchies, the Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones. Hence in your food you have something cosmically formative, and therein lie the forces which provide imperceptibly for the change of teeth, for adolescence, and for the later transformations of the human being. Only the daily metabolism is brought about by the things known to external science. The metabolism which goes through life as a whole is cared for by the highest Hierarchies. And behind the sense-perceptible world are the beings of the Third Hierarchy: Angels, Archangels, and Archai. Hence we can say: sense-perception, Third Hierarchy: foodstuffs, First Hierarchy: and in between is the Second Hierarchy, which lives in the breathing, in all the rhythmic activities of the human organism.

The Bible describes this quite truly. The spirits called the Elohim, together with Jahve, are led into men through the breath. The ancient wisdom was quite correctly aware of these things, in an atavistic way. Thus you are led through a real study of man into a true cosmology.

Spiritual Science re-inaugurates this way of looking at things. It looks for man again in the external world, and brings the entire universe into man. This can be done only if one knows that man is really a trinity, a threefold being. Today both revelation and experience are suppressed; man does not do them justice. He does not do justice to his sense-perceptions, or to the foods he eats, for he regards them merely as material objects. But that is an Ahrimanic distortion, which ignores the deeper life that underlies all created things, of which foodstuffs are an example.

Spiritual Science does not lead to a contempt for matter, but to a spiritualisation of it. If anyone were to look at food with contempt, he would have to learn that Spiritual Science says, in a way that would seem grotesque to him: the highest Hierarchies, Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones, they are alive in nutriments.

In our time threefold man is put together in an unclear, chaotic way, and made into a single entity. In social terms, a precisely corresponding picture arises when everything is brought under the single entity of State legalism. In fact, society should be seen as a trinity, composed of three members. First, economic activity, the natural foundation of life. Second, legal regulation, which corresponds to the middle element in man, his rhythmic nature. Third, spiritual life. Now we can see a trend towards making these three realms into one. Economic life, it is said, must be brought gradually under the control of the State. The State should become the only capitalist. Spiritual life came long ago under the dominion of the State. On the one hand we have man, who does not understand himself, and on the other the State, which is not understood, because man no longer finds himself within the social structure.

These three elements—economic life, legal regulation, spiritual life—are as radically different as head, breast and limbs. To burden the State with economic life is as if you wanted to eat with your lungs and heart, instead of with the stomach. Man is healthy only through the separation and co-operation of his three systems. The social organism, too, can be healthy only when the three elements work independently side by side, and are not thrown together in a single entity.

All legal regulation, which corresponds to the breathing, rhythmic system in man, represents a quite impersonal element, expressed in the saying: All men are equal before the law. Nothing personal comes into this; hence it is necessary that all human beings should be concerned with this middle realm and that everyone should be represented there. People are inclined to stop at this point, leaving a certain sterility on either side. We have to breathe; but we are not human beings unless nourishment is added to the breathing process from one side and sense impressions from the other. We must have a State, which rules through law, impersonal law. But economic life, which is half-personal, wherever men participate in it, and spiritual life, which is entirely personal, must work into the State from either side, or the social organism will be just as impossible as if man wanted to consist only of breathing.

This must become a new, fundamental doctrine: that the social structure has three members. You cannot live as human beings without eating; you have to receive your food from outside. You cannot maintain the State without bringing it the necessary nourishment from what human beings produce spiritually. This spiritual productivity is for the State what physical food is for individual men. Nor can you have a State unless you give it a certain natural basis on the other side in economic life. Economic life is for the State exactly like the element brought to the breathing process in human beings through sense-perceptions.

You can see that real knowledge of man and real knowledge of the social structure depend upon one another; you cannot reach one without the other. This must become the elementary basis for social insight in the future. The sin committed in relation to man by leaving out Revelation and Experience is committed by Socialist thinkers today when they leave out of  account the half-personal element in which fraternity must rule and on the other side ignore spiritual life, where freedom must rule; while the impersonal element of the law must be ruled by equality.

The great mistake of current Socialism is its belief that a healthy social structure can be brought about by State regulation, and particularly by socialising the means of production. We must appeal to all the powers of the social organism if we are to create a healthy social structure. Side by side with Equality, which is the one aim today, and is absolutely right for everything which has the character of law, Fraternity and Freedom must be able to work. But they cannot work without a threefold social order. It would be just as senseless to ask the heart and lungs to think and eat, as it is to ask an omnipotent State to direct economic life and to maintain spiritual life. The spiritual life must be independent, and co-operate only in the same way as the stomach co-operates with the head and with the heart. Things in life do work together, but they work together in the right way only if they can develop individually, not when they are thrown together abstractly.

The facts of the present time really prove that this insight must be achieved. It is very much worth observing how people at the present time do not see the connection between materialism on the one hand and abstract thinking on the other, particularly in relation to the social question. One great reason for the rise of materialism is that the State has gradually taken possession of all the academic institutions which were originally free corporations. If you go back to the times when such things were founded, from an atavistic feeling originating in clairvoyance, you will see how the necessity of co-operation between these three elements was still felt. Only since the sixteenth century has everything flowed into one, with the rise of materialism.

In earlier times, if a man wanted to be an outstanding jurist, he went to a university distinguished for the law, perhaps to Padua; if he wanted to be an outstanding physician, he went to Montpellier or to Naples; if he wanted to be an outstanding theologian, he went to Paris. These institutions did not belong to a particular State, but to humanity, and represented an independent member of the social organism.

Again, every school that is immediately under the power of the State is an impossible institution, and in the end unhealthy. Every undertaking concerned with production is unhealthy when managed by the State. You cannot pour anything into the lungs, not even water when you are thirsty. If this happens, you see how unhealthy it is.

Today people pour all kinds of economic and even spiritual undertakings into the realm which should be responsible only for the legal regulation of existing affairs. The radical parties go as far as wishing to separate the Church from the State, because they hope that people will be really interested only in what the State does. Then, in this clever, roundabout way, the Church could be expected to fade away entirely. But if you suggest to these people that schools need to be independent in order to restore productivity to spiritual life, they will contradict this very vehemently.

Every arrangement which makes for an intervention from the legal side into the spiritual life must lead to sterility. And in the same way it is false if the legal organisation intervenes in the initiatives necessary for economic life. The police, security, everything which belongs to social rights—not private rights and not penal law, which belong to the spiritual life—all these belong to the system of legal regulations. Everything economic forms an independent system and must be organised cooperatively, in a way that is half-personal. All spiritual life must be a matter for human individuality; in no other way can it flourish.

Schiller describes the middle condition that lies for man between the demands of rational necessity and the demands of this sense-life, and he relates this ideal to the creation and appreciation of art. In his “Aesthetic Letters” he says boldly that man is fully man only when he is playing, and he plays only when he is man in the fullest sense of the word. Schiller regards playing as the ideal condition, but of course you have to think of playing as Schiller does: that the necessity of reason is transformed into inclination, and inclination is raised to a spiritual level like that of reason. He calls the earnestness of life a game, in his sense of the word, for then one acts like a child who is playing, not obeying any duty but following one's impulses, and yet following them freely, because the necessities of life do not yet intervene in childhood.

A summit of human achievement is indicated in Schiller's “Aesthetic Letters”: man is fully man only when he is playing, and he plays only when he is man in the fullest sense of the word. On the other hand, when we have to begin with the concrete reality of the entire cosmos in order to find man in it, it is necessary that we should say to ourselves: man will achieve real progress for humanity only when he can take the smallest things in everyday life, even the most everyday game, and understands how to raise them into the great seriousness of cosmic existence. Therefore it has to be said: a turning-point in the history of mankind has come in this present time, where earnestness is knocking most solemnly at our doors.

Translated by Steiner Online Library

It has often had to be emphasised here that when the truths of Spiritual Science are put into words it is very easy for them to be misunderstood in some direction. I have spoken to you also of the very varied reasons for this ready misunderstanding of the knowledge and conceptions of Spiritual Science. It must frequently be repeated that naturally it is very easy to find here or there, among those who have had little opportunity for acquiring spiritual depth, that statements concerning Spiritual Science are made on insufficient grounds, and so on. It is also extraordinarily easy when the facts of Spiritual Science are given out to say: “How does so and so know that; where does he get his knowledge?”—when these same people are not even willing to investigate the origin of facts they themselves often advance concerning it and form their judgment entirely in accordance with their own knowledge. It is not difficult to say: “How can he know that? I don't know it” and then to declare in a high and mighty way: “What I do not know no one else knows, others can at best only believe it.” Such a judgement comes about merely because one refuses to go into the sources from which, particularly at the present time, the knowledge Spiritual Science has to be drawn.

Among the misunderstandings arising in this way we may include the belief that Spiritual Science wishes to pronounce sentence, sentence of wholesale extermination, upon all the striving of the age, in so far as this striving proceeds from personalities outside the pale of Spiritual Science. Here too lies mere misunderstanding. Spiritual scientists who seriously and adequately pay heed to present world conditions are very ready to enter into the attitude of mind, the mood of soul, of their contemporaries, and will ask themselves the question: “What is going on in the souls of my seriously minded contemporaries in the direction where we have to look for the improvement of much that both deserves and needs to be improved?” What, however, must above all be borne in mind as a particularly striking fact at present is that just in the case of those who make the most earnest endeavours, there is often a refusal to enter upon concrete knowledge of the spiritual world, recognition of the spiritual world, which can appear to men as a reality and not merely as something to be disclosed through a sum of concepts. Today most men prefer to remain with their experiences altogether in the sense world, and at best they allow that a spiritual world can be disclosed by means of concepts and ideas. They do not want to set out on an investigation where there is any question of penetrating to the spiritual world in actual experience. This aversion to spiritual reality is a characteristic feature of our time; it it is a feature of our time to which attention must be paid particularly by those of us who try to take our stand on the ground of spiritual Science.

By quoting to you from the thoughts of Walther Rathenau, (see Z-269) I have recently shown that the spiritual scientist is indeed able really to appreciate the direction modern thought is taking, within the limits, that is to say, of what is estimable in this thought. But the rejection of the really spiritual that should arise in our time is nevertheless extraordinary. This rejection can be fully experienced when one pays heed to what is being thought. To many people this has appeared as the most shattering feature of the present world situation. For there are men who understand how to estimate all the seriousness of the present time, who have for some time understood how to estimate it. Here too I beg you, my dear friends, not to consider this the superior attitude of a number of anthroposophists; I beg you not to suppose that Anthroposophy as such is claiming to judge the seriousness of the times better than people outside the Anthroposophical Movement. For one could wish that many more inside the Anthroposophical Movement would feel moved by what is so critical in the present state of the world. Within our own ranks today far too many are to be found who in spite of the seriousness of the times have no mind to face up to this seriousness, preferring to be occupied with their own worthy selves instead of being aroused to some interest in the great questions pulsing throughout mankind.

At the outset of our considerations today, I will take an example that may be said to have come my way by chance; if the word is not misunderstood, and there is no need for any misunderstanding. It is an article which, it is true, is out of date today since it was written when the so-called war was still in full swing. Thus the article is not up to date. Also it is not exactly impressive in other ways, for most of the things discussed are treated very one-sidedly. But it comes from a man—and this can be seen from the whole character and way of writing—who is giving his most earnest thought to what should now happen, and what the world has to expect from the events. This article gives a picture of the gradual trend of behaviour on the part of the western powers, the central powers, the eastern powers, during the catastrophe of these last years. Although in a one-sided way, it shows the great dangers from this catastrophe threatening both present and future. The writer has a certain world-outlook. He considers the world not only from the point of view of land frontiers; the world from the point of view of frontiers is also discussed among men today, and if they can satisfy themselves that some particular thing does not happen within their own territory, they make their mind easy. The author of this article has a wider outlook than that of the village pump, he grasps something of world perspective. And in the summing up of his ideas we come to a very remarkable passage. He says; “A fearful destiny beckons to the white races which seems to me an absolute certainty unless a period of the supremacy of great wisdom succeeds that of passion and delusion. For some time we have actually been living in an age very similar to that of the migration of peoples. The tempo has been tremendously increased by the world war. What corresponds to the German races who invaded the civilised lands of olden times from outside, are the rapidly rising lower classes of the people who both in blood and cultural heritage are very different from those who previously held the power. This migration of peoples—it is better to refer to it thus than to call it a war—is good in so far as it necessitates a widening, a widening of the cultural basis and a raising of levels as a whole. But this would be very dangerous were it to come about too rapidly. And this danger will be increased the longer the world war lasts.”

The article is now out of date. The danger has not diminished, but since all his arguments were based on the then existing thirst for war, they are now superannuated. For us here, however, the first part of what I read out must be of special interest—“a fearful destiny beckons to the white races and seems to me an absolute certainty unless a period of the supremacy of great wisdom succeeds that of passion and delusion.” For, as an abstract truth, this is in fact undeniably right. And when anyone expresses the opinion that the only salvation for mankind lies in turning to a supreme science of wisdom and not to any other political or social quackery, we must give recognition to such a fact, such a tendency of thought. At the same time, however, we may not forget that just those men who, it must be admitted, are deeply moved by the earnestness of the times, when it comes to saying: In what do these wise ideas consist that are to succeed the old deluded ideas? It is just such men who immediately fall back on any kind of deluded ideas that have become mere fine words. That is the tragedy, the fearful destiny, of our time, that men indeed became alive to the fact that it is necessary to turn to the spirit, and are then overcome by fear and anxiety when they should turn to it. Then they are at once ready, once more to seize upon the old delusive ideas which have driven mankind to the present fearful destiny. My dear friends, we need only take this example of a widespread tendency in ideas. Were you to ask a law abiding upholder of the Roman Catholic Church whether he was inclined to the belief that the old conceptions have brought us to this time of catastrophe and that they must be got rid of, do you think that he would really be disposed to recognise the necessity for reshaping the ideas that were unable to save men from this dreadful catastrophe? No! He would say that were men to turn again in the right way to Roman Catholicism they would at once became happy. And the reflection would not even enter his head that they have had 1900 years in which to practise their Roman Catholicism and yet have fallen into the catastrophe, that the least we must learn from the catastrophe is the need for a fresh impulse. This is only one example among many. Particularly where this point is concerned it is above all necessary frankly to focus attention on existing conditions.

You see today even for a recognised member of some church or other it is easy to say that Haeckelism or materialism is devil's work and must be rooted out lock, stock and barrel. This is the reverse of what is able to lead men to a sound attitude of soul. Yes, my dear friends, it is very easy to speak thus but when it stops there and no investigation is made into the conditions in question, it is impossible to arrive at any sound solution for the present time, much less for the near future. For if you take any world outlook materialist in feeling and ask yourself: where does it come from historically? If you really wish to get to the root of this, in the end you will be unable to help saying that fundamentally it comes from the way in which Christianity has been preached during these 1900 years by the various Christian churches. Those whose insight goes deeper know that Haeckel's doctrine would have been impossible without the preceding Christianity of the churches. There are people who have remained at the standpoint of the church, as it was, let us say, in the Middle Ages; they continue to uphold the ideas professed by the church in medieaval times. Others have developed these ideas. And among those who have developed them is, for instance, Ernst Haeckel. He is a true child of the conceptions fostered through the centuries by the various churches. This has not arisen outside the church; in the fullest sense it has originated entirely within the teachings of the church itself. Certainly the connections of these things will only be recognised aright if one is endowed by Spiritual Science with a little insight to give one clear vision.

Today, therefore, I want to dwell on one particular point, though some of you may say it is too difficult, but nothing ought to be too difficult for us and we are meant to gain insight.

Now look—if today you read philosophically inspired writings of well-educated learned Catholic men you will find, in all passages where a certain point comes into question, a quite definite outlook developed; and it may be said that you find this outlook developed try the very best of these scholarly Catholics. In passing I should like to point out that I am not at all in the habit of undervaluing the literary training of the Catholic clergy for example. I quite realise (and I have spoken of this in my book Vom Menschenrätsel) the superior schooling shown in the philosophical writings of many Catholic theologians, compared with the writings of those men of philosophical learning who have not made a study of Catholic theology. In this respect one must own that the literature, the theological literature, of protestant learning, of the reformed churches, lags far behind the excellent philosophical training of Catholic theologians. Through their strict schooling these people possess a certain ability to form their concepts really plastically. They have what the famous men of non-Catholic philosophical literature, for instance, have no notion of, that is, a particular faculty of seeing into the nature of a concept, the nature of an idea, and so on. To put it briefly, these people are scholarly. One need not even take one of Haeckel's books, one can take one of Eucken's, to confirm this playing about with concepts, this dreadful treatment of the most important concepts, a treatment merely on the level of a cheap novelette! Or, to give another example, we might take one of Bergson's books that always promote the feeling that he is catching hold of concepts but is unable regally to come to grips with them—like the famous Chinaman who wanting to turn round always catches hold of his pigtail. This absolute confusion in the world of concepts, shown by the people who lack training is never to be found when you come to the philosophical literature of the Catholic Clerics. Thus, for example, in this connection, a book like the three volume History of Idealism by Otto Willmann, a thorough going Catholic who makes his Catholicism evident on every opportunity, takes a much higher place than most of what is written in the realm of philosophy on the non-Catholic side. All this may be quite well recognised while still taking the standpoint that must be taken in Spiritual Science. An inferior spirit may decide differently in this matter, may perhaps be of the opinion that because good schooling is shown, the whole thing is of more value.

In this polished Catholic philosophical literature one point will always confront you, a point that has an extraordinary way of hoodwinking the modern thinker. It is the point that always comes into evidence when there is question of the difference between man and animal. I think you will agree that the ordinary readers of Haeckel, the ordinary upholders of Haeckel, always proceed to minimise the difference between man and animal as much as possible, to arouse as much belief as they can that men as a whole is only to a certain extent a more highly developed animal. This is not done by the Catholic men of learning but they always bring forward something that appears to them as a radical difference between animal and man. They raise the point that the animal gets no further than the ordinary conception it acquires of an object by first smelling it, of another object by smelling that or inspecting it, and so on; that the animal always stops at mere detailed, unindividual ideas, whereas man has the capacity for forming deduced abstract concepts and of summing things up. This is indeed a fundamental difference, for when the matter is grasped in this way man is really definitely distinguished from the animals. The animal noticing only details cannot develop what is spiritual; abstract concepts must live in the spiritual. For this reason one has to recognise that in man there lives a soul specially adapted for forming abstract concepts; whereas the animal with its particular kind of inner life has no power of forming these abstract concepts.

Whoever an this point keeps in mind the corresponding Catholic statements will say to himself: Here is something tremendously significant, that through good philosophical training on this decisive, fundamentally decisive, point, the distinction can be shown between man and animal. Modern men do not in the least appreciate the significance of such a matter. When, for instance, the uproar was set going for which Drews was responsible, namely, the discussion whether Jesus ever lived, when at that time a great gathering took place in Berlin about the problem “Did Jesus ever Live?” the Catholic theologian Wasmann¹ also spoke. Naturally he could only say things that the others considered very reactionary. But in spite of the fact that speeches were made at the time by the shining lights of protestant theology in Berlin strictly speaking in those speeches only two utterances, and what supported them, seemed to me really on a better level, not on a present-day level but on a rather higher level. One was an exposition launched by—now I do not wish to say anything derogatory, I am actually praising the man—a learned idler of the first water. (I don't think I can praise him more than by calling him a learned idler of the first water.) Through his intellectuality and the special information he possessed on the most varied subjects, through his great knowledge, the man might have been able to do a great deal. But when I had something to do with him—eighteen, nineteen years ago for fifteen years he had been writing a Revision of Logics and I think he must have been writing it ever since, for in the meantime I have never come across this Revision of Logic. At that time he said something that is quite correct—at the present time men actually become quite frightening when they begin to think—that is they were quite frightening then. One need listen to only two or three propositions, either in a scientific or non-scientific talk, and immediately the most terrible lack of logic can be observed. What (said he) men must observe so that they do not arrive at the most horrible delusive conceptions usual nowadays, can be written on a quarto sheet (so he thought); it is only necessary to take note of this quarto sheet. I am sure I do not know if he will present this quarto sheet as his Revision of Logic! As I said, this Revision of Logic had then gone on for fifteen years since when eighteen, nineteen years have passed; I do not know how for it has got by now. But I want to give him a word of praise by calling him a witty, intelligent do-nothing, because I mean by this that were he not a witty do-nothing ha could do tremendously much. At that time he said something very fine: The Catholic Church one day had to hear that the comets which consist of nucleus and tail are heavenly bodies like the others and move in accordance with laws like other heavenly bodies. As in face of existing facts it could no longer be denied that comets are also heavenly bodies, the Catholic Church decided to allow that the laws of celestial space should also be applied to comets; but they first gave way only where the nucleus was concerned and not the tail. Now in this he was wanting to express merely symbolically that as a rule the Catholic Church is prone only to yield to absolute necessity just as it was not until 1827 that it allowed its adherents to recognise the Copernican world-outlook. But when the Church had to give way to what was most necessary it did at least hold back the tail in the matter! This is an observation which I found highly descriptive of the situation.

The other observation, however, was made by the investigator of ants, the Catholic Wasmann, who not only does excellent work with ants but is a well-trained philosopher as well. He said: “Really gentleman you can not understand me in the least for none of you knows in reality how to think in terms of philosophy. No one who thinks philosophically talks as you do!” And in point of fact he was quite right. There is no doubt that he hit the nail on the heed. Now there is a neat little publication by Wasmann concerning the difference between man and animal which puts forward in clear outlines what I have just now indicated, that is, man's faculty to think really in abstract concepts, a faculty which the animal certainly is not supposed to possess. This is something extraordinarily deceptive, my dear friends, for in a certain way it is convincing for anyone who has schooled his thinking to the point of being able to grasp the whole bearing of such an assertion.

But now let us look at the matter from the point of view of Spiritual Science, there the whole affair will meet you in its true meaning. For you see when we start from Spiritual Science, from the conceptions and experiences in connection with it which can be acquired in the spiritual world, we see, on the one side that without the considerations of Spiritual Science we may arrive at the delusive statement or which I have just spoken, and that it must actually hold good for anyone who will not become a spiritual scientist just because he has had a good training in philosophy. This is seen on the one hand. On the other hand one sees the following—sees it simply by observing things in the world—that when with the hypotheses of Spiritual Science man and animal are compared, it becomes apparent that man confronts the objects in the world in a series of single observations afterwards forming abstract concepts by all manner of thought processes in which he reunites what he has seen as separate entities. It may also be admitted that the animal does not possess this kind of abstraction, it does not practise this activity of abstraction. The curious thing is, however, that the abstract concept is not lacking in the animal, that, in its soul the animal is actually living in the most abstract concepts which we men only form with much difficulty, and that the animal does not see things separately as we do. Where we excel is just in our freer use of the senses and in a quite definite kind of co-operation between senses and inner emotions and will-impulses. We have that advantage over the animal. The sureness of instinct possessed by animals rests on the very fact that the animal from the start lives with those abstract concepts that we have first to form. We differ from animals in the emancipation of our senses and in their freer use where the outer world is concerned, also in being able to pour will into our senses which the animal is unable to do. What we men do not have but must first acquire, namely, the abstract concept, is just what the animal does have, strange as it may seem. It is true every animal has only a limited sphere but in this sphere it has this kind of concept, however odd this appears. Man's attention is directed to one dog, two, three dogs, and he then forms the abstract concept “dog”. The animal in this sphere has the same abstract concept “dog” that me have, it has the quite exact concept without needing to form it. We have first to form it which the animal has no need to do. The animal, however, has no capacity for distinguishing with precision one dog from another or for giving it any precise individuality through sense-perception.

Thus you see, my dear friends, if we do not acquire the faculty for going into the real facts through Spiritual Science, we deceive ourselves in a certain respect concerning what is most essential. We believe because men must develop the capacity to form abstract concepts that through such concepts we are to be differentiated from animals who do not possess this capacity. But the animal has no need of the capacity, since it has abstract concepts to start with. The animal has an entirely different kind of sense-perception from that of man. It is just the outer sense-perception that is quite different.

In this connection a most profound change in human conceptions is needed. For men have informed themselves about all kinds of scientific concepts that have become popular today. Wither they have learnt them in some school through direct tuition or they have received the information from any doubtful source: what I am referring to is those newspaper articles that circulate scientific conceptions throughout the world. Men are under the domination of these scientific conceptions. Where what I have been referring to is concerned, men are absolutely dominated by what I might call an instinctive bias towards the belief that animals really see their environment in the same way as men do. When a man takes his dog for a walk he instinctively believes that the dog is seeing the world in the same way as he does himself, that the dog is seeing the grass, the wheat, the stone in the same colours as he does. He also thinks—if he can think at all—that he can deal in abstractions and therefore has abstract concepts which, however, the dog doesn't have; and so on. Yet it is not so. This dog running beside us is living just as much in abstract concepts as we are. In fact he is living in them with greater intensity. And he has no need to acquire them, for from the start he is living in them to a high degree. It is not the same however, with external perception; which gives him quite a different picture. You need only be attentive to certain things that can be observed in life. These are certainly not always taken sufficiently in earnest. I could give you quite a number of examples to show you in this direction how men from pure instinct think upside down. For instance I was once going down a street in Zurich, I think it was, after a lecture held at the evening meeting of one of our Groups. A coachman was waiting there whose horse refused to answer to the rein and showed signs of shying. The coachman said it was afraid of its own shadow. He of course saw the horse's shadow thrown on the wall by his lamps and supposed that the horse saw the shadow just as he did. Naturally he had no inkling of what was going on in—can I say—the horse's soul, nor what was going on in his own soul. He sees the horse's shadow but the horse has a vivid sense of being in that bit of space in the etheric body where the shadow is formed. This is a quite different process of inner perception—a very different process. You see, you have here the collision between the old way of thinking back to the most elementary, the most instinctive perception of naive men, and what must come into men through the new Spiritual Science. It is true you will first seriously have to take stock of what lies at the root of this. For with regard to such things the crass materialism of a Vogt or Moleschott, a Clifford or Spencer, and so on, differs far less from the handed down creeds of individual religions than does the new way at thought underlying Spiritual Science. Today certain materialists actually think that there is not much difference between man and animal. They may same time have also heard it ring out (even if the bells were not ringing together) that man can form abstract concepts which nevertheless are different from the usual conceptions of the senses. But they say to themselves: Abstract concepts! Perhaps those are nothing very important, nothing very essential; fundamentally men do not differ from animals. Modern materialism as a whole is actually the creation of Church creeds. This must be faced in all seriousness and it will then be seen that it is a question of a fresh kind of conception for the soul of man if we are not to prefer going back to the old conceptions with the idea that all will then soon go well!

But can we say that men are able simply to forbear from turning to the real life of the spirit and at the same time go on? No those are quite right who says “a fearful destiny is beckoning to the white man which seems to me absolutely certain unless a period of the supreme rule of wisdom succeeds that of passion and illusion.” People should recognise, however, that the greater part of the scientific conceptions throughout the world today fall under the category of illusion. This should be thoroughly understood. In their stream of development men have come to the point which we have often described by saying that, since the fifteenth century, mankind has been in the epoch of the consciousness soul. And this development of the consciousness soul takes place in the way I have often described. Let us look at very important characteristic in the development of the consciousness soul.

Last time indeed I pointed out to you that everything perceived by the spiritual investigator, that is to say, everything lying in mankind's development which is raised by him into consciousness, even when not recognised, goes on in man's subconscious. Men go through certain experiences while developing towards the future. They go through these experiences unconsciously When the do not draw them up, bring them into consciousness, as they are meant to do in this epoch of the development of the consciousness soul. But it is just in this epoch that much that would rise in man's subconscious is thrust back again.

Among other things there comes to man in an ever greater degree a certain part of that experience which may be called “the meeting with the Guardian of the Threshold”. Undoubtedly, my dear friends, if men with to enter the spiritual world in full consciousness, to develop Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition, they must enter the sphere of the supersensible world with fuller experiences, with quite different experiences. It might be said they must pass the Guardian of the Threshold with greater thoroughness than the whole mass of mankind are obliged to do in the course of this epoch of the consciousness-soul. Up to a certain degree, however, by the end of the development of the consciousness-soul man must in some measure have passed the Guardian of the Threshold. He can let this happen the easy way by passing in a state of unconsciousness. But Spiritual Science is there to prevent this happening. It has to draw attention to what is now taking place in the evolution of mankind. Whoever holds people back from Spiritual Science is doing no less than forcing them not consciously but unconsciously to approach the Guardian of the Threshold who appears on mankind's horizon in this particular epoch.

To put it differently. From about 1413, for the 2160 years that the epoch of the consciousness soul lasts, mankind in one incarnation or another will have to pass the Guardian of the Threshold and, if only partly, go through what can be experienced in connection with the Guardian. Man can be forced by materially minded men to pass by unconsciously or he can in freedom make the resolve to listen to Spiritual Science and thus experience something in passing the Guardian of the Threshold, either through his own vision or through sound human understanding. And in thus going by the Guardian of the Threshold something will be experienced that enables men to form correct, pertinent conceptions about the concrete supersensible world—above all conceptions enabling them to direct this conceiving, this thinking, in a certain free, unprejudiced direction conducive to reality.

To make thinking in accordance with reality so that it can actually enter into the impulses lying in events and does not live merely in abstractions like modern science, which has knowledge only of external processes—I have often described this as the greatest achievement of Spiritual Science. To know certain things about the spiritual world is becoming a necessity for men. And through this they must be able to judge their position in the world from the point of view of a spiritual horizon, whereas their judgment now has only a physical horizon. You are already judging something in a new and right way when, for instance, you bring the thoughts to fruition in you that animals do not lack abstract ideas but actually live in those that are very abstract, and again, that man is differentiated from the animal by the development of his senses which are freed from the narrow connection with life in the body. It is only through this that one arrives at suitable conceptions concerning the difference between man and animal. This is outwardly expressed by the organisation of the senses in animals standing in a very pronounced relation to the whole life and organisation of the body. The bodily organisation in the animal extends very considerably into the senses.

Let us consider the eye. It is quite well known to natural scientists that the eyes of lower animals have in them organs filled with blood (take as example, the habellifom and ensiform processes) which in a living way establish a relation between the inner eye and the entire organisation: whereas the human eye has no such organisation, being much more independent. This growth of independence in the senses, this emancipation of the senses from the organisation as a whole, is something that only arises in the human being. For this reason, however, the whole world of the senses is much more in connection with the will in man than in the animal. I once expressed this morphologically in a different way drawing your attention to the same fact from a different point of view, as follows. If we take the threefold organism, the organs of the extremities, breast, head, and if I draw it as a diagram, in the animal this is the head organism, this the breast organism and this the organism of the extremities (see diagram). The head is immediately above the earth, the earth is under the head organism in all animals, approximately of course, according to the nature of the being. The spine is above the earth's axis or the radius of the earth.

In man his head stands on his own breast organism and extremities organism. In man the breast organism is under the head organism, as in the primal the earth is under the head organism; man stands with his heed on his own earth. In the animal there is a separation between the will-organism that is, the extremities organism, the rear extremities, and the head. In man the will, the will-organism, is inserted directly into the head and the whole into the radius of the earth. For this reason the senses are, as it were, flooded by the will and this is characteristic of man; thus he is in reality distinct from the animal because his senses are flooded by the will. It is not the will but a deeper element that flows through the senses in the case of the animal; thus there is a more intimate connection between the organisation of the senses and the organism as a whole. Man lives far more in the outer world, animals live far more in their own private world. Man in his use of the tools of his senses liven much more in the external world.

Now consider, my dear friends! We are at present living in the age of the consciousness soul; and what does this mean? It means, as I have shown you several times, that we are pressing towards a time when consciousness will become a mere reflection, when only reflected images will be present in consciousness; for the age of the consciousness soul is also the age of intellectuality. (see Lecture IV) And in this intellectual age man actually first arrives at developing his faculty for abstraction to an absolute art. In this age of intellectualism and materialism the most abstract concepts are formed.

Now we may think of two people; one a well trained philosopher, as well trained as Catholic theologians are. Holding his particular views this man ought to say what he will not sir recognising the dilemma in which we find ourselves because centuries of Christianity have brought about materialism; this he finds unpleasant. He must, however, actually Bays man in the age of the consciousness soul can best form abstract concepts, and in this way has raised himself as far as possible above the animal.

But the spiritual scientist may also come along and sort what is characteristic of man in this age of the development of the consciousness soul is his particularly strong faculty for being able to form abstract concepts. Where does this take him? It actually takes him back into the animal kingdom. And this explains a very great deal. It also explains to you how the fact of man being prone to get as near animals as he can, arises just because he there meets the abstraction of the concept. Moreover it makes clear to you something else that arises frequently today in the carrying on and conduct of life. Science will become increasingly abstract and man in his social life will increasingly wish to live like beasts of the field, simply attending to his most ordinary needs, hunger and so forth. The spiritual scientist shows up the inner connection between the faculty for abstraction and the animal nature. At all events man roes through the experience of this inner connection in the age of the consciousness soul. If he is hindered in the way already described, he goes through the experience unconsciously. Innumerable human beings go through What the depths of their soul tells them: you are becoming more and more like an animal and just by going forward you will become ever more so. Man will have this fright on his path of progress. It is this too that causes men to keep so willingly to the old conservative concepts.

Should this be? And should this unconscious appearance of animal nature hold man back from going forward when he comes to the Guardian of the Threshold? No, this should not happen—but something else has to take place. By going beck during his apparent progress, this backsliding of of man's must so happen that it is not simply a matter of going forward and then back (as it certainly would be were man to develop only a faculty for abstraction), for then man would come back to the earlier stages of his development, he would return altogether to the animal. No, there must be a going backward, but like this (see diagram); an advance must take place, a going upward that must lead into the spiritual.

What we lose by entering into abstractions we must deprive of power by filling our abstract reflected images with the spiritual, by taking up the spiritual into our abstractions. By that we go forward. Man, in front of the Guardian of the Threshold is consciously or unconsciously faced with the formidable decision either through abstract concepts to become more animal than the animal and, to quote Goethe's Faust ‘rub his nose in any filth’; or, on the other hand, the moment he enters abstraction to pour into his abstract concepts what streams out of the spiritual world in the way we have described during these last days. (see Z-269) Then man will begin to estimate rightly his place in the world, for then he understands how he is caught up in evolution. Then he knows why in a Certain point of this evolution—just through abstractions, the danger threatens him of sinking back to the animal. When man in primitive culture epochs stood at the animal stage He was distinguished from the animal not by his abstract concepts but by his senses. The animal had better abstract concepts. It is only now that man can develop abstract concepts at need, animals have much better ones. Once I gave another example of this when I said: How long ago in evolution is it since man tried to make paper? The wasp has been able to do it in building its nest, for millions of years! And just look at what comes to light through animals in the way of active, effective understanding, in wisdom, intellectuality and the faculty for abstraction, even though it appears one-sidedly in the various animals! Men foolishly call this instinct; but when you look into the matter, my dear friends, you will know that there are very few men indeed today who with all their faculty for abstraction come so far with this faculty that they get beyond the one sidedness of the present animal types.

Thus man is placed before this important decision, either to return to the animal condition, in a very great measure to be “more animal than any animal” to use Mephistopheles' expression from Faust—Ahriman Mephistopheles would like to attain this in man—or he must accept the spiritual. (See Lecture V.)

A certain intensity of conception is indeed necessary if man wishes to know what is indicated for him in the progress of time, in the necessities brought about by time. Here man must go deep into world-evolution. And he must not shrink from preparing himself through the concepts of Spiritual Science for the more difficult concepts, the concepts bearing reality. For it is natural, when for the first time anyone hears the kind of things I have been saying today, for him to say: This is pure madness!—That is quite easy to understand. But, my dear friends, we can also imagine that some one may regard very much of whet has been done for years by the clever as pure madness, and accordingly hold the great majority to be mad. But then he would be able to understand why this great majority should take him—an exception—for a madman. For in a company of madmen it is not themselves they hold to be mad but the clever people.

By reason of this, man learns however to make his whole perception of the world fruitful. He learns to make fruitful just what in reality has always distinguished him from the animal. Strictly speaking man is thoroughly unobservant about his own faculties, and he will become so increasingly if he develops only intellectuality in the age of the consciousness soul. If we go back to earlier ages we frequently find among talented men that they still had a certain sense also for their surroundings. If we take the conceptions that these men of old formed about certain animals, for example, these are often full of good sense. The conceptions in modern books on Zoology from the standpoint of abstractions are often quite honest and worthy of recognition, but full of sense, my dear friends, they certainly are not. I should like to ask you, in the first place, whether among the conceptions given out today in schools there are really any capable of leading you into the actual life of the animals? Moreover do not men today notice the timid gaze with which whole herds, whole groups of animals look out into the world—the timid, intimidated gaze? O, we shall learn to see it again when through our faculty of abstraction we have been driven to the Guardian of the Threshold, and are able once more to have sympathy with the animal—not the sympathy often produced artificially but a sympathy corresponding to to an elementary inner experience. It can be said that a peculiar intimidation, as it were, a timid outlook upon the world, is widespread among all the higher animals, all the warm-blooded animals. I was walking once with a university man and at a certain place on our way we saw deer, stags, scampering away from anything and everything. This man said to me: “Something must be the reason for this; formerly men must have tormented animals, shooting them and so on, so that the animal souls have become accustomed to fear men.” But there are other things besides men that animals fear.

Thus people look for the reason why certain animals are afraid. There is no need to look for the reason, my dear friends. Fear is, of course, a quite general universal characteristic of animals. When animals are not afraid it is just because they have been trained and given different habits in some particular way. Fear is innate in the animal because the animal has in a high degree the faculty for abstraction, for abstract concepts, and lives in them. For you must realise that the world you acquire after long study, when you have learned to live in the abstract—this is the world in which the animal lives. And the world here in which man lives in his senses is for the animals, in spite of animals possessing senses, for them far more unknown than for man—and man himself has fear of the unknown. This is thoroughly in accordance with deep truth, The animal gases into the world with timidity; this has definite import. Recently I have spoken of it in an article on “The Ahrimanic and Luciferic in the Life of Man” in the recent number of the publication “Das Reich”: men are afraid in face of spiritual life; how is it that they become so afraid? It comes about by their having at the present time to meet the Guardian of the Threshold in the subconscious. There they come to the decision of which I have spoken; there they approach the animal. The animal is afraid, the animals are going through the region of fear. The connection is thus. And the condition of fear will increase more and more if men do not take serious pains really to learn about, really to take to themselves, the world they have to meet—the spiritual world.

There are only quite a few men in these days into whom something of former atavistic conceptions of world reality have penetrated through the general illusive conceptions. When the animal is observed in its whole connection with the development of nature, when its organisation is looked at in relation to the ordering of nature, what exactly is the animal? You see when the old Moon evolution was in existence, in regard to outer organisation there was still no differentiation between the higher animals and man of today. The differentiation is a product of earth evolution only. Man has gone through the normal evolution of the earth, but the animal has not; the animal dried up, as it were, during the Moon evolution. Its organisation does not fit in with earth evolution, whoever has seen into this—in modern times a few people, Hegel among them, have instinctively seen into this—whoever has done so can answer the question: what exactly is the animal in the form of its organisation? Nature becomes sick and the sickness of nature is the animal, especially the higher animal. In the animal organisation there holds sway the sickness of nature, the sickness of the whole earth. This development of disease in the earth, this unhealthy falling back into the old Moon evolution, is the higher animal nature, not so much the lower animals but those that are higher. But this also is something that, in the decisive moment of passing the Guardian of the Threshold, man meets unconsciously unless he wills to do so consciously.

And if you compare what I have just been saying with the different ways in which the American West, the European centre, and the East meet the Guardian of the Threshold of which I spoke in lectures some time ago, (see R. XLVII) if you compare these you will see how it is possible to get one's bearings where what is happening to mankind on earth is concerned, if only one will go right into these things. Then it will be grasped that in admitting these conceptions man would really arrive finally at thinking differently about himself and his relation to his fellows. Today all serious people should at some time consider the question that can arise in such a sentence as the one referred to: “It seems to me a certainty that a fearful destiny beckons to the white races unless a period of the supreme dominion of wisdom succeeds that of passion and delusive conceptions.” Where these wise conceptions are to be found, how they are to be obtained—these questions Spiritual Science is quite ready to answer (see R. 40)—And Spiritual Science, my deer friends, would like to give the answer to the most important questions of the day. And when anyone comes who feels as deeply as this man what is necessary for the times, he may be told: If you wish no longer to be afraid that a fearful destiny is beckoning to white men, then begin to observe the world and its phenomena in the way of Spiritual Science!

• 1. Erich Wasmann, born 1859 in Meran, became a Jesuit and late a priest. He investigated the life of Ants and among other works wrote The Souls of Men and Animism 1904.

It is perhaps important and especially a propos where the kind of considerations now in point are concerned, to look back on many things connected in former times with some particular spiritual stream. For you have seen that it is a question of spiritual events that lie at the basis of the physical world, making it necessary at present for man to take a new standpoint in relation to the whole understanding of his connection with the world and with the rest of mankind. Yesterday we pointed out how much must be differently understood which, apparently well founded, shines forth here and there into the spiritual life of mankind. You must really be clear, my dear friends, that when impulses founded in this way are taken seriously then, as life goes at the present time, opposition arises against this seriousness and against these impulses generally, the opposition of hate, the opposition of envy, of fear, which proceed from the pettiness of men and so on. Only a deep understanding of things can help to clear away the many hindrances to which the adherent of such a spiritual revolution is exposed. For this deep understanding is well adapted to strengthen the soul, so that this soul is a match for much that always makes itself felt precisely in opposition to the most earnest endeavours in world activity. And so we wish today to enlarge in many ways upon what was said yesterday.

I pointed out yesterday how man, just by standing on the ground of Spiritual Science, can be absolutely objective towards other spiritual streams, how he certainly has no need to misjudge other spiritual streams. From this standpoint I said that on certain points, compared with many of the statements made today by philosophers and theologians outside the Church, through their training the representatives of the Catholic clergy are superior. Just at present we live at a time in which everyone wishing to take the questions concerning a world-conception seriously should come to an understanding about these things. The different currents of world-conception and the social currents of the present day both require this. Without very fundamental observation, the temptations arising from the scholarly approach cannot be properly fathomed, cannot be recognised in their actual lack of significance in the light of the greater demands of the present. The temptation to fall in with the objections of scholarly opponents of the endeavours of Spiritual scientists today is not to be underrated. It is true that if men have sufficient power of discriminations if they would bestir themselves to go into the facts concerning the basis of Spiritual Science, the broad base on which it stands, they would be less exposed to this temptation. But such power of discrimination is rare. What as Spiritual Science, according to how we understand it, wishes to join in with the world current accounts for many kinds of attacks, including those, for example. from the standpoint of the Catholic faith. It is necessary to grasp such things at this time because in the chaos that is about to break upon us, unfortunately far too little appreciated, far too little heeded by men—in this chaos many different things of a disconcerting nature will proceed from what is contained in the Catholic doctrine.

Now today I should like to make you familiar with the kind of judgment about some particular spiritual scientist that an orthodox Catholic may pronounce if he has reason to assume this spiritual scientist to be an unintelligent reader or listener. One of the most common objections against what we here mean by Spiritual Science is its being pantheistic. One of the chief objections made, for example, in the articles by the Jesuit, Zimmermann, in the publication “Voices of the Time” is this—that Spiritual Science is Pantheism.

You know how often I have spoken about this point. You know how I have said that the only wad of overcoming this commonplace Pantheism, so dominant in many places today, is to put in its place the concrete spiritual world of which Spiritual Science speaks. It is naturally not intended, on the part of those from whom the objections come, to go deeply into the truth; taking into account all the prejudice belonging to certain religious partisanship, their efforts go much more in the direction of bringing forward what has a definite suggestive or hypnotic effect. Pantheism is indeed the view that in everything spread out in Nature, spread out anywhere in the phenomenal world, there lives the divine, that, in a way, nature herself is to be looked upon as direct revelation of the divine. It is just this which I have always attacked—this watered-down Pantheism that is forever talking of how behind the outspread world of phenomena there is spirit, spirit, spirit. I have always called your attention to how this is much the same as refusing on the physical plane to recognise tulips, roses or lilies as anything but plants, plants, plants. Spiritual Science goes straight to the individual, concrete spiritual beings and does not speak in the pantheistic general may about the spirit. Another characteristic of Pantheism lies in saying: Pantheism has no wish to separate outer nature from the divine spiritual but would mingle both together. Now, my dear friends, one must indeed be a Jesuit to make it appear that it is believed where the actual ranks of the beings of the higher hierarchies are spoken of in this way as being individualised among themselves and having a personal and superpersonal existence in themselves—it is believed that there can be any question of the mingling of this hierarchical world as a whole with external nature. Whoever can think in accordance with reality will be unable to make anything at all of the accusation of Pantheism, where such a description of the world of the hierarchies, and the connection of the individual beings of the hierarchies with nature, is concerned.

There is a further thing that is quite unique and is given particular prominence in the articles from “Voices of the Time”, namely, that in sir Spiritual Science it is said—and this is supposed to be heretical in the Catholic churd—that the divine is living in man's soul, that the soul of man is itself a drop in the ocean of this divine. Such and similar utterances are collected there and established as heresies within the Catholic confession.

Thus it is shown how the teaching that a divinity should live immediately in the soul is heretical and to be condemned. Now faced with this a reasonable man might say: There is no need for you to draw my attention to such foolishness. But, my dear friends, that is not important, that is not the question. But it must be a matter of these things playing a real part in the world, that where men would deceive themselves these things should play a really powerful part, and that we must already be alive to such things. But they are connected with something besides. And now we will turn our attention from any particular attack that has been made. Let us imagine a man, a Jesuit, who has either been made apathetic where his own reflections are concerned or consciously lives in them—what I mean is, he knows that for himself he has no need to reflect about things but has only to judge the faithful according to the sense of the officially recognised creed. For once we will look at the kind of pronouncements such a man can make about the path of Spiritual Science. I an simply telling you here the average—I should not like to say opinion for opinion does not meet the case, but average utterance of an official representative of the Roman Catholic Church about the path of Spiritual Science, as this would come from a modern believer.

He would perhaps say: The Catholic Christian would not dare take such a path as the one recommended by Spiritual Science for gaining insight into the supereensible. For all the Church Fathers and every exponent of Church doctrine—the cleric of today would perhaps say—condemn such a path. By such a path man is supposed to acquire the special faculty of rising to the supersensible world. That, however, is heresy, that should never be an aim at all. All that may be striven for by an orthodox Catholic is what their teachers of religious doctrine hold to be the legitimate vision. This 'legitimate vision' is that the present day hall-marked cleric of Rome considers valid. What does ne understand by it?

You will be able to form a concept of what he understands by it when you distinguish between two kinds of gifts which, in the sense of the orthodox Catholic Church, man can receive as a believing Catholic. The one kind of gift is the so-called gratiae grate detae, what is given through grace, the supernatural gifts of grace, one might say the Greek charisms. The other gifts are those which may be called the universal human gifts. The gifts that ae out of the ordinary, the charisms are bestowed by God in a way that is out of the ordinary upon men who are out of the ordinary. The Maid of Orleans would perhaps be given as an example. These gifts cannot be striven for, they are bestowed as special gifts of grace upon outstanding men and may not be striven after, accouding to the dictates of the Church. What may be striven for, however, is a certain enhancement of the general life of the soul which does not bring men to any extra-ordinary faculty but to a raising og the faculties that are universal and human. Such a raising of universal human faculties has nevertheless the effect—so says the Roman Catholic Church today of making man capable of being permeated with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore this is what we say: The ordinary mortal thinks something, feels something or does something. According to the dictates of the Church, according to the dictates of the State, he has in duty bound to do these things in a certain ways with his ordinary mortal reflection he can endeavour to perform his action in accordance with the Church, in accordance with the State: in the opinion of the Church this is the same as being in accordance with God. He may also notice, however, if in other things he is an ordinary Catholic Christian, that the Holy Ghost often intervenes in his acting, thinking, feeling, and that because the Holy Ghost is working in him the practice of certain virtues becomes easy which otherwise is difficult. This, however, may not be striven for in such a way that man would go beyond the ordinary point of human endeavour, and develop special faculties for penetrating to the supersensible worlds all striving of such a kind is reprehensible.

Now here I have described the objections an orthodox, hallmarked, Roman Catholic cleric would make to what is found, for example, in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. He would say: man strives for special faculties that would place him in a position to unite himself in a certain way with the spiritual world. But he may not do this. He must remain perfectly passive until he notices that in his mind and soul there enter impulses of the Holy Spirit. He may not bring about ax qualitative change in his behaviour, only an enhancement, as it were, a facility in becoming virtuous, a facility in other faculties exercised ter man on the external physical plane.

You can read this kind of thing today not only against our Sairitual Science but against all man-made endeavours towards producing a human being who sees a spiritual world ground him just as rhynical men with his physical senses, sees around him a physical world. This is familiar even among those who believe they are standing on the firm ground of Christian belief dictated by Rome. And it in widely recognised that anyone thinking differently about the things I have just been describing to you, is a heretic. In giving such a description it must alters be made clear that these things still have tremendous influence today upon millions of human beings. We must not be so egoistic as to think that because one has ceased to believe in thaw oneself (and this too is only a matter of belief) there is no further need to worry. This is exactly what is such a pity today, particularly where the social movement is in question, men are so egoistic that they look only to the needs of their own soul and have no wish to extend their gaze to what unites men, to what is permeating millions and millions of men, as a drivinfr impulse which, when it then breaks forth, can appear in the font we nee things now arising in the word, Today it is necessary to be quite clear about the sources of these things and the necessary attitude to take towards the things themselves.

Now these clerics stamped with the mark of Rome as a rule appeal to the Fathers of the Church. They go back to the Church Fathers of earlier centuries and from their sayings take what they believe to be in harmony with all I have just described. Now, naturally, I cannot read out to you for hours at a time the doctrines of the Church Fathers; I should like, however, to draw your attention to something in this direction, namely, the attitude to these things that can be taken by man in this age of the consciousness soul which began with the fifteenth century.

First, therefore, we must keep in mind that the way into the spiritual world, as Spiritual Science understands it, is held to be heretical; so says the modern cleric recognised by orthodox Rome. In the second place we have to remember the accusation against Spiritual Science—that it speaks oft man being able to partake of the divine; this also is heretical, as once more stated today by the Catholic cleric approved by Rome.

Let us be willing to look for once rather more closely at what an outwardly—not inwardly as we shall soon see—an outwardly well-reputed Church Father, outwardly well-reputed also by Rome, says about a matter like the vision of which I have previously given you a description. John of the Cross,¹ for example, speaks about what vision should be for orthodox Catholic Christians who through this vision my be said to get beyond the mere general belief of the Church and rise to a kind of higher perception of the divinity pulsing through the world. The Catholic Church today allows a man through vision to get beyond purely general belief. But it forbids him to get as far as superphysical faculties, that is, faculties leading into the super-physical world in the same way as external senses lead into the world of the senses. Now St. John of the Cross says: “The time has come (he is referring to the time of vision) when the reflection and contemplation undertaken previously by the ordinary powers of the soul should gradually cease, when the soul sees itself bereft of its former enjoyments and palpable delights.”

Thus St. John of the Cross admits the state in which ordinary reflection is silenced, the reflection by which man comes to terms with the things of the physical plane that are perceived by the senses and understood by the intellect. He admits, therefore, that man deprives himself ordinary contemplation which the soul experiences in such contemplation and in such relation to external nature ceases. This he admits.

Condemned to a state of barrenness and aridity (he goes on to say) the soul can no longer deliberate by means of the intellect.

Thus, by shutting off his senses, by stopping the activity of his intellect, (and this is necessary for the attainment of vision) man with his soul comes to a kind of barrenness and aridity. By this he really comes to that participation in the divine, held by St. John of the Cross to be permissible. When therefore the soul no longer reflects with the intellect or even finds any physical support, then the senses are no longer enriched. The spirit has the advantage without receiving anything from the senses. It can thus be seen that in this state, God is the principal agent.

Now let us go minutely into this matter. St. John of the Cross says: Man can reflect, he can take up outer perceptions through his senses, the soul can become passive, the soul of itself does nothing further. Thereby God becomes the principal agent in the soul. He Himself instructs the soul and gives it suitable knowledge. In visions he presents the soul with wholly spiritual possessions, more particularly knowledge and love of God, without the soul having to reflect or enter upon other exercises which are no more possible to it than formerly.

Take these words of the canonised John of the Cross, one who is still recognised today in Rome as an orthodox Father of the Church. Take these words first in relation to the accusation of Pantheism recently made against Spiritual Science for having spoken, for example, of the life of soul as being like a drop in the ocean of the divine, therefore having itself a divine nature, which today according to preaching and believing clerics is heresy. But, my dear friends, St. John of the Cross describes the possibility of coming to a passive condition of the soul when reflection and sense perception are shut off and God is the chief agent, when, in his own words, God presents the soul during vision with wholly spiritual benefits Himself, instructing the soul, imparting to it an infusion of wisdom.

Now I ask you: What sense have these words if it is said further that the human soul is never brought into a real connection with the divine Being? What does the statement mean that God Himself is alone active in the soul, when it is supposed to be heretical to speak of men coming into direct, conscious connection with God? When anyone says: the soul is related to the sum of the divine-spiritual like a drop in the ocean that is of the same nature an the water of the ocean as a whole—should this be understood as unpermitted Pantheism if truth held good, and when at the same time it is recognised, for example, that an orthodox Father of the Church, St. John of the Cross, admits the possibility of God Himself taking over the chief activity in the soul? To recognise how far truth is the governing factor in official circles you must keep consciously in your soul the following fact—that, at the sane time, such masters are appealed to as St. John of the Cross who really teaches Pantheism (if one is to call it Pantheism) in a far more marked way than Spiritual Science. But this is held to be heresy! So, what is one to do? St. John of the Cross is allowed to pass for a Church Father of authority, and people are deceived by being told that Pantheism is forbidden. But this means further that nobody may assert it to be heretical if it is said: God is so directly present in the soul that the human soul can be conscious of this!

No, my dear friends, people today should not be loose in their thought; they dare not think loosely if still greater misfortune is not to befall mankind. Today men should be able consciously to keep the fact before them that it is possible officially to convey this kind of misrepresentation of the truth throughout the world.

Another utterance of St. John of the Cross is: ”Priceless are the inner benefits imprinted by this silent vision into the soul when it is unconscious. In short they are nothing but the extraordinarily tender and most mysterious anointing by the Holy Ghost who, as he is God, acts as God.”

“The Holy Ghost acts as God immediately in the soul,” says St. John of the Cross (this was Catholic doctrine at the time of John of the Cross before the age of the consciousness soul) “And works upon, and inundates the soul in secret with such a measure of riches, gifts and graces that it is beyond description.”

And now I would ask you: what are we supposed to understand when one of those who write about heresy today says it is heretical to assert that God is identical with the human soul!

This is the position of things. But men are so little awake that they pay no attention today to how the truth is 'managed'. in the final analysis it rests on man having troubled so little about what has been given out as truth in the world, that so fearful a catastrophe should have fallen upon it. And it rests on this also that truth can be hated in the way it is still hated at present by certain people.

Today in Rome the approved clerics take particular pains constantly to emphasise that no difference should be said to exist between the ordinary faculties the faithful develop by belief, and the enhancement of belief that is expressed in vision. No difference is supposed to exist or at the most a difference of degree; for when a real difference is striven for, this is heretical. But St. John of the Cross says: “The difference consists in man seeing only darkly through belief, whereas with perception of the soul theveils are removed from Him”. (He means God). At the time when St. John of the Cross wrote these things down, before the age of the consciousness soul, this was Catholic doctrine. What today holds sway as Catholicism where these things are concerned is only the shadow and no longer the light. It is really very beautiful how John of the Cross describes for that age the mystical path of Knowledge, the way into the tensible. He says: “The narrow portal is the night of the senses. To pass through it, the soul has to get free from itself and cast its shell.” At that time these things were said not in the way that Rome speaks, but rather as Spiritual Science speaks. Spiritual Science is the real continuation of the noble strivings to enter the spiritual world as they appear in John of the Cross. But Spiritual Science is the continuation suited for the present age: it reckons with the progress of mankind

The narrow portal is the night of the senses. To go through it the soul must become free of itself and cast its shell. And by then taking beliefs which has nothing to do with the senses, for its guide, the soul travels along the narrow path to the second night—the night of the spirit.

And very beautiful is the description by St. John of the Cross of the union with the divine-spiritual: “The union is accomplished when the two wills, namely, the will of the soul and the divine will, become one.”

It could not be more clearly expressed that a divine will exists holding sway over the world, and a will belonging to the soul, both of which merge in vision. But today that is said to be heresy. Truth would be honestly upheld were it said: Today St. John of the Cross is no longer a saint but a heretic. This is what the cleric of Rome would be bound by duty to say if he wished really to uphold his assertions.

Thus, St. John of the Cross says that union is brought about by the two wills, that of the soul and the divine will, becoming uniform, which means, when there is nothing in the one will that is opposed by the other.

But then in the sphere of the orthodox Roman Catholic clericalism it is definitely intended that the path of individual knowledge should be barred to the mere believers and also to the bumbler clerics. Today, therefore, while misrepresenting people like John of the Cross, people such as John of the Cross are constantly having attention drawn to them. It is pointed out that John of the Cross would at that time have only allowed vision to be resorted to if men first received three signs. The first of these signs by which the soul felt itself summoned to vision, that is, to mystical vision, would be inability to contemplate and to make use of imaginative powers, antipathy towards outer contemplation. Thus when the soul feels loath to receive sense-perceptions and to reflect, the time has arrived when it should give itself up passively to the will of God.

The second sign would be perceiving that one no longer desired to employ the imaginative power of the senses in special outer and inner imaginations. Thus the first sign is becoming tired, the second is ceasing to have desire. The third inner sign would be the sensation of most intimate joy felt by the soul in being alone, therefore without sense-perceptions and reflection, but with attention focussed purely on the divine.

Now, my dear friends, you will not read what is in the book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds intelligently without saying to yourself something which it is true, is modified to suit the time, namely: with those three signs I can now first find myself completely in harmony. There is absolutely nothing against the three signs. One has only to meet them with understanding in accordance with existing conditions. Let us then consider the three signs, which John of the Cross sets up as signs on receiving which the soul may turn to mystical vision, and thus to the path into the spiritual supersensible world.

The first sign would be the inability to contemplate and use one's imaginative power, reluctance towards contemplation. We must remember how these words were written before the age of the consciousness soul was fully established. Than when the age of the consciousness soul is established man turns his gaze upon nature as she is presented to him by modern science. But the historical development of mankind must still be reckoned with. We have to reckon that the men around St. John of the Cross were not soaked and steeped in the conceptions that shower in all directions out of modern natural science. St. John of the Cross had only those about him who led a life of devotion to the Catholic Faith, who took their world outlook from this Catholic Faith and were preached to from the pulpits of Catholic Churches. One has to speak differently to such men from how one speaks in the twentieth century to men soaked through by scientific conceptions. For what does it actually mean to be permeated by a scientific outlook? Whether they admit it or not all men are that nowadays down to the last peasant in the last cottage, if he is not just an illiterate, and even illiterates are permeated by scientific conceptions in the form of their thought. Anyone who looks at the world today in the way it must be looked at in the sense of the modern world, if he has a living need for knowledge must, because scientific conceptions inform him only about what is dead, must come to see that scientific observations make it impossible for him to be satisfied with them. There arises exactly what St. John of the Cross describes as the first sign. This sign is produced by the scientific kind of conception. At the time he wrote it was granted to few, today it is granted to all who even begin to think. We must take note of this difference. Were St. John of the Cross to write today he would say: Certainly at that time to those men who felt incapable of observing things outwardly and of setting the imaginative power in movement, mystic vision had to be recommended. Today everyone given up to unprofitable conceptions of science, at a definite point of time becomes capable of abandoning these conceptions, particularly when in their souls they have a longing to find some kind of path to the divine-spiritual. St. John of the Cross spoke to very few candidates; today all thinking men are candidates. This exactly represents the progress of mankind. Thus when man who lives in the scientific age feels this longing today, it is the fulfilment of what St. John of the Cross accepted as the granting of the sign.

The second sign is man's perceiving that he no longer desires to use the imaginative power of the senses for special outer or inner imaginations. My dear friends, the moment science can do no more than afford man a view, a perception, of how he has developed from what is animal, the soul in reality begins to perceive that the desire has flown simply to observe in the outer world what the senses reveal. For these reveal that man has descended from the animals; one no longer has any desire in that direction. And bemuse the time has come—formerly only for the few, now for all thinking men—in the actual sense of John of the Cross one turns to what is the idea behind evolution, that is, one turns to the path into the spiritual world.

The third sign is the experience of joy in the depths of the sea en feeling itself alone in its contemplation of God. Now this inward joy will certainly be felt, as soon as they find their way into the supersensible world, hy all who in this scientific age have absorbed only those concepts offered them by science.

Once again we are faced by the fact, the significant fact, that it is just our Spiritual Science of today that so thoroughly fulfils what, for his time and in his sense, was demanded by such a man as John of the Cross.

The stream of development flows on and today fulfilment has a different appearance from What it then had. There are other contributing factors. whoever looks today with an honest sensefor truth at the evolution of mankind, will say to himself: Because we have entered upon the scientific age, the feeling for super-sensible knowledge must be kept alive in men. Such demands as those of John of the Cross will be fulfilled without further adoif man treads the path marked out, for example, in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. If he takes this way there will be revealed to him not what was revealed at the time when St. John of the Cross was writing, but there will be revealed to man what lies today on the path of human evolution. At this point we can no longer speak in the sense of pure positivist Christianityas did St. John of the Cross, for the serious fact lies before us, referred to both yesterday and many times previously that today in a certain respect man either consciously or unconsciously passes by the Guardian of the Threshold. There he comes to recognise that he must speak not only of a single divinity but of the divine hierarchies. There he comes to know how Ahriman and Lucifer are to be contrasted with the divine hierarchies. But, my dear friends, just as the Catholic Church wanted to hold men back from accepting the Copernican view until the year 1827, in a similar way it will want to keep men from the supersensible knowledge that is a necessity for our times. Why in this? It is because it does not wish men to be awake to what is streaming into the evolution of mankind from spiritual heights.

It is true that there may be some and there are some who with a certain honesty say the following: Man today is not prepared to approach directly with his soul what comes from the spiritual world; this only does him harm. Then when he meets the Guardian of the Threshold he will not be able to distinguish illusion from reality. Therefore let us give him a grizzly picture of setting out on the spiritual path so that he runs no risk. - Such people do not reckon with the necessities of the age, they reckon with a narrow, limited conception, but it is possible that they are sincere. The majority, however, of those who say things such as: “One dare not set out today on the path to supersensible knowledge” mean something else. From various directions a certain feeling of fear towards truth holds the truth back from flowing in. This feeling of fear, this anxious feeling, is present in the official upholders of widely extended religions; it is also prevalent in certain societies of Freemseons and similar brotherhoods. I have already drawn attention to this from another point of view.² There are, too, within these Societies some people who are honest from their point of view, but the force with which they hold up the progress of mankind is terribly strong. The following calls for attention. There are those, particularly in the higher grades of these Orders, who say: Man as a rule is not sufficiently mature to come to an immediate knowledge of the spiritual world, therefore he should be held back from direct entrance into the spiritual world. It is a forbidden thing to enter and man shold only be permitted to get as far as the practice of ceremonies prescribed in certain ancient rituals. He should be referred to all manner of symbols which do not lead him directly into the spiritual world but which as far as possible would indeed be symbols of great antiquity. I have told you that in this respect certain Masonic Orders, shall we say, hold to what is in contrast to the dearest impulse of most of the ladies. Most ladies you must know are young, most masonic societies would like to be as old as possible! Where possible, very ancient ritual is indicated or very ancient traditions. Not always, but very frequently it has an untrue intention, but sometimes it is honestly meant when it is said Rituals that are very old can do no harm when carried out by men today, for they are obsolete, they have become rigid, they are merely the shadows of what they have been. Besides, human souls have lived so long with rituals, with their symbols mid what these represent, that they have became habituated to them and will no longer receive shock from the impression of an immediately experienced truth. If people are made acquainted with what is thoroughly old, what still exists only as a shadow, they will be lass exposed to danger. All these things may be argued, my dear friends, but they have to collapse in face of the necessity belonging to this turning point of time. The evil that would come were man to throw back the breaking wave of the spiritual tide, would be greater than all the rest of evil beside. Our real duty in face of all those cosmic spirits who have to do with the evolution of mankind, is to make man realise what, simply throw present cosmic lrws in any case in the unconscious, is taking place in the soul of every man today. In the age of the consciousness soul it is an absolute necessity to call this up into consciousness. It is necessary, also, where what is arising with such power in social dew ads is concerned, that that is actually present in the soul of ran should be recognised. For, externally, existence becomes ever more like a mask, and elmsys merely phenomenal. The possibility absolutely exists for man to have such experience in his soul that he posses by the Guardian of the Threshold; but because of the materialism of the time his consciousness of this passing will be suppressed. What is suppressed, however, what is not conscious, not for that reason non-existent! In spite of all, it is there. Any man passes by the Guardian, but by reason of present education he suppresses this. What it then represents can be something quite different. It may be the deeds of Lenin, it may be the deeds or a member of some kind of Spartacus League. Heed must be paid today to the fact that we have arrived at the age when through the delusive impulses of materialism the passing through certain spiritual impulses may be outwardly masked in a way that is very highly dangerous to mankind.

The times are serious. But action will be in accordance with this seriousness if in man the honest will is only there to interpret with his sound human understanding that can be brought from the spiritual world through a real Science of the Spirit.

• 1. San Juan de la Cruz, born 1542, died 1591, studied under the
  Jesuits in Medina del Campo, became Abbot of the Carmelite Monastay at Menrezo about 1568; successfully defended himself on an indictment brought against him by the Inquisition, and founded the Monastery of Ban= in lam In 1581 the Order of the Carmelites hauled aver to his the direction of their pal Monastery at
  Granada. The Curia appointed him as Pro al Vicar of
  We-UM in lam, and in 1566 as Definitor. Through the discipline of his Order he acquired enemies vho, by their influmea vg Philip II, sumeoded in eausing, John of thi Woos to be co
  the Monastery of Ubede. In 1675 Benedict XIII canonised the "ecstatic Doctor."
• 2. See a XLVII, Leettlres 8 and 9.

From our considerations of yesterday you will have seen how easily the whole course of human evolution can be misunderstood and how it is particularly misunderstood from many sides today to the detriment of present knowledge as well as of the present social striving of mankind. (see Z-7.) Today we will for once call up before our souls some results of Spiritual Science of such a nature that they can throw light, it may be said, from another side on what becomes so enigmatical if looked at from the points of view holding good at present. Now I have told you that man can come to terms with this present time only if he makes up his mind to find his real bearings by starting on the path to the spirit. He must decide to look for a new relation to external nature since the old means to this end no longer suffice, and also find his way to a new relation to his fellow men, the old relation no longer being suitable, so that he sees what impulses are necessary for the modern social structure of mankind. If we wish to be successful in this, we must earnestly keep before our souls the following—that as man is placed in the world today, in earthly existence between birth and death, he sees but the outer manifestation of his own essential being and enters into actual relationship with merely the outer manifestation of his fellowmen. Life takes on a different form for the different epochs of mankind's evolution, and we exert ourselves really to study these things just in their relation to men of the present time. For the present age is a very critical one for men on earth. Up to the fifteenth century, and, since things do not change in a flash, one might say on into the present time, man is still actually more or less dominated by inherited concepts and impulses of the past. This fifth post-Atlantean epoch is indeed in a certain sense rather out of the ordinary where the evolution of men is concerned. For you certainly know that taking earthly evolution as a whole it divides itself into seven great successive epochs, of which the fourth was the Atlantean epoch and the fifth, our present one, the post-Atlantean. The sixth and the seventh should then follow.

In the Atlantean period there was a kind of crisis. For up to that time the whole of the earth's existence was a recapitulation of the earlier existence of Saturn, Sun and Moon. During the Atlantean period there was a kind of crisis but it is true only the beginning of a crisis. There was merely a preparation of things that were actually to be developed in the following evolution of the earth. So that up to Atlantean times man was really only what he had been in his different forms as man on Saturn, Sun and Moon. In Atlantean times, however, he had only intimations of what he was supposed actually to become as man of the earth; then he continues on, and now we are in the fifth post-Atlantean period. In the post-Atlantean period, throughout the old Indian end old Persian development, and so on, ever more definite relations were arising. But the Greco-Latin time, the fourth post-Atlantean period, gives us again even though in another form merely a kind of repetition of what existed on another level of existence in Atlantis. It is only now in the fifth post-Atlantean period, in the time since the fifteenth century, that man stands within his whole evolution in such a way that new impulses arise—impulses which are perceptible in his very being. Previously they were not so noticeable; now they appear in his being noticeably, nevertheless there are still only intimations of their presence. The terrible, catastrophic events of our time, the consequences of which—one can already foresee—will be shattering to mankind, are the expression of how new relations are making their way into mankind's evolution. I have already indicated how from a certain aspect these new relations can be described by pointing to the way in which an on-rolling spiritual wave is clearly perceived, arising from, as it were, a surging up into evolution of the Spirits of Personality.

Now we notice it after the manner of Spiritual Science we keep in mind this particular state of soul in which modern man is found here on earth, it is markedly noticeable today, according to the outlook of Spiritual Science, how man when he perceives or is outwardly active in his willing is really surrounded only by manifestations of the being of nature, and the being of his fellow men. He is not surrounded by the real beings into whom he must, as it were, grow in the course of evolution, into whom he will have grown at a later stage of evolution. As you know, man's position in the world is such that—to describe it broadly—he perceives the surrounding world in the mineral kingdom, plant kingdom, animal kingdom and in his own human kingdom. This is what is visible around man. And in the visible human kingdom there is played out what comes from the will and what should find a certain ordering for the social structure.

Now people have reflected a great deal about man's attitude to his environment, though insufficient thought has gone into their reflections. But the result of these reflections has been worked into various theories of knowledge. We get very little, however, from these theories of knowledge. And what in schoolmaster fashion is given in these theories today to the young people, who are then supposed to speak to the world as philosophers, is really perfectly inadequate nonsense. For a true insight into what is really revealed in man's surroundings, a real insight, can only be gained when the matter is observed according to the way of Spiritual Science. You see, on one side man can look upon the mineral kingdom and the plant kingdom; on the other side he can look on the animal kingdom and the kingdom of man himself. Both—mineral kingdom and plant kingdom as well as human kingdom and animal kingdom—unveil themselves to him in such a way that if now in a theoretical sense he is honest, in this unveiling, in this revealing, he notices contradictions. He is unable to make anything of the way in which on the one hand the mineral kingdom and plant kingdom, and on the other hand the animal kingdom and human kingdom reveal themselves to him. And when people believe they can succeed in doing so this comes from a certain dullness. Because they take life too easily they are unwilling to go into all the doubts which arise from observing the kingdoms of Nature. But now, when one presses on to knowledge, when one trains oneself in the direction given in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, then to a certain extent a change takes place in our contemplation of the mineral and plant kingdoms, as well as in our view of the connection with the animal and human kingdoms. Unconsciously men already have, to a high degree today, a feeling for this change, even if it does not enter consciousness. It remains indeed in the unconscious—just as I told you that today in the natural course of evolution man passes by the Guardian of the Threshold unconsciously. It is actually a certain fear of the truth which always unconsciously holds men back from really pressing on so that they come to this change. I am speaking in Imaginations, my dear friends, in Imaginations translated into words. In reality these things cannot be appropriately described in any other way. For when man brings to life within him what can be made living, when he applies himself to what is described in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, looking at the mineral and plant kingdoms with this transformed power of cognition, he will always experience something like fear. But you should not have to shudder nor get gooseflesh at the description of these conditions. People avoid them because they are afraid. From this you ought to understand that of course when picturing these conditions one can indeed get gooseflesh to a certain degree, and on that account people just get frightened. When such knowledge is acquired, on looking at the mineral and plant kingdoms, one always experiences something like the smell of a corpse; there is a corpse-like smell which characterises as if in a vivid feeling what is living in the mineral and plant kingdoms. On the contrary, When with transformed cognition we look at the animal kingdom and the kingdom of man, there is always a sensation that can be described by saying: actually (you will forgive me, I know, for putting this Imagination into words) actually so long as they are in a physical body men remain—even the most advanced of them—where what in reality is hidden within them is concerned, always children, thorough children. The simple truth is that far more lies hidden in a man between birth and death than he can develop outwardly, can bring to manifestation out of himself.

Therefore, because in supersensible knowledge there is always a gradual ascent from semblance to actual reality, you see that when looking at, observing the outer world as it now is, we actually have to do with semblance alone. For the corpse-like smell of which I have spoken and, forgive me, the childishness of men, are veiled. The corpse-like smell finds, if I may say so, too dull a nose in our physical men, the etheric nose not being sufficiently developed. And the childishness of men does not allow us to confess its presence because , as men, we are too conceited to do so. Yet this is how the matter stands. My explaining what I have just been describing one points at the same time to there being far more hidden in in man than can be given practical proof. The question may now be asked: If man does not perceive the reality in minerals nor plants, if he perceives no reality in animals either—not even in his own being as man, where then is his right setting on earth? Strange as it may seem we find him placed among beings who belong neither to the mineral and plant kingdoms, nor to the animal and human kingdoms, but lie between them. He bases his being upon a kind of plant-animal, or animal-plant. were there a being here on earth neither wholly plant nor wholly animal, but having mere plant nature where their inner organisation is concerned, and having the power to go around, to move about at will like the animals—now this is what I meant were there beings who on being examined anatomically would not be found to have muscles and blood within them but whose anatomy would resemble that of the plants, with only their cells and tissue, but if these beings were able to move at will like the animals, or were there wandering round our earth animals that on dying left plantlike corpses, then man in his whole attitude of soul would really belong among these beings. Here in his earthly existence man would really be able to comprehend such beings. But again the remarkable thing is that for their part these beings could not exist on earth, these beings are only to be found in other worlds. They could not flourish in earth existence. Thus, we may say that man really lacks the faculty for knowledge—and this particularly apparent today's—which enables him to penetrate directly into the being of minerals and plants. and also of animals and men. And the beings he would directly perceive in their whole constitution are just these which could not live on the earth. This is the remarkable position of man where his relation to nature around him is concerned.

But here on earth man stands also in a strange relation to himself. Man is on the one hand a being who has conceptions. When, however, he puts this faculty for conceiving, for having ideas, into action, in the conception he loses his own identity. And he actually has his identity, that is not able to make an appearance in the conception, only when something—his will—works up out of the unconscious. If the will were not to work up and we were to have no trace of it in us, could we have andy ideas about it. The whole world would seem to us ghostly. We should have a ghostly world before us, which about describes the world of scientific concepts; this would actually constitute our world. Imagine the world looking as it is described by natural scientists or zoologists; just think of it being nothing more than what is found in books on Botany and Mineralogy. Real Botany and Mineralogy contain far more than what we find in books. But imagine you were taken into a world described in books, where there was nothing more than what is described in books; it would indeed be a world of mere apparitions, a proper world of ghosts. The world not being one of ghosts is amply due to the will having something to say. Now look! Were you able to fly—I don't mean with a machine but were you able to fly yourself, if you had no need of earth under your feet and were you able to move freely without the earth—then you would come near to perceiving the world in this ghostly fashion. Even if you could only follow the world with your eyes when awake it would appear very ghostly, not so much so as when described by the natural scientist, but all the same it would appear very ghostly. You have a feeling of the solidity of world existence only because you stand with your feet on the ground. And this pressure of your feet against the ground gives you the feeling, akin to the will, but watered-down will, that you are not in a ghostly world but in one that is solid. Were you not to have this feeling, should you only see, the world would appear to you a very ghostly place. You do not tell yourself what is going on in the subconscious; in the subconscious something is going on that makes man say (in the subconscious he does say it): Yes, the world looks very like a ghost! Were it really what is presented by my eyes I should never be able to stand firm, I should have to sink down; and as I do not sink, the world is not as presented by my eyes. This conclusion is constantly being arrived at in the unconscious. The entirely ordinary, most everyday relation to the world is as complicated as this. It is always an unconscious conclusion that to a certain extent originates with the will. Thus in mere conception we actually lack—to use an erudite expression, a pedantic expression—we lack the subject, it drops out. That we have a subject and feel ourselves bound up with the world comes from the will.

Again, when we will, when we develop the will, the object is actually lacking. The object does not come into our consciousness at all as something properly solid. If I want simply to lift this little book from the left side over to the right, and actually do it—the real object of the will does not enter consciousness at all. You can see the passage of the book, the conception which takes its ghostly way into the will, but the actual object of the will does not enter consciousness. So that man when he makes conceptions and also when he wills (this again sounds grotesque because an Imagination is being clothed in words) man as a conceiver as well as a willer is—if you will forgive me—a cripple. He conceives in a ghostly way and wills incompletely. What man is in reality, is actually neither quite within his conception nor his will; once again it is in the centre between the conception and the will. But all this goes on in ordinary life without being able to enter consciousness. In the same way as the plant-animal is unable to enter external nature, what man actually is cannot enter his consciousness. For this reason I have often spoken to you of the fact from another point of view by saying: man perceives the real ego like a hole in life's events. You see we have to be clear that holes can also be perceived. Man knows nothing of sleep, he wakes, sleeps; wakes, sleeps; wakes, sleeps. But reviewing the course of his life he is faced by empty space in his consciousness, the hole in consciousness, and he sees just as if there were a white surface before him with black holes where really nothing is to be seen. Thus he looks at the holes that, during sleep, are there in consciousness. But it is also the same with our ego in waking life. Our ego is not in reality brought into consciousness: in the consciousness there is only a hole for this ego, and perceiving this hole is the only thing that makes us aware that we really have an ego.

These things, that appear to the insensitive men of today as sophistry, must gradually become an elementary consciousness in man. For in the future man will not be able to found life on dogmatic conceptions, as has been possible for him in the past owing to the still existing remains and after effects of atavistic clairvoyance. In future we shall have to base life on grounds that are easy to detect. It will have to be part of our everyday conceptions that mineral and plant kingdoms are observed after the manner of Goethe. For Goethe only examined the phenomenon, and did not believe that in the phenomenon there was revealed anything but, at best, the basic phenomena, the archetypal phenomena and that phenomena do not reveal in laws of nature which can be put thoughts. Goethe never looked for laws of nature, for this would have seemed to him very fantastic; he wanted to pursue the phenomena because the external world shows us in the mineral and plant kingdoms nothing but perceptions, appearances. Thus man has to look at the external world to become conscious of himself. In the mineral kingdom, in the plant kingdom I really see only the outer side, and when confronted by the animal and human kingdoms I actually see only something like an embryo of the complete being. That also must be so. For you see, in the mineral and plant kingdoms in reality there exist beings who, when observed by man, reveal only a certain side of themselves because it may be said they cannot reveal themselves in any other way. For in the mineral and plant kingdoms lives something man can only fully recognise if—please understand me, thoroughly he looks back to the world from which he came on entering physical existence through birth. Could you after birth with your thought keep possession of the consciousness that stretches backward before birth, could you, that is, look upon being born as an event in your life like—shall we say—the passing from the fifteenth to the sixteenth year, and were the backward-running thread of consciousness to remain unbroken—the consciousness being quite different before birth, before conception—without more ado you would get a view of mineral and plant kingdoms quite different from the one you get on looking from the standpoint of life between birth and death. For you would then say to yourself the followings I have come from the spiritual world through birth. I have entered this physical realm. Why should I have done this? Why should I not have remained in the spiritual realm? Why have I been enticed down to earth at all? For one may speak here of enticement. Then, if you were able to remember, you might says I have been enticed to earth for the reason that suddenly in the course of my development between death and a new birth, it seemed—I came into a sphere where it seemed—as if certain beings had flown away, as if they really should be there, were missing—and were not there. To put it bluntly, in the time just before birth in the spiritual world one is dogged by the feeling that one misses certain beings which actually belong there and are not there. Everything goes to show that these beings are lacking. And if one comes down through birth, these beings are there in the minerals and in the plants, but as though banished, as if these beings were banished from the world just left, as if they could not really flourish, would half die and thus create the corpse-like smell, would become half dead in the world one has entered. Before birth we long to know certain exiles. We only know there are banished beings, but where are they? Then we go into the physical world and perceive them, but they might be said to be embalmed, mummified. For in the world we have entered it is only possible for them to be embalmed, mummified, dried up. It is perfectly right, on being confronted by the mineral world and the world of the plants, that we should have the feeling we are looking at beings exiled from the spiritual world, from the regions in which we were before having to enter physical life.

And when we look at animals and men end see their childishness, then, if we can develop the power to see more deeply into being, we remember that these animals and men, as they actually are here in the world in which we live between birth and death are never finished, never actually bring to completion the whole of their life which is conditioned by their inner being. Anyone looking at animals in the right way, anyone who can look at them with full inward and living force of knowledge, knows well that animals are not immortal, but knows too that animals experience in their group souls the whole tragedy of this not being immortal. The group souls outlast the individual life of the animal but what there is here on earth of the animals is—as I recently sale—in reality sick (see Lecture 1), and this is so on account of its deterioration through belonging to s world from which it is banished. And in his outer physical form man also is an exile in this world. He therefore remains crippled and a mere child. Man remains a child, the animal in his general being, in his physical form, is dried up. For what belongs to animal and man is found when we go through death and enter directly into the spiritual world, which then after death we observe. For actually a circle is described in the life between death and a new birth. What remains hidden here of animal kingdom and plant kingdom, what causes us to perceive that animals and men—as far as men's physical forms are concerned—are exiles from the spiritual world, banished out of the spiritual world, is first perceived by us when we pass into the spiritual world through the gate of death. There we go through an evolution and as we approach ever nearer the cosmic midnight, described in my mystery play, (see The Soul's Awakening, scene 6) we become clear that something is missing, that what is missing has run away from the spiritual world; we pursue it through birth and find it on the physical earth in the mineral and plant kingdoms. On entering this existence through birth we are never really surprised about the mineral and plant kingdoms because they are what we have been expecting. Finding animals on the physical earth, too, and men with an outer form that recalls that of the animal though it is more perfect, is astonishing to us in some measure after being born with our gift of consciousness. We begin ia understand this, however, when we know that a beginning has been made with this outer form of animal and man, which only develops in the world we enter through the gate of death.

Now it might be said: For the abstract and completely dried up religious conceptions that still persist (these conceptions were once much more full of life and really gave men something) for these abstract, dried up conceptions still remaining in our age of consciousness, all that men perceive here in the physical world, all that they should conceive as underlying the world experienced by man between death and a new birth, comes upon them too abruptly. What man experiences between death and a new birth remains on this account so problematical for men today, and can so easily be denied by the grossly material mind, because men in arriving at the age of the consciousness soul, which means the age of the intellect, lives as I have explained only in what is reflected into his consciousness. Therefore, he is also only able to live in reflected images when he goes out beyond the perceptions to where, if he stands firmly on his feet, the will plays into him in the way I have previously indicated. If no will plays in however—and in the immortal life after death no will does play in—when there is no interplay of the will and man is restricted to placing before his soul, the reflected images of his conceptions of what the world is between death and a new birth, then this world will have no certainty and will be not only ghostly but without certainty. Indeed we can go as far as to say that if men obstinately cling only to science, if they fix, their attention only upon the ghostly world given them by science, then they are quite right in denying any life at all after going through the gate of death. For what is given by science is only pictures, apparitions. And even this comes to an end when we pass the gate of death. Science is unable to contain anything of what we experience in the realm after death and before birth. For, you see, in books on mineralogy, in books on botany, in everything connected with Physiology, Geology end so forth, in any of the conceptions you can absorb about plants and minerals, you can absorb only about beings who are living in banishment here in this physical world. Again, you can also perceive in the bodies of animals and men only what has been banished here—even with all the help of your books on Zoology and Anthropology, and, if you widen the field of your thought you can really put all knowledge in the same category—you are only able to perceive what is living down here in banishment. But when you reflect that before birth you feel the lack because they really are not there of just these beings experienced here after birth, that in animals and men you then experience what does not exist down here, you will understand that into the conceptual life of science nothing at all of immortal life can enter, and that since it lives in images science in its own domain has a perfect right not to trouble itself about immortal life. It in for this reason that, since the fifteenth century, in the epoch when the conceptions of science are dominating the whole of mankind, man has on the one side the robust, crude nature actually representing for him the whole of reality, and on the other side a realm that he wishes to reach with only the weakened mirrored images of the age of the consciousness soul. This comes before him as though he were saying to himself: Now that I come to see (this happens in the subconscious, for it is there he comes to doubt immortality) when I come to see that what I think are only reflected images, then were I to believe these reflected images would still be there after my death, including the images of my self, I should be just as stupid as if I believed that there were coming towards me out of my mirror here on the wall the men who appear to approach me—that they were not simply reflected but were actually coming towards me.

It is simply characteristic of this epoch of the development of the consciousness soul that if man will not advance to a spiritual comprehension of the world, then connection with the world into which he will enter once he has passed through the gate of death will vanish from him more and more. It will also disappear from his thought life, from his conscious life, but he will not cease to long for it. And even the most hardened deniers of immortality have in the depths of their will, where longing is born, the longing to experience something of the world man enters through the gate of death, the world from which he comes on passing through the gate of birth. They have a longing. The present time is sick with this longing. And the many illnesses of the present time are the expression of this longing holding sway in man, and of man's inability to find conscious conceptions for his longing. If anything is living in the sphere of the will which we are unable to master by conception (again one has to develop very fundamental concepts to speaker these things) when man cannot overcome by his conception what is living in the sphere of his will, then he starts to rage. This is the essence of raging, or frenzy, that something is living in the realm of the will that man cannot comprehend with his capacity for conception. And if man refuses to give in and agree to recognise the existence of the spiritual world, so that through the recognition of the spiritual world he comprehends what has already taken shape in the sphere of the will, than this raging will become ever greater and greater in the world; the raging which indeed presents itself today as the next stage for men after the—not forthcoming but always hoped for—conclusion of peace. This is not anything which can be talked about in the way things ere discussed at a bowling club where, according to the usual philistine conceptions, people come to an understanding as to the possibility of getting some kind of relief or redress. No, it is something connected with the deepest reality of human evolution. Man cannot struggle against the development in him of what enters the sphere of his will. He has no power over it. He is able only to make up his mind consciously to penetrate to the sphere of the spirit so that he learns to understand what is permeating the region of his will. By this means an ordered co-operative life for men can be developed in future in place of this raging.

You see, men turning to the spiritual world which will be revealed in our time by a special wave of events, is not an affair only affecting mean subjectively; it is an objective necessity for man to turn to the spiritual world in this age of the consciousness soul. For changes have even now entered human evolution.

Up to the time in the Mystery of Golgotha took place in earthly life, up to that time, everything man needed for standing here in the world with some measure of security came just through sleep. Before the Mystery of Golgotha man slept in a different way from what he now sleeps, whatever the physiologists may say. Those prophetic natures like the Hebrew prophets to whom such sublime things were revealed in dreams, exist no longer, therefore, in the same form. For today these things are not given to men by God in sleep. This used to happen. This is just the great crossing point in evolution. And pictures of the future were not given only to the prophetic natures but in the time of the Greeks men still had their thoughts given them during sleep. On waking, man brought his thoughts back with him. The structure of the human organism was still such that man could bring back his thoughts. For quite a while this went on working, for the fact is that men actually became headless in the fifteenth century—you will forgive mel To become headless means that the head could no longer he used properly, the head could no longer bring back thoughts out of sleep.

One of the results arrived at through Spiritual Science is that we recognise our head as an instrument to have been really of much less use and much more dried up since the fifteenth century than it was before that time. But it is only now that this has become so noticeable; and it will become ever more noticeable if some means is not found to compensate, s0 that the evaporation of the head is made good again by the spiritual world. For up to the present, up to the nineteenth century, the other nature, man's breast nature has always been accustomed to what the head was still getting from sleep during the Greco-Latin period. The breast nature was inured to this, and in their headless condition men were still receiving impulses as an after effect; they were still in the habit—or I might say men still had the gesture of the thought, the shadow of the thought. But this shadow too will pass away and men will have no thoughts at all if they leave their thinking only to their head. And this is really how the matter stands; it is shown by men's reluctance to think. They have less and less will to think. On the one side they want to have thoughts dictated by nature, for what they like best is merely to make experiments and let the experiments say what they themselves should be thinking. But men prefer not to do the thinking themselves. They even have no proper faith in it, for it is their opinion that what they think out lacks true reality. It is true that there is no reality if you take the mere thoughts. We can come to see, however, that thinking, not the thoughts but the thinking, must become active. And when thinking is made active, this means the spiritual world is coming into play. Today when you really begin to think actively, you can do nothing further than let the spiritual world play a part in you. Otherwise you do not think; you think as little as the scientist thinks today who prefers to let his experiments or his investigations dictate everything to him. Or you think so little as the modern students of sociology who, because they have no will to be active, because they do not come to grips with real social impulses which can be grasped only by being active, actually work with what can be discovered in history, what is inherited from the past. Think for once how men, because they themselves no longer have impulses able to create the social structure, have come down to looking back to the time when thoughts were still formed. The matter is then seen from only a false point of view. It was Rousseau who held up to men the natural state, because he had the feeling that in his day nothing could be gained unless men became active in their pursuit of knowledge of the higher worlds. Well, and even modern socialism likes to indulge in a study of mankind's primitive state; it is something that particularly interests the socialists. They study the original conditions of mankind, their primitive conditions, they study the most savage original peoples, primitive peoples, so as to understand how men are meant to live in social co-operation. This is recognised by all who are familiar with these things. Everywhere there is a certain fear of what is making its presence so inevitably felt as the first dawning of connection with the spiritual world, a certain fear of active thinking. This is why there is difficulty in understanding my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, for example, which makes such demands on active thinking. In it the thoughts are different from the usual thoughts of today. And people often stop short when reading this book for the simple reason that they would like to read it as any other book is read. But the other books particularly popular today—well, I think you will agree, they are read in a comfortable easy chair where one can just let thoughts go by with as little trouble as possible. Many people do any reading they go in for just like that. Don't delude yourselves into believing that these men often read newspapers in a different way (present company, of course, always excluded); it is true that emotions are mixed up with this reading, and worries too. But even the newspapers that are devoured so sensationally are also read by letting the pictures slip by. Ah, but all one has tried to put into The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity cannot be read just like that. There you have continually to give yourself a shake to prevent the thoughts sending you to sleep, my dear friends! For it was not written with the idea that you would simply sit in an easy chair; naturally you can sit, even rest your back, but then, just because you are physically at rest, you have to try with the whole of you to set the inner being of soul and spirit in motion so that the whole thinking begins to move. Otherwise you get nowhere but go to sleep. Many indeed do go to sleep and they are not always the least sincere; the insincere ones are those who read The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity just like any other book and then believe they have really followed the thoughts. They have not followed them, they have on the contrary just jumped over them as if they were the husks of words; they go on reading the words without taking in what actually follows from the words as the spark should be produced by flint and steel. But this is something that must be required of what has to take hold of the evolution of mankind in the present and the immediate future, for through it man will gradually raise himself to the spiritual world in the right way. By active thinking man's inner relations to the spiritual world will be kindled and then he will make ever greater progress. Today he can already get very far by carrying out such things as are described in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. But there too it is sufficiently indicated how pre-eminently necessary it is to develop coherent, connected thinking where there is no broken thread—when the thread of the thought is carefully followed.

In this longing, today more or less lacking in clarity and consciousness, to push oneself upward with unconscious thinking to the sphere of the spirit—and it is possible to do this—there is mingled a desire from the past, a weary desire, to go on thinking incoherently. Just recently I have drawn your attention to how contrary it is to men's sense of comfort to have to progress step by step in conscious thinking. They would much prefer to leave things more to the unconscious, and not in thought go on to the next point and then again to make a further step. Isn't it so? You see, Spiritual Science as we understand it here and as in a sane way it reckons with the unbroken sequence of the thoughts in the way you know—well, it is not that this Spiritual Science cannot be understood if thinking is made active, but men simply want to understand Spiritual Science in a different way from how they must understand it; instead of which they would like the thread to be continually broken. When you go deeply into what Spiritual Science gives you, when you plunge into it with real energy (have patience, in the present epoch only faint indications of this can as yet exist) then, already today, by developing the power of thought, by following in thought Saturn, Sun and Moon, as described in my Occult Science, you can follow this evolution up to where man stands there in the world, and you can press on to your own life, penetrate this life of yours with the thought which is thus made vigorous. Then you come to certain conceptions which, although not as you would like them to appear but entirely in the connection, in the coherence, of the thinking, enlighten you about their being, about their nature, about what they are and their character. By bringing to life what is said about Saturn, Sun, Moon and their corresponding details, and then about the evolution of the earth, applying all this to your individual selves, you would be able to progress to your own being; only you have to go on in your thought to the perception of yourself, not letting the thoughts be broken but keeping them coherent and connected. What in this way man begins rightly today enlightens him up to the stage where he should become clear about his own personal being. In this longing, still present more or less unconsciously in men, however, something else is mingled with the broken thread of thought, something calculated! Man would like to find out something of the kind about his being; what does he do? He takes old antiquated knowledge of which, it goes without saying, the venerable nature is certainly not to be disparaged, which, however, has need of explanation when applied in a new epoch—he calculates, reckons, breaks the thread of thought at any point, calculates constellation of the stars, and after that the thread of thought can break, and quite externally without any sequence in the thought this being of man as he appears on earth is supposed to develop without any thinking.

You see, even if the Church, the Roman Catholic Church as I described it to you yesterday, denies what today is most necessary of all, this can be made good just by taking anything like the description of the inner vision of John of the Cross and living today in the sense of the evolution that conforms with Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. What is contained in this book follows on today precisely from what a man such as St. John of the Cross wills; whereas the Catholic Church denies it and wishes even today to see the old way of John of the Cross applied to modern man, as indeed it is to so many people. Because they are too comfort-loving they do not want a life that is active in spirit, a life that has already reached a stage of energetic activity when conceptions are accepted such as those given by Spiritual Science. They would like these to be brought up to date in a more usual form of thought, preferring to remain with what is old and hoping that out of this lack of thought there might spring what should explain present-day mankind. Naturally this is no adverse judgment about what is venerable, but from every point of view it must be indicated that one should not venture to deny what is placed as spiritual necessity into the present evolution of mankind, the evolution beginning with the age of the consciousness soul. The important thing is for man really to understand what today is required of mankind in world-evolution. I believe that out of right feeling for the very things which men find irksome, and do not want, a better attitude towards Spiritual Science will be adopted more and more, and only when this better attitude to Spiritual Science has come about will the social life also be enriched. At this point man will be able to become clear about the life of mankind because he will then have the necessary strength of thought to enlighten himself concerning man's life. For where this enlightenment about man's life is concerned man of today suffers from a very precarious state of affairs. Whether you are a follower of Lenin or Trotsky, whether you are a Marxist or any other kind of thinker about the right form for the social structure of men, in each of these views there lives a state of affairs that is precarious and cannot be understood without the fruitful intervention of Spiritual Science. Doubtless you will admit that man has now entered the epoch of the consciousness soul. He has to develop consciously what arises as social structure. Otherwise nothing will go right. He has to take his place consciously in the world; it is really necessary that man should be conscious. But he should also consciously grasp the relation between men, life in society, the social life. An uncertain state of affairs hinders him in this. The fatal thing is that man can never have a conception of more than one man. And as neither two men (I mean physical men) nor two things (physical things) can be in the same place at the same time—which decides the law of impermeability—two men cannot be in human consciousness at the same time, the actual conception cannot be made of two men! simultaneously. It is very important to take note of this. We cannot live with another man without making a conception of him, neither can we develop any knowledge about the social life in common unless we make conceptions about other men. But today man, because he is able to conceive only of one man, generally prefers to conceive only of himself, to make a conception of himself as man. And social thinking is content to demand a co-operative life in which man's conception is always merely of himself. Man does not get away from the conception of his own self; he often talks of doing so, but in reality today he does not easily get rid of himself. It is only when he makes every effort to fulfil the requirements of Spiritual Science that he gradually finds it possible in some measure to get free of himself. For Spiritual Science sows in the world the seeds of thoughts having a very wide perspective, and this is how man grows into the habit of getting free from himself. As today, if he becomes a spiritualist, man grows more egoistic than he was before, if he would penetrate into the spiritual world on that other path, the path of Spiritual Science, he becomes more selfless. Spiritual Science, therefore, is not simply the handing over of knowledge, but spirit-knowledge is actually something unconditionally necessary for educating modern man in social life. It is for this reason that no cure will be forthcoming if a start is not made in this matter, it men do not really give heed to the necessity for first making a conception. There can be no social reform without schooling to begin with, without men first being instructed. And when this is neglected men miss the possibility of receiving concepts that embrace their longing. And, if I am to get at the root of the matter, men will became more frenzied than ever.

This is the inner connection, my dear friends. But it is desirable that this same inner connection should be perceived. One would wish above all things that this inner connection should be felt by everyone entering upon Spiritual Science and wishing to live in it up to some point or other. This is something that everyone will want to ponder who has the wish to take Spiritual Science and the Movement of Spiritual Science in earnest. It cannot well be overlooked, it cannot well remain unnoticed, that when we enter into relation with Spiritual Science this Spiritual Science makes certain demands on the human heart and mind to widen the interests beyond narrow, personal interests. It is really true that in talking of Spiritual Science one simply speaks of things which, if a right relation is to be established with them, makes it necessary for man to free himself from his most narrow interests! He need have no fear of becoming unpractical on that account: he becomes much more practical. It is just this belief that he is practical which has gradually been arrived at through being unspiritual. In reality the practical man of today is terribly unpractical. And these 'practical' men have actually landed us in the present catastrophe. Herein lies something of tremendous importance which man really must always take for granted if he wishes rightly to understand what has to do with Spiritual Science, namely that he must get free from his narrowest interests. He must rid himself of the immediately personal; for it does not help matters when people carry their narrow personal interests into the Anthroposophical Movement. That is always just the cause of any kind of mischief in the relation taken up towards Spiritual Science. It is also naturally the reason for what is still such a difficulty in our Movement, that people although often abstractly in theory, having the good will to come to Spiritual Science with their own thinking, feeling and willing, nevertheless do not bring all the necessary strength really to enter upon selflessness, which indeed must be called upon for understanding rightly what is said from the standpoint of Spiritual Science. Thus a kind of spirit-condition not easily found today in the world, but the opposite of which is prevalent in the modern world, must be demanded for the health of the Anthroposophical Movement, my dear friends! For the difference between the sincere presentation of the knowledge of Spiritual Science and all other knowledge arising at present, lies in this presentation of Spiritual Science being no personal affair, no personal opinion. Were I obliged to hold the view that I should lecture only about merely personal opinions and not concerning what is revealed today and just what is necessary for mankind, I should prefer to remain silent. For to uphold personal opinions and personal aspirations in a Movement that is anthroposophical is something impermissible. That should not be. A Movement such as is striven for here is justified only when there is the will to present merely what one is allowed to observe out of the spiritual world.

When you describe the appearance of any town you may, according to circumstance, make the description either interesting or tedious, but what the town looks like does not depend upon you. You describe something objective. What you yourself want, what is your own opinion, should come just as little to expression in Spiritual Science. What must take effect in Spiritual Science according to modern demands is all that is spiritually observed. Those who are able actually to will merely what is personal can for that reason only imperfectly understand what should hold good in a movement for Spiritual Science. They continually confuse what should hold good in a Movement such as is meant here with something else drawn, more than ever from the personal. How many there are who coming to Anthroposophy would like their own opinion to be justified by Spiritual Science. They are not always equipped with the open mind necessary for the acceptance of Spiritual Science. Very often they come to it with something quite different to this open mind. They would like this or that to be true, then in some way, while admitting that the investigator of Spiritual science may know something about the truth, persuade themselves that what one thinks oneself one says. Then they would be happy. But this fine distinction must be noticed; it is a fine distinction although a tremendously far-reaching one; there is a far reaching and important distinction between the one who wants to accept what is imparted by the spiritual world and the one who actually wishes only to have confirmation of what it pleases him to think. Only by the most punctilious self-examination, by conscientious self-examination, will the distinction be discovered. The distinction is often unnoticed by those who come to Spiritual Science; it must, however, be noticed. If it is noticed it will become apparent that through a Movement for Spiritual Science something of a new stream of life must flow which was not there before. It is really not possible for an Anthroposophical Movement to be like a mere soft current of air blowing towards anyone who brings to Spiritual Science the Philistine tendencies of his earlier life and then believes he will find what he is only too willing to acknowledge in Philistinism corroborated by Spiritual Science.

When we proceed in this matter earnestly, conscientiously, we shall not want merely to find corroboration of our actual individual opinion; and we shall also come to understand many things which might be said to be obliged to arise as new things in a Movement for Spiritual Science of this kind, things that must do harm if left unnoticed. In a movement in the act of arising like this Movement for Spiritual Science much can work harmfully that cannot cause so much harm in old, dried up Movements, no longer of use or of very little use. We have really to go into these fins points, my dear friends! You see, connected with the endeavour merely to see our own opinions, our own aspirations, justified by what is revealed through Spiritual Science, a remarkable technique of 'touching-up' is developed concerning what comes forth and comes forth perfectly naturally, within a movement such as ours. In this movement for Spiritual Science we must be alive to the fact that phenomena with men cannot be taken as if in a bowling club or something of the kind where men can reveal how verbose they have become in the ordinary world where nothing new is required of them. We must recognise in all earnestness that the aims of investigation into what is spiritual cannot find expression through our own conceptions; we must really prepare ourselves to receive the things. We should picture that something is wishing to flow into the world, something that should more and more widen itself out, so that everything should really be received in full consciousness. Many connections not yet perceived will be perceived later. This willingness to receive everything as in some sense a preparation, will certainly not be present in those who carry their personal aspirations into the impulse of Spiritual Science, for at the first possible moment they will get done with things, giving them the bent of their ordinary opinions. They do not mould their opinions in accordance with Spiritual Science, they mould the knowledge gained through Spiritual Science in accordance with their opinions. And so we often have given out the kind of thing I would like to describe in the following way.

Now you know that the Anthroposophist has to judge the world in a certain way, the world of nature as well as the world of human beings. Education in Spiritual Science consists indeed in our learning to judge afresh the surrounding world and our relation to it and in our learning to look more deeply, into the world. People very often remark when, let us say, the relation of three men is in question: The Anthroposophist B. has been criticizing the man A. And, my dear friends, as soon as we overstep the usual Philistine sphere, so largely around us today, two standpoints can be put forward where the formation of judgment between man and man is concerned: one of these standpoints is that of reason, the second being the standpoint of sympathy. Thus B's judgment of A may be in accordance with what arises from an inner necessity at same time to do something or other purely out of his—B's—sympathy for A. Should it now suit C to be antipathetic because he does not reflect sufficiently and does not assume that it may be possible for pure sympathy to come into the matter here, out of necessity, then, basing his judgment simply on reason he will say: whatever can he be doing that for? Or this inner necessity may speak in such a way that it is not sympathy that becomes dominant but, because of certain factors, reason. Yes, and when it suits the other better he lets sympathy have its say and gives as his verdict: what an unsympathetic person! How utterly without feeling the man is and what a prosy rationalist! He judges purely from the standpoint of reason. In this way the crudest misunderstandings arise in the case of just those who bestir themselves to grasp the inner nerve of existence, where they have at one time to do something based on reason, another time something just out of sympathy. And when it suits this other man (C) in accordance with the sympathetic view he condemns what is done from reason, and what is done out of sympathy he condemns from the point of view of reason, and he can always condemn or praise as he likes. By this path we never arrive at what is right, we only arrive at what is right if we begin by saying: I must consider the case, I must look into the causes why sympathy or reason have held sway here. It is things like this out of which the little misunderstandings in life arise which often grow to very destructive proportions in men's life in common. It is just this that our education in Spiritual Science should help us to overcome. For life is such that it expresses itself in a twofold way. And because it expresses itself in a twofold way one can always condemn at pleasure one of the two cases. This is very little taken into account, however, above all not taken into account where the teachings of Spiritual Science itself is concerned. This, too, must be placed in the world with definite intention. In an individual case either one or other of the two standpoints can be chosen according to convenience, if greater attention is not paid to the deeper grounds out of which the spiritual seeker is obliged to act. He may often be misunderstood. And if there is no agreement in what must be done out of inner duty in accordance with the facts, then it is possible to misunderstand everything, since the world has this dual form of expression.

You see we can fall into the following error for example. When anyone is eager to have what suits him substantiated, he may just fall into the worst form of belief in authority. Belief in authority can naturally make its influence felt, and this influence is actually frequent and of wide range in the very sphere where Spiritual Science also would be active, which wishes to make man into a perfectly free, self-reliant being. The other pole of the belief in authority, however, is hatred of authority. And fundamentally the man who does not feel himself drawn to Spiritual Science through entering into the facts revealed from the spiritual world, but wishes to have these truths conveyed to him by authority, wanting to believe in authority because it is easier than going into things—this man is terribly apt to spring over from his belief in authority, that always has in it a certain kind of love of authority, to hatred of authority. And all manifestations that have arisen in our particular movement of this leap from blind worship of authority, which sometimes has even appeared with a certain shamelessness in the moment of passing over to hatred, this passing from blind worship of authority to hate—all this is something inwardly present as a danger. It is very important to keep these connections in mind, for these connections make it terribly difficult today to create an Anthroposophical Movement so that it will prosper. It must be created in a successful way for the sake of mankind's welfare.

Now, my dear friends, in my life I have found quite a number of people who were spiritual people and were seeking in all sincerity away into Spiritual Science, into some kind of Spiritual Science, who were also in a way advanced in their development. A certain type among them was disillusioned, people who had been disillusioned by one or other of the modern spiritual movements and who then in some place or another came across us—how many are disillusioned today by the Blavatsky Movement, the Besant Movement or some other Movement. There we do not see the characteristic phenomenon that takes such curious forms in the Anthroposophical Movement; but there we have people, for example, who are to a certain extent spiritually advanced; then after some time one again comes across them but now they say: You are completely wrong! And these meetings are not infrequent. Spirituality today is not at all common but there are men indeed who say to one after a time: You are actually wrong, for, you see, the things you give out in Spiritual Science—there's no possible sense in publishing them! But men are not in inclined to accept them; they are certainly not sufficiently mature. All this can only serve one purpose to be developed in oneself and then kept to oneself. I have found many such people who say: It is a definite characteristic of the man who is really advanced spiritually that it no longer enters his head to speak about it to his fellowmen; he keeps the matter to himself. There is indeed no lack of such people in the world. I have never been able to come to an understanding with these people about what out of a certain inner ground I learn from the spiritual world. These men do quite useful work in a spiritual community but they have a hermit tendency, even when at the same time they remain in association with others. For it is possible to become a hermit in spite of wearing elegant shoes and leading an Hotel life. This one sees this double life being led by a number of people; they are indeed the modern Hotel dwellers; for all I care they may be well dressed but they lead this life as an outward mask to hide what is within them; they have their inner life of the spirit with no wish to share it with their fellow men. This seems to one to be doing what is not right, to be sinning against mankind. For one is right in saying that such men have en effect on the spiritual life, what they experience goes into the spiritual stream. Man is not a self-contained being, therefore what he experiences has value and its own significance in the spiritual world, but the question of time always plays its part there. Men like this who live in such a way nowadays, as many do whom I have known, bring about something indeed in the spiritual world which however only comes to maturity after a long time, in the later epochs of mankind. Then, however, can, and quite certainly would, were there always only those who as hermits develop their spiritual being, having no wish to teach what knowledge they have gained from the spiritual world, what they have developed in themselves—then by the time the fruits of these men are ripe, people outside would have so deteriorated that they would no longer be able to receive the knowledge! Earth evolution would be endangered: connection would be missed. We live indeed today at a time when certain spiritual truths such as those of which we have been speaking must unconditionally be imparted to mankind. Things will not be helped by the attitude expressed, for example, by one of my acquaintances who in a certain sense was spiritually advanced. He came to Berlin and I asked him whether he would come to hear a lecture of mine, just to see how the Movement was run (this is some time ago). He answered: No, holding lectures and talking to people serves no possible purpose! To sit together for half-an-hour and have a little talk I find very pleasant—but let us leave spiritual things alone when we can; everyone must settle those for himself! To pay a civil visit and pass the time of day is best for just those people who are seeking the spiritual. And this attitude is a prevalent one. It would be more comfortable, my dear friends, to live in accordance with such an attitude. And the word comfortable certainly does not describe what it is nowadays days to get up in front of people to impart what one feels impelled to impart as a duty. In an Anthroposophical Movement it should be borne in mind that work is done out of inner necessity, and what happens is not a matter of choice but the punctual observance of a duty.

I have used these words at the end of our studies today because I have wanted once again to take the opportunity of calling attention to what is necessary if a movement for Spiritual Science is to be taken nowadays as earnestly as it should be taken. For what can be made of an Anthroposophical Movement, if personal aspirations, personal ambition, is brought in, can cause much injury must cause much injury. Besides there is still the shadow side, namely, that whoever thinks to find only what is just personal corroborated through Spiritual Science cannot discern whether the other may not be acting also merely from personal ambition. And a terrible doom is then forthcoming. I wanted to give an indication of these things, my dear friends. We shall be speaking further next Friday.

We have been speaking of what hinders modern man from coming to recognition of the spiritual world, as it must be understood through the spiritual knowledge of Anthroposophy, and two things have been indicated as having been the cause of this hindrance. These two things are leak of courage, lack of strength where recognition of the spirit is concerned, and lack of interest about the actual form of the spiritual life. Now today I should like to go into these things from a point of view from which I have touched on them still more lightly. When such things are spoken of it must always be borne in mind that man's ordinary sound intelligence, as I have often said, suffices for understanding and receiving open-mindedly all things concerning Spiritual Science. If I may say so, through the fact that sound human intelligence; when rightly directed, is sufficient for the understanding of the things of the spiritual world today, in a certain sense through merely understanding, through open-minded acceptance, everyone may have all that the investigating Anthroposophist receives from the spiritual world. And with the courage and interest to receive these things with sound human intelligence, man has himself the possibility of rising slowly and gradually, in accordance with what his own karma permits, into the spiritual world. Already today it is necessary, and will become increasingly so for all men, to learn to understand the spiritual world, to learn to understand it with sound human intelligence in the way the spiritual world is spoken of in Spiritual Science. How far man can become ripe to look into the spiritual world himself is quite another question, a question that can be settled only by each individual in his own inmost soul, a question to which each one will settle in the right way in his inmost soul when he seeks to understand the things of the spiritual world simply through his sound human intelligence, and not through intelligence prejudiced by natural science or any thing else.

Now the next question that arises above all about this is why so many people today avoid making their sound human intelligence active so that it may understand, or be prepared to accept, what is derived from Spiritual Science? And something can be learnt about this question by hearing what the things and beings of the spiritual world actually look like when this world is entered by the spiritual investigator. In former times the Initiates were allowed to speak of a great deal about the spiritual world that was different from what has to be given out today. But naturally in those olden days much also could be said of a similar nature to what can still be said now. Thus, for example, it was always given out in a way that today is still right, what actually happens when a man seeks to enter the spiritual world before his soul is ripe to do so. Today this can indeed so happen that the man says to himself: What! Sound human Intelligence?—that is the last thing to bother about if one wants to understand the spiritual world! People are not fond of the effort entailed; they would much rather accept some particular thing through belief in authority. There is really far less liking today for sound human understanding than people imagine, and they would like to get round this need for sound human understanding by penetrating directly to the spiritual world in a way that they imagine to be easier, even though this is an unconscious opinion, namely, through all manner of brooding and things of that kind, which they call meditation. This preference for actually penetrating into the spiritual world without the help of sound human intelligence is indeed very common. Those initiated into such things however were already saying what is right concerning this in past times, and it continues to be repeated by Initiates today. When an attempt is made to penetrate into the spiritual world by anyone who is insufficiently mature in his whole attitude of soul, it happens all too easily that after some time he ruins his whole endeavour, brings it so near complete disaster, that he is left with a feeling like someone who, grasping a red hot piece of coal, is undecided whether to burn himself or let the coal drop. This is an experience arising very often in those who meditate. They do not seek to let their sound human intelligence prevail in the same measure as their zeal for the so-called exercises, which indeed in themselves naturally have their justification. It is always emphasised, however, that sound human understanding may not be excluded, it must be actively, diligently, applied. If for sometime it is sought to make a practice of excluding sound human intelligence and also of excluding the accompanying moral self-discipline that up until then has actually not been acquired, this characteristic feature will appear—that all this will be experienced as if someone were to touch a piece of glowing coal with his fingers, not only touched it but jumped back, thus men would jump away from the spiritual world. As I have said this is always emphasised. It is emphasised because it is an experience made in earlier ages by countless teachers of Spiritual Science in the form this took in atavistic times; it is an experience that can also be very prevalent today. This is emphasised; but today we must find out the reason why there should arise this sensation of touching and recoiling as if from glowing coals.

Now if we seek to understand this fact, we may be able to recall a basic truth of our Spiritual Science perfectly well known to us, namely, how we as men behave when we bear in mind our entire life in its alternating states of sleeping and waking. With the help of the old mode of expression, we might say that while we sleep we leave the physical body and the etheric body lying in the bed whereas with the Ego and the astral body we fly out, if I can put it thus, into the world that otherwise surrounds us; we do not inhabit our body when asleep, we are poured out into the surrounding cosmos. In this way when we are sleeping our consciousness as a man is slight. When the sleeping condition is unbroken by dreams which implies a certain increase in the intensity of consciousness, but when we keep in mind dreamless sleep, then our consciousness is so inconsiderable that we do not become aware of the infinite and important number of experiences gone through in the state between going to sleep and re-awakening. This is just that we really should keep in mind, and not the abstract words: In sleep, with our ego and astral body we are outside the physical body—no, we should bear in mind that our body is tremendously rich between going to sleep and waking up again: (Compare Z-233) we do not know it, however, because our consciousness is then weakened, because our sleep-consciousness is not yet as strong as the consciousness that is able to be united with the instrument of the physical body. In actual fact a tremendously intense experience takes place in ego and astral body within the world where we also are the rest of the time—an intense experience. Man, however, during his ordinary state on earth is protected from the immediate perception of this life, this life developed when we as ego and astral body force ourselves—if I may express it thus—through the same things to begin with in which we are when making use of our physical body and its organs. The life during the state of sleep is one of tremendous richness. But this life does not cease when we wake and plunge down into our physical body and etheric body. We are still connected through our ego and astral body with the world surrounding us in a way that the ordinary consciousness has no inkling of; only this remains quite unnoticed. We can now look at this precise relation more closely. It may be asked what actually comes to expression in this relation of our soul and spirit to our physical and etheric?

You see, for our present state of experience it would be a very bad thing were we henceforth always to have to perceive what in sleep we experience with the things outside in space and in time. We do not indeed do this, but were we to do it we should always have to go on doing it and could not do otherwise. Our body, that is to say, has a certain characteristic where these experiences are concerned. It may be said to weaken these experiences. Our body weakens all that in actual truth we experience with the surrounding world; we perceive only what has been weakened by our body and not our real experiences. Our real experiences are related to what we perceive of our environment through our body—and this is a very pertinent picture indeed because not only is it actually a picture but it corresponds to an occult reality—our body or the experiences of our body are related to our real experiences in the same way as the sunlight, that shines on a stone and is reflected back so that we can see the stone, is related to the actual sunlight streaming towards us from the sun overhead. Look at the stone the sunlight falls upon; you are able to look at the stone, your eyes can bear the reflected, thrown back light. When you turn from the stone to the sun and gaze straight into the sun you are blinded. It is approximately the same with the relation between our real experiences in connection with the world around us, and What we experience through the organs of our body. What we experience in reality with our environment has the strength of the sunlight, and what we experience through the organs of our body has of this strength only the weakened form which the weakened light of an object reflected back to us has of the strength of the real sunlight. In our innermost man we are sun beings, but so far we cannot endure what it entails to be sun beings. Therefore as with our external physical eyes we have to look at the softened down light of the sun because direct sunlight blinds us, we must also perceive our environment through what results in a softened down form from our body and its organs, because we should be unable directly to face what in reality we experience of our environment. As men we are actually as if we were blinded by a sunbeam and what we know of the world and of ourselves has not our real being in it, not as things would be experienced in streaming sunlight but in light thrown back from objects, light that no longer blinds the eyes. You can gather from this that when you wake up in the world that ordinary consciousness cannot endure, you have the feeling you are in sunlight as if you really would live with the sunlight. And in the actual experience, in the actual practical experience there is indeed a very concentrated sunlight.

There you have the facts about what is often said—that people throw away the experience of Spiritual Science as if it were a red hot coal. You come to a region of experience where you have experiences like that of the soul when your finger is burnt. You jump back and do not want to burn it. Naturally you need not twist round what I say. Nobody can come to spiritual experience by having his finger burnt. On that account I say like the soul experience when one burns a finger, for in Spiritual Science things must always be expressed with exactitude.

The real state of affairs is that entrance into the spiritual world is certainly not at first anything providing man with an empty kind of happiness; entrance into the spiritual world is such that it has to be bought with that inner, one might say, unhappiness, experienced when one is burnt by fire. (Naturally there are many other experiences of the same kind). To begin with man experiences spiritually with the things, beings and events of the spiritual world, exactly the same as, for example, when he burns himself. The real experiences of the spiritual world have to be acquired through these painful experiences. What gives happiness from these experiences of the spiritual world, what gives satisfaction to life, is the afterglow in thought. Those who have these experiences imparted to them and grasp them through their sound human intelligence, can have this just as well as anyone who enters the spiritual world. Certain individuals, however, must naturally enter the spiritual world, otherwise it would not be possible for anything at all to be experienced of the spiritual world.

These feats to which I have referred must be borne in mind. Fundamentally it is not very difficult just from the external facts to gather what I have been speaking of. You will find everywhere the spiritual world is spoken of seriously—not in the way of charlatanism but seriously—that the passing over is spoken of not as being made through pleasant but through painful experiences. And you know how often I have said that whoever in life has acquired a little real knowledge of the spiritual world looks back, but not resentfully, on the sorrow, on the suffering of his life. For he says to himself: The joys, the exhilarating moments of life I accept thankfully as a divine gift and I rejoice over the destiny that has brought me these exhilarating moments of joy. But all that I know comes from my pain, my knowledge comes from my suffering. Everyone who has gained actual knowledge of the spiritual world will see this. Only in this way are we allowed to acquire knowledge of the spiritual world while here on the physical earth.

And now you will be able to realise why people Shrink from understanding the spiritual world in spite of the fact that this understanding is to be acquired simply with sound human intelligence. Usually the only thing they do not recoil from in their understanding is what they would not recoil from in external life. Now you would naturally be most stupid and unreasonable if you wilfully burnt your finger just to find out what it was like. Added to which, if you burn your finger you pay so little heed to what your soul is experiencing that you do not gain any real experience of what it is like to burn your finger. Us, there is indeed a psychological fact rightly grasped only when seen in the light flowing from this knowledge. Now in that I am going to say I am not speaking here to you individually, for naturally I am not expecting each of you to do this, I only believe, of Course, that each of you will have heard of such things, you will have heard of them from others and remarked them in others. You will perhaps have remarked that people cry out when they burn their fingers. Now, my dear friends, why do many people cry out on burning their fingers? They cry out for the simple reason that by thus crying out the soul experience may be drowned. People cry out and make a noise at any kind of pain to make things easier for themselves. Ay crying out you will not be able to experience in full consciousness the whole extent of the pain; it is really drowning the suffering, sending it outside. In short, in ordinary life man has not much experience of the things that will be experienced in the spiritual world; nevertheless it is clear that these things can be understood with sound human intelligence because everywhere in the external physical world they have analogies through which we gather our experiences. It is certainly not the case that things of the spiritual world are incomprehensible; we must, however, make up our minds to strengthen certain qualities of our soul, for example, courage. We must have the courage not usually possessed when we do something and then recoil because it is painful. We must have this courage, for penetrating to the spiritual world always means pain. Therefore we have to strengthen certain forces of the soul, this is necessary. But many people today do not,want to strengthen their qualities of soul in the systematic way that is recommended, for example, in my book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. They have no wish to do this; they have no wish to enhance certain attributes of their soul. Were they to enhance them then in their capacity for forming concepts , in their sound human intelligence, there would easily prevail what is needful for understanding through this human intelligence he experience of the fingers in the spiritual world that, in the sense in which I have described it, is a painful experience. We are actually living in an age in which this strengthening of the human attitude of soul is a necessity, for otherwise mankind cannot reach their goal, and because catastrophe on catastrophe will have to arise bringing us finally to chaos.

Now, however, while discussing these things just at a time when it is particularly necessary, I have placed strong emphasis on something else. This is, that with the weakening of the attitude of soul existing among men today, there can be excellent scientists in the modern sense of the word. For even with the intelligence, that is not sound human intelligence but human intelligence carried to a high pitch through the authority of science, the external part of our physical environment can be particularly well understood. It cannot be understood inwardly, spiritually, but directly understood in its external aspect. What is not possible for people with the concepts given by science, with just what people today are accustomed to when applying their thought, is however to bring order into the social structure of man's cooperative life which is gradually becoming chaotic. To put it differently: Present social demands, and social demands for the near future, will never find their solution through what may be referred to as the thinking about nature and natural phenomena. It is on this very point that our contemporaries have terribly much to learn; in this very point again our contemporaries do not fall in with what must be told them by Spiritual Science out of its most intimate understanding of the being of our universe. Indeed, in spite of all the opposition which today will be forthcoming more and more, Spiritual Science must say just on this point that even with any amount of bungling around and doctoring up in the sphere of social questions no bungling around or doctoring up will lead to anything better; it will lead on the contrary to still greater social confusion than is already present in individual spheres of world existence unless it is recognised that insight into social questions can come only from the spiritual understanding of world existence. Social questions must be solved with knowledge of Anthroposophy—anything else in this sphere is dilettantism.

Thus we must turn to something else if we are to speak about things from a certain point of view. What largely holds men back from pressing forward to Spiritual Science is lack of interest in the spiritual life. This lack of interest in spiritual life is prevalent among modern scientists. They are indifferent about the spiritual life. They deny it or give laws to everything they can observe through the physical senses, everything that allows of investigation by means of microscope or telescope; but they take no interest in what is revealed every time there is real deep observation of nature, namely. that the spiritual holds sway behind all-phenomena of nature, all facts of nature. This lack of interest in the spirit is particularly noticeable today in those who would meddle in social affairs. And again there is a particular reason for this.

Now, my dear friends, from all kinds of things that I have spoken about lately, you will have gathered that when confronting each other as man to man we are in a very special inner life of soul. I have gone quite deeply into what kind of mood of soul we are in when as man we are face to face with another man. I told you that actually standing face to face with another man always has a soporific effect on us. Where the innermost qualities of our human nature are concerned we actually go to sleep in the presence of another man. It is not to be wondered at that outward behaviour deceives us as to this falling asleep. For we certainly see the other man with our eyes, offer him indeed our hand and touch him, do all kinds of things; but still this does not alter the fact that the other man causes us to fall asleep in the depths of our human being. Just as we are asleep to nature at night, something is sent to sleep in us by the presence of another man. When this goes to sleep, however, it does not cease to be active. Thus in social life there are always taking place between men activities about which, just because they are together with their fellows, people are unable to have any clear consciousness. People fail to notice in ordinary consciousness exactly what is of most importance in the social life, because their actual capacity for conceiving the most important things in social life has fallen asleep and they act out of instinct. It is no wonder that as in the forming of conceptions the intellect is most easily lulled to sleep, the most chaotic instincts should be taken as perfectly justified in modern social life because clear thinking about these things is sent to sleep simply by men being together. The moment a man enters the spiritual world, however, what was sent to sleep wakes up, and it becomes clear what is holding sway between man and man. For this reason the solutions can also be found of the so-called social questions and social demands. Thus, as I have already said here, it is possible to find these solutions only beyond the threshold of physical consciousness.

And what mankind will want to have in future through the so-called solving of social problems, if it is to be a real solution, can be found only on the path of Spiritual Science, that is to say, the science of the superphysical, since all the most intimate foundations of human life in co-operation are of a superphysical nature. (cf. Z-234)

But then, if we wish to experience spiritually the things that have to do with man, mankind, and also with the human social structure, into our whole capacity for conception, into everything we experience, we must bring something which you will realise at once is hardly present today in ordinary consciousness. There is just one thing here in the physical world in the way of sensations, of feelings, that each of us must have if he does not want to investigate the social laws, the social impulses, in an unreal but in a fundamental way. This is only found in a limited form here in the physical world, only indeed when an absolutely healthy, absolutely right, relation exists between a father, mother and child, in the interest between father, mother and child. It is not to be found in anything that can be experienced between men anywhere else in the whole round world, Certainly not in ordinary consciousness.

Now while you are getting clear in your mind about, let us say, the mother's love (you can do it too in this fundamental way) about the love developed in the mother immediately she bears a child—this love of the mother for her child which obviously springs from the very sources of nature—try to become clear about this mother love, and then ask whether this mother love is dominant in any scientific investigations ordinarily carried out by the well-informed, even by those who are doing research work in social science. This mother love must be there in the thoughts developed about the social structure if these thoughts are to have reality in them and not unreality. The only form of thought in human life that could be right socially is what is thought out socially and with mother love.

And now take the various social reformers and social thinkers. Try for once to let work upon you such writings, for example, as those of Carl Marx, or people of his ilk, Schmoller or Reacher or anyone else you like, and ask yourself whether these, while thinking out their so-called social and political laws, in this devising of social and political laws, let themselves be influenced by what is there in the mother's love for her child when this love takes a healthy course. This must have attention drawn to it, my dear friends! A sound solution of the so-called social problem is possible only if this solution is forthcoming from thinkers able to develop mother love in solving their problems; you will understand what I mean by this. The solving of present-day social demands depends on this very human matter. It is not a matter of sagacity nor ordinary cleverness nor of belief in what is learned; it is a question of enhancing the capacity for love to the degree to which mother love can be developed, or we might also say the direct, intimate love in the common life of father, mother and child.

Here you will be right in making an objection. You will say: Yes, on earth matters are so arranged that the social structure has in a certain sense the family as its unit, and on earth the family as such is undoubtedly fully justified, yet the whole of mankind cannot be one family! This is an objection that naturally will be forthcoming at once. If we are to think out social laws with mother love, however, the consequence would actually have to be the whole of mankind becoming one family. Naturally that cannot be, Whoever knows what a real thought is, a real thought with nothing of the charlatan or abstract about it, will have to admit that of course nobody is immediately capable of behaving to every child as though it were his own, that every child cannot behave to all other women, all other men, as it would to its mother or father. Thus all mankind cannot become one family. That is perfectly right, my dear friends, but just because that is right another necessity arises for us. As we live here as physical men on the physical earth we should by no means be able to succeed in making all mankind into one family; whoever wanted this would naturally be wanting an absurdity. But we could arrive at it another way and in another way indeed it must happen. As physical men we should not be able to stand in the relation of father, mother and child. But when there takes root in mankind the knowledge that spirit and soul live in every human being, that a divine spiritual being shines forth from the eyes of everyone, and the message of a divine spiritual being rings in his words, when in other words man's immortal soul is no longer recognised simply in the abstract, then, my dear friends, the moment will have arrived, not indeed where physical man is concerned but with regard to what man hides intimately within him as his baling of soul and spirit, when we shall be able to behave to one another as if all mankind were one big family. But this will not happen until people meet each other with immediate feeling and it is recognised: When I look people in the eye the infinite shines towards me; when I hear them speak it is not only physical sound speaking but the divine spiritual being of their soul—if this becomes direct experience, just as we experience any blue or red surface, then we shall feel that man when expressing himself is of a divine spiritual nature, and shall learn not to recognise simply with blind faith that a man has an immortal soul, but we shall directly perceive this immortal soul in what he utters. For in this way we shall be able to enter into connection with the soul and spirit of each human being. This is something that will alone make the solution of the so-called social question possible, the one and only thing. Therefore we find this solution of the social question in the recognition of man's divine spiritual nature, in the recognition that what goes around on the earth as the human physical body, is only the outward expression of what lights up in every man out of the eternal. We can have the same relation to what lights up in every man out of the eternal, as we can have in the right relation of the smallest family unit. This is possible, possible in every sense. When recognising this we can capture that love for all men which is as great as the love of family.

There is naturally no point in the objection, which would be superficial too, if we remarked about things in the following way: Yes, but there are also bad people. There are also bad children, my dear friends, whom we even have to punish, but there is love in our punishment. The moment we see the divine spiritual light up in human beings, when we see it is necessary we shall punish, but punish lovingly; above all we shall learn one thing which might be said to be practised only instinctively, that is, to meet other men as if we both belonged to the same family. When we meet another man in this way we punish but we do not hate the man; even when we punish him we do not hate the human being who is our son, but we hate his wrong doing. We love the man, we hate his misdeeds and his faulty training, and we know how to distinguish in him between the man and what has overcome him. When people have once understood the great, the infinite, difference existing between human love, and hatred of the misdeeds that assail mankind, a right relationship can be established among men. When we fellow our inmost human nature there is never any possibility for our hating anyone. Naturally we have much cause to hate human crimes, misdeeds, human weakness of character, human lack of character. Where we largely go wrong in our social behaviour is as a rule in bringing against the man what should be brought against the misdeed, the crime. We do this today instinctively, but must become conscious that the development of mankind today lies in the direction of distinguishing between hatred for the misdoing and the love that all the some can be felt for the man.

Oh, my dear friends, more would be done to solve the burning social demands of today by recognising truths of this kind than by much else going around the world as social quackery or social theory. In face of the materialism that everywhere employs what is grossly material, it is difficult to make any impression when speaking of such things as these, for the simple reason that people today are largely materialistic in their instincts, which is a more harmful matter than their holding materialist theories. Crime, lack of character, cannot be seen and do not exist materially. But because people want to hate what is material, they associate the material man with their hate and there arise countless misunderstandings.

What arises from this as a bad misunderstanding is that sometimes from some kind of misunderstood sensations and feelings, man is confused with what he does in another direction also. There is carelessness in judging what a man does when it is said: Oh, we do not want to hurt the man, now and then one has to overlook things for sheer love of one's fellows. If a verdict is given in the matter by turning ones's eyes towards the wrong doing and not confounding the man in his inmost life of soul with his misdeed, then indeed the right judgment will be arrived at. It is less trouble on the one hand, if you dislike someone, to mete out so-called justice to him; it is also easy because it suits us to excuse failings which may cause harm in the external world. In the common life of mankind a very great deal hangs on the way we are able to separate what ought to arouse our antipathy from the immediate being of man as man.

My dear friends, I have often emphasised that what is spoken here about these connections is not meant as a criticism of the culture and conditions of the times; it is simply a description of them. Therefore you will also understand when I say that mankind of so-called western civilisation, the people of Europe with their American cousins, for a time must go through the stage not only of taking things materialistically in accordance with science, but also of taking life itself materialistically confounding men with their deeds in the way referred to. This has to do with the education; for the right development of other qualities to be possible, men, must in this sphere, too, pass through the stage of materialism. Men, however, who have remained behind at earlier stages of culture have preserved a great deal of these former cultural stages in which there was still atavistic clairvoyance. And atavistic clairvoyance has since resulted in quite definite trends of feeling and attitudes of soul. We people of Europe can only be a match for what assails us from certain directions, if we reflect upon the arguments put forward today. For let us not forget this—that thinkers looked upon as very enlightened as, for example, Immanuel Kant, speak—not indeed out of a certain basis of Christianity but of the church—a thinker of this ilk speaks of human nature being fundamentally evil. And how widespread is this error—for it may indeed be called so—that human nature in its actual depths is evil: In the civilised world of Europe and its American sister country it is said that if human nature is not under control it is evil. This is actually a European opinion, an opinion of the European Church.

There is a race of men who do not hold this view, who have preserved another view from former times, for example the Chinese people. In the Chinese world-conception, as such, there rules the proposition, there rules the principle, that man is by nature good. Here is a mighty difference which would play a much greater part than is thought in the conflict that will develop between men. To be sure, speaking of these things today, people believe one as little as they would have done had the war we are now engaged in been spoken of in 1900. Yet it is true all the same that a struggle is also being prepared between the Asiatic and European peoples. And then quite other things will play a part than have been played, are played even now or will be played later, in the catastrophic struggle we are in the midst of today.

There is really a great difference in the whole way of experiencing whether the Chinese have the conviction that man is by nature good, or the European holds that human nature is fundamentally weighed down by evil—from the standpoint of the world-conception of the people there is a great difference in which way a man thinks. How a man thinks is expressed in the whole of life's temperament, in the entire attitude of the life of soul. For the most part men have their attention riveted on the outer features of life's conflict and they generally pay little heed to what is lying in the depths of the inner nature.

There is just one thing I should like to mention. You see, the fact that the European, although he may not generally admit it, is always at heart convinced that man is actually bad and has to be made good only through education and restraint, restraint by the State or any other kind, this outlook, from historic necessity, is closely connected with something else. It is connected with—not with the fact itself but with the qualities of feeling underlying the fact—connected with European people having developed through this a certain life of soul in the form we call logic and science. From this you will find it comprehensible that those who really know the Chinese—I don't mean Europeans who know them but those who, Chinese themselves, (cf. The Karma of Vocation) have got to know Europe too, as for example, Ku Hung Ming, often mentioned by me here—that these Chinamen lay stress on there being no equivalent in the Chinese language for logic and science. Thus for what we Europeans call science, for what we call logic, the Chinese have no word at all, since they do not have the thing, because, what Europeans believe to be Chinese Science is something quite different from what we call science and what we call logic, something entirely different from what we Europeans think to be logic in the Chinese soul. So different are men on earth! Attention must be paid to this unless attention is focused on this no discussion of the social problem can bear any fruit. But when heed is paid to such a matter the spiritual horizon becomes wider. And this widening of the spiritual horizon is particularly necessary for the sound understanding of Spiritual Science.

And when many different questions are asked concerning all these things—we have already touched on two today and could still touch on a third—when it is asked why today people in accordance with custom still keep their distance from the truths of Spiritual Science this reason is found among others, that the horizon, the spiritual horizon, of modern man is a very narrow one. However much man may boast of his spiritual horizon today, however greatly, the fact remains that this spiritual horizon is very narrow. Its narrowness is shown in particular by the extraordinary difficulty modern man generally has in getting out of himself where certain things are concerned. And this not only has an effect on his understanding, it influences also his whole life of sympathy and antipathy.

I should like to refer to a fact, a fact well known to quite a number of you, that is to say, the effect of this fact is well known to a number of you; this fact I have already mentioned to you once and should like to mention it again. Now you know that a certain relation existed some years ago between the so-called Theosophical Society and those who today form the Anthroposophical Society. I experienced something remarkable in connection with just those members of the Theosophical Society who were prominent. Already by the beginning of this century, as you know, I had published communications from the so-called Akashic Record, information which I venture to say rested upon personal experience, as does all the rest of what I impart out of the spiritual world. (see Atlantis and Lemuria) When these communications were read by a prominent member of the Theosophical Society people could hardly understand how it arose. I was asked how these communications were received? And it was really impossible to come to any kind of understanding, for the actual methods of anthroposophical research suitable for the present age were totally unknown in that circle. There, more mediumistic methods were used for investigation. Really what was wanted was the name of the medium or medium-like person responsible for these Akashic Record communications. That they were actually the result of the direct observation of a certain human attitude of soul projected into the supersensible, was considered an impossibility! The narrowness of man's horizon speaks in things of this kind. Even in so momentous a sphere, people consider possible only what they are accustomed to, only what is easily understood.

Now I have quoted this instance just because if one is narrow-minded it is really quite im possible to press on to Spiritual Science. In everyday life, however, this narrow-mindedness is the common thing today, always to relate everything back to just the personal, accustomed standpoint. This is what must above all be considered by those very people who are attached to our Movement for Spiritual Science. My dear Friends, I am now going to say something that perhaps there would be no need to say in this way were the things to be said intimately, systematically, but which it is necessary to say when it comes to the external conditions of life. You see, those who take a more particular, active interest in our Movement know indeed how many attacks are made on the sources of this Movement, how bitterly it is persecuted, how many come to hate it who were formerly keen adherents, and so on. Last time indeed I spoke about these things from various points of view. Now it will not be superfluous, from certain aspects, to make clear the reasons for such hostility, such antagonism. I talked to you about the reasons for the antagonism seen here and there last time. Such hostility very frequently becomes particularly strong, however, when appearing among people who also belong, let us say, to some occult society. The hatred that develops in many adherents of one or another society against what is seen here as Spiritual Science, sometimes is really strikingly conspicuous, at times even taking grotesque forms. And it is not superfluous, my deer friends, to pay attention to these things, for we should pay attention to everything that makes us take our membership of this Movement very seriously. It is very true that nowhere is there more charlatanism in the world than where spiritual matters are represented in all kinds of societies. It is easy, therefore, because of so much charlatanism in the world to be suspicious of what arises as a Movement for Spiritual Science. Then those who want to, can easily find support if they say: Yes, once a Society appeared which maintained that it spread abroad all the wisdom of the world—then it was shown up as mere charlatanism! And now another has arisen, again it has proved to be charlatanism'! This must be admitted; there is infinitely much of this charlatanism in the world. Here the capacity for discrimination must come in to distinguish the true from the false.

But another case can arise; something, for example, in the nature of uncertainty may enter the soul. This uncertainty can consist in the following. A man of this kind may come to know what goes on here. Now if he has not an open mind, if he pursues what is personal, he may arrive at the following divided mood of soul. It is possible for him to foresee all manner of danger and to say: Dear me, how is this? I have so often heard of these societies, occult or whatever else they may be; I have never come across in them any knowledge, any real knowledge. It is true, every possible thing is talked of, it is in their books and given out in their ritual, but there is no stream of living knowledge. Now is this Anthroposophy of the same kind or is it something different? And he can find himself in a divided mood of soul. You see, in common parlance, when it is not possible for anyone to go deeply into what is actually living here, it may be said: Is this the kind of swindle that I really find more pleasant since it does not ask so much of one?

My dear friends, the things I give out here are not so unreal as that! Above all they are spoken because I want to point to the necessity for earnestness, dignity, and the capacity for discrimination. I have said this repeatedly, so that the unpleasantness should not arise which very often arises, namely, that the real life of spirit is all around, whereas because it is less trouble people actually prefer to hear it talked about. What calls forth so much antagonism is just the fact of what I have emphasised in my book Theosophy being true here—that only spiritual experiences are spoken of. The antagonism of the Theosophical Society also actually first arose when they noticed our claim to speak of real spiritual experiences. That could not be borne. People are preferred who repeat what has been given in their lectures and repeat it with a certain zeal, but independent spiritual investigation was, fundamentally, the great sin against the Holy Ghost of the Theosophical Society. And this independent spiritual investigation is not as yet to be so easily found in the world today. Once again I have wanted to intimate this at the end of what we have been considering. And it will indeed be necessary for you, my dear friends, really to my heed to these things with a sound mind but also with all earnestness. The times are grave and the remedy for the times that we wish to receive from the spiritual world must also be grave.

We should like to go on speaking of these things tomorrow.