The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The following question is asked: “From the point of view of the view represented in your journal, how should we imagine the relationship between the animal soul and the human soul? It is undeniable that many animals can be taught mental tasks through training that are very similar to those of humans, as can be seen in the much-discussed horse of Mr. von Osten. Should we not therefore logically assume that animals also reincarnate?"

Certainly, it should not be denied that animals show abilities that, when compared to human expressions of the mind, make it difficult to answer the question: where is the boundary between the animal soul and the human soul? And materialism has always derived its justification from denying the essential difference between man and animal, and from maintaining that the human soul is only a fully developed animal soul and only developed from it. But anyone who is able to observe spiritually will not be misled on this point. And for the theosophist, such phenomena as the horse mentioned in the question (there is therefore no point in discussing this particular case in particular) are neither surprising nor mysterious. The animal soul is a generic soul. And what reincarnates in the animal kingdom is the species. The lion that one sees will not return in the same way as the human being who speaks to us. What reincarnates from the lion is the “species lion”, not this or that “individual” lion. But what reincarnates from the human being is precisely this individual. Therefore, in reality, only in the case of the human being can one speak of a biography, that is, of a description of the individual. In the case of animals, we are generally satisfied if we understand and describe the “species”. For example, who would want to write three biographies of a lion in the same way as of a human being, with father, son and grandson? All three have been recognized when one has grasped the one genus of lion.

Now it can certainly be objected that something biographical can also be said about animals, and that one dog differs from another just as a human being differs from another. One might say that a dog owner is certainly able to write the biography of his dog; and if one denies the individual differences of animals, this is only because one does not know them exactly. All this is admitted without further ado. But can one not also write the “biography” of any object from this point of view? Do we not remember that children are set the task of writing the “life story of a pin”? In nature, there are transitions everywhere. Thus, an animal can develop individual characteristics to such an extent that these appear like a striking shade of its generic character; and conversely, a human being can have so little individuality that everything about him appears generic. The training of the spiritual observation must ensure that such things do not distract us from the essential, which is what matters. The first books that were produced by the printing press were similar to those that were produced by artistic copying before and even after the invention of the printing press. Would anyone conclude from this that copying and printing are essentially the same?

Now, after these rational explanations, the facts should be put here in the sense of 'theosophy'. In the animal, spirit, soul and body are revealed. However, of these three principles, only the soul and the body find expression in the physical world. The spirit works from a higher world into the animal world. In the case of humans, all three principles express themselves in the physical world. Therefore, one cannot say that the actions of an animal do not originate from the spirit. When the beaver constructs its elaborate lodge, it is the spirit that causes this from a higher world. When humans build, it is the spirit within them. When a human being trains an animal, his spirit works on the non-individual spirit of the animal; and the latter uses the organs of the animal to carry out what has been brought about. That is why it is so incorrect to say that the animal, that is to say a particular animal individual, calculates, etc., as if one were to say that my “hand takes the spoon” instead of “I take the spoon”. However, for those who only recognize material facts, none of this makes any sense at all. And they have no choice but first to marvel at many of the mental expressions of an animal, and then to think of the animal's mind as being as similar as possible to the human mind. The fact that today's science is so amazed by the “intelligent” achievements of some animals, and is initially baffled, only proves that this science is still completely materialistic in its way of thinking. However, the characteristic difference between animals and humans does not result from a materialistic point of view, but only from a spiritual point of view.

Theosophists would not be surprised if much “smarter” animals were presented, as happens. But that is why they will always know where the difference in nature between animals and humans lies.

Question: “How does Buddha's teaching relate to Hinduism, the Upanishads and Blavatsky's Theosophy?

The answer to this question is partly given in what was said in the last issue in connection with Annie Besant's book “The Four Religions”. The original Brahman teaching, which is expressed in Hinduism and the Upanishads, was given a form in Buddha's teaching that was appropriate to the people's understanding. Buddhism was to turn a doctrine that was more focused on knowledge into one that served to elevate and purify moral strength and to lead a direct life. This is not to say that Buddhism taught something fundamentally new or even different from ancient Brahmanism. Rather, everything that Buddha taught was already present in Brahmanism. And anyone who understood Brahmanism correctly can be said to have been a Buddhist before the Buddha. It is as if someone were to describe a plant that many others had already described; the only difference is that he emphasizes certain characteristics that his predecessors did not feel the need to discuss in particular. Brahmanism is based on a world view. The Buddha showed how one should live in order to live in accordance with this world view. A person can live in accordance with a world view without fully understanding it. Indeed, he will understand it better later if he has already lived in accordance with it. This is what Buddha wanted to achieve in those who followed him. If he refused to speak about the supernatural, it was not because he considered it unknowable or even denied it; but because he wanted to first point people to a life that would then enable them to penetrate the supernatural. He did not deny the eternity of the soul; but he did not want his followers to engage in speculations about this eternity before they had arrived at the conclusion, through observing his rules of life, that their own lives fit into the spiritual order of the world. One could say that Buddha's teachings are Hinduism applied to practical life for people who are not yet able to grasp the connection between this life and the highest mysteries. Man has his destiny in the eternal; but only if he sees the temporal, the transitory, in the right light, is he also able to relate to the eternal in the right way. This is what characterizes Buddha's goal. That is why he refrained from teaching higher truths in his outer teachings, and taught the doctrine of the causes of earthly life and of its proper purification through the eightfold path.

Thus, all Indian worldviews, including Buddhism, are based on the doctrine of a spiritual, higher world, to which man belongs just as much as to the earthly one. And this teaching is no different from that which forms the basis of all great religious systems and world views. It is the one that is also contained in theosophy. For it corresponds to the one human nature, which, depending on the circumstances of life, develops differently in form, but which is essentially, in its basis, one. Anyone who knows the deeper foundations of Christianity also knows that this ancient wisdom is contained and active within it. And anyone who can penetrate to this ancient wisdom through true, spiritual Christianity (compare Annie Besant's “Esoteric Christianity” and Rudolf Steiner's “Christianity as a Mystical Fact”) does not need Hinduism or Buddhism. Yes, the same spiritual doctrine is also effective in modern science, but it remains attached to the most external truths and thereby distorts the spiritual. This is the case, for example, with the materialistic view of Darwinism. If one wants to penetrate to the spiritual basis of truth through this modern science, one needs a far greater power than on the path of religion. — Now, in an age that was completely devoted to outward, material knowledge, H.P. Blavatsky was initiated into the secrets of wisdom research by great teachers of the East. It was only natural that these teachers expressed themselves in the terms of their own race. And it was in this form of expression that Mrs. Blavatsky communicated what she had received to the world. However, it must be clear that this form of expression is of little importance. The point is to penetrate the content. Whether this content is then communicated in the forms of Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity, or in the formulas borrowed from modern Western science, depends solely on the person to whom the content is to be communicated. Our great masters never tire of admonishing us again and again not to fall into rigid dogmatism, not to turn the search for wisdom into mere word wisdom. Under certain circumstances it is even un-theosophical to teach the Hindu or Buddhist formulas in the Occident. For the theosophist should not force anything alien upon anyone, but should lead everyone to the truth in his own way. Why, for example, should one teach Buddhist formulas of thought to Christians, when the core of truth is also based on their own formulas? Theosophy should not be Buddhist propaganda, but rather a help for everyone to achieve a true understanding of their own inner world.

The following question has been asked: “According to the law of reincarnation, one should imagine that human individuality possesses its talents, abilities, etc. as an effect of its previous lives. Is it not contradictory that such talents and abilities, for example moral courage, musical talent, etc., are directly inherited from parents to children?”

If we have a correct understanding of the laws of reincarnation, rebirth and karma, there is no contradiction in what is expressed above. However, only those characteristics of a person that are attributed to his physical body and etheric body can be inherited directly. The latter is the carrier of all life phenomena (the growth and reproductive forces). Everything that is connected with it can be inherited directly. To a lesser extent, what is bound to the so-called soul body can be inherited. This is to be understood as a certain disposition in the feelings. Whether one has a keen sense of sight, a well-developed sense of hearing, etc., can depend on whether the ancestors have acquired such qualities and passed them on to us. On the other hand, nobody can pass on to their descendants what is connected with the actual spiritual nature of a person, for example the sharpness and precision of their imagination, the reliability of their memory, their moral sense, the knowledge and artistic abilities they have acquired, and so on. These are characteristics that remain within their individuality and manifest themselves in their next reincarnations as abilities, talents, character, and so on. But the environment into which the reincarnating human being enters is not accidental, but is in a necessary relationship with his karma. For example, let us assume that a person has acquired the disposition for a morally strong character in his previous life. It is in his karma that this disposition will come out in a reincarnation. This would be impossible if he were not incarnated in a body of a certain nature. This physical nature must, however, be inherited from the ancestors. The incarnating individuality now strives, through an inherent attraction, towards those parents who can give it the appropriate body. This is due to the fact that this individuality connects itself with the forces of the astral world before reincarnation, which strive towards certain physical conditions. Thus, a person is born into the family that can pass on the physical conditions corresponding to his karmic predispositions. In the example of moral courage, it seems as if this were inherited from the parents. In reality, the individual being has sought out the family that will enable it to develop moral courage. It may also be the case that the individualities of the children and parents were already connected in previous lives and have therefore found each other again. The karmic laws are so complex that one can never form a judgment based on outward appearances. Only those who have a partial insight into the higher worlds through their spiritual senses can do so to some extent. Those who are able to observe not only the physical body but also the soul organism (astral body) and the spirit (mental body) will realize what has been passed on to the person from his ancestors and what is his own property acquired in previous lives. To the ordinary eye, these things are mixed up and it can easily appear as if something is merely inherited that is karmically conditioned. It is a very wise saying that children are “given” to their parents. In a spiritual sense, they are completely given to them. But children with certain spiritual qualities are given to them because they have the opportunity to develop these spiritual qualities in their children.

The following question is posed: “Can it be understood, according to the teachings of reincarnation and karma, that a highly developed human soul is reborn in a helpless, undeveloped child? For many, the thought of having to start over and over again at the childhood stage is something unbearable and illogical.”

How a person can act in the physical world depends entirely on the physical tools he has. For example, higher ideas can only be expressed in this world if a fully developed brain is present. Just as the piano player has to wait until the piano maker has finished the piano to the extent that he can play his musical ideas on it, so the soul has to wait with its abilities acquired in the previous life until the powers of the physical world have developed the bodily organs to the extent that they can become an expression of these abilities. The natural powers have to go their way, the soul also has to go its way. However, from the very beginning of human life, the soul and the physical forces work together. The soul works in the still pliable and flexible child's body in such a way that it can later become a carrier of the forces that have been acquired in earlier periods of life. It is absolutely necessary for the reborn human being to adapt to the new circumstances of life. If he were to simply appear in a new life with everything he had acquired earlier, he would not fit into the surrounding world. He has acquired his abilities and powers under completely different circumstances in a completely different environment. If he simply wanted to enter the world in his former state, he would be a stranger in it. The childhood period is there to bring about harmony between the old circumstances and the new ones. How would a person from ancient Rome, however clever, fare in our world if he were simply born into it with the powers he had acquired? A power can only be applied when it has harmonized with the environment. For example, when a genius is born, the genius is already present in the innermost core of the person, which is also called the causal body. The lower spirit body (kama manas, [the mind soul]) and the feeling and sensation body (astral body) are, however, adaptable and to a certain extent indeterminate. These two parts of the human being are now being developed. The causal body works from within, the environment from without. When this work is done, these two parts can be tools of the acquired powers. — It is therefore neither illogical nor unbearable to think of being born as a child. It would be unbearable to be born as a fully developed human being into a world in which one is a stranger.

A third question is the following: “How should the case be viewed karmically if a person is condemned to idiocy due to a brain disease?”

All such things should not be spoken of through speculation and hypotheses, but rather from the perspective of esoteric experience. Therefore, the question will be answered here by means of an example that actually occurred. A person was condemned in a previous life to lead a dull existence due to an underdeveloped brain. In the time between his death and a new birth, he was able to process all the depressing experiences of such a life, being pushed around, the lack of love of people, and he was reborn as a true genius of charity. Such a case clearly shows how wrong one is when one relates everything in life karmically to the past. It is not always possible to say that a particular fate is the result of a particular fault in the past. Just as often, one will have to think that a particular experience has no connection with the past, but will rather be the cause of a karmic compensation in the future. An idiot does not necessarily have to have earned his fate through his actions in the past. But the karmic consequence of his fate for the future will certainly not be lacking. Just as the balance of a merchant is determined by the figures in his cash book, but he can always make new purchases and sales, so new deeds, strokes of fate, etc. can always occur in a person's life, even though his life account is a very specific one at every moment. Therefore, karma should not be understood as an unalterable fate of man, as a fatum, but it is entirely compatible with freedom, with the will of man. Karma does not demand submission to an unalterable fate, but on the contrary: it brings the certainty that no deed, no experience of man remains without effect, or runs lawlessly in the world, but fits into a just, balancing law. If there were no karma, then the world would be ruled by arbitrariness. But as it is, I can know that every one of my actions, every one of my experiences, fits into a lawful context. My action is free, its effect absolutely lawful. It is a free action on the part of the merchant when he makes a deal; but the result of it fits into his balance sheet in a lawful way.

The following question is posed: “Is it important for the theosophist to educate himself about the different parts of man, about the astral and mental world, about the development of the earth and the world, and so on? Is it not enough for him to become aware of the “God-man” within himself, of the unity with all beings, and of the divinity of all things? Why does he need teachings and theories?"

It must be said that it is a fine saying to become aware of one's divine self and of the unity with all beings, but that this remains only a saying as long as one does not really want to recognize the nature and the deeds of the divine in the world. A person who only ever speaks of his divine self is like someone who does not want to know anything about tulips, violets, narcissi, roses, etc., but wants to lump everything together into the vague concept of “plant”. God can only recognize those who understand the world, and self-knowledge can only be attained by those who want to recognize the things around them, both sensual and supersensual. For man is the highest revelation of all things for man, and therefore knowledge of the world is at the same time self-knowledge. Therefore, those who do not want to be content with general phrases must acquire knowledge of the astral, mental, etc. world in order to attain self-knowledge. For all the phenomena of these worlds have a share in the human essence. Therefore, perfect self-knowledge and full God-consciousness are also an unattainable ideal. Only when one would recognize the whole world could one recognize oneself completely. It cannot be a matter of our knowing that a divine element lives in us, for a divine element lives in every stone, in every plant, in every animal. What matters is that we recognize more and more of the revelations of God in the universe. Let us therefore repeat less that theosophy is the consciousness of the unity of God with man, and let us seek to understand more of the secrets of the world, that is, of the divine workings in things. In this way we will also become more modest than if we always emphasize our consciousness of the God-man in us. Of course we carry this within us; but as a rule we know very little about it. It is better to have some real knowledge of what the astral or mental world looks like than to boast of a consciousness of God that remains an empty word without true, certain knowledge. Indeed, it is presumptuous to speak of this unity with God without wanting to delve deeper into the deeds of God in the universe. What use is it to always say: I am the son of this father. Learn from this father, acquire what he can and is able to do, then you will be his worthy son. Theosophy will only be true divine wisdom when it speaks clearly and distinctly of the higher worlds and avoids all vague expressions. How much a person appropriates from the knowledge of the higher worlds is another matter; but it depends on the will to knowledge. All unhappiness in the world comes from ignorance. But this is not overcome by the consciousness of the divine self within oneself. For even the ignorant can justifiably speak of his divine self. He has it; he just cannot recognize it. Theosophy should not be a show of divine consciousness, but a real learning of the divine secrets of the world, which give the key to genuine self-knowledge.

Another question is: “How does Theosophy relate to the so-called secret sciences?”

There have always been secret sciences. They were cultivated in the so-called secret schools. Only those who underwent certain tests could learn something from them. They were always only told as much as corresponded to their intellectual, spiritual and moral abilities. This had to be the case because the higher knowledge, if properly applied, is the key to a power that, in the hands of the unprepared, must lead to abuse. Theosophy has now popularized some of the elementary teachings of esoteric science. The reason for this lies in the present conditions of the times. Humanity, in its more advanced members, has now reached a stage of development of the intellect that, sooner or later, it would have arrived at certain ideas of its own accord that were previously part of esoteric knowledge. However, they would acquire these ideas in a stunted, caricatured and harmful form. Therefore, the occultists have decided to share some of the secret knowledge with the public. This will make it possible to measure the human progress that occurs in the development of civilization with the standard of true wisdom. For example, our knowledge of nature leads to ideas about the reasons for things. But without a deeper knowledge of the occult, these ideas can only become distorted images. Our technology is progressing to stages of development that can only be beneficial to humanity if people's souls are deepened in the sense of theosophical life. As long as the peoples had nothing of modern natural science and modern technology, the form in which the highest teachings were communicated in religious images, in a way that spoke to the pure feelings, was salutary. Today humanity needs the same truths in a rational form. The theosophical world view did not arise from arbitrariness, but from insight into the historical fact mentioned. — Certain parts of the secret knowledge can, however, only be communicated to those who submit to the tests of initiation. And even with the published part, only those who do not limit themselves to an external knowledge, but who really internalize the things, make them the content and the guiding principle of their lives, will know how to make use of it. It is not a matter of intellectually mastering the teachings of Theosophy, but of permeating them with feeling, sensation, indeed with one's whole life. Only through such a penetration can one also experience something of their truth value. Otherwise they remain something that “one can believe and also not believe”. Properly understood, theosophical truths will give man a true basis for life, let him recognize his value, his dignity and essence, give him the highest courage to exist. For they enlighten him about his connection with the world around him; they point him to his highest goals, to his true destiny. And they do this in a way that is in line with the demands of the present, so that he does not need to remain caught in the conflict between faith and knowledge. One can be a modern researcher and a theosophist at the same time. However, one must then also be both in the true sense of the word.

Question: “The theosophical movement and the related currents of the time are accused by many sides of a cult of personality. And it must indeed be disturbing for people who love their freedom and independence when teachings are proclaimed by individuals that the listeners and readers cannot examine for themselves, and which many accept on blind faith. Is there not a danger in such facts in movements based on occultism and theosophy?"

Such a danger could only arise from misunderstandings. Those who, on the basis of their own experiences, proclaim higher truths, or who pass on such truths on the basis of the credibility of other witnesses, will never claim what is usually called a cult of personality or blind faith in authority. The better occultists they are, the less they will do so. And when it is said that the listeners or readers cannot immediately verify the things, one should bear in mind that there are also ways and means for those who have not yet reached the stage of seeing for themselves to become more and more convinced of the truth of what is communicated to them. The person who makes the communication, provided that he is really an occultist or 'theosophist in his heart, does not want to work differently than an accountant. He says: I have experienced this or that, or I have been told this or that by those who can know it. A healthy, straightforward mind, a true feeling in the listener will first listen, that is, neither believe blindly nor criticize blindly. The truth is illuminating and enlightening, the false repels and clarifies nothing. The listener or reader says of the truth: Yes, through what is communicated to me I can understand the facts of nature and life; but if what is said were not true, these facts would remain incomprehensible to me. This attitude towards a teaching is also known to the most recognized science; such teachings are called useful working hypotheses. The only difference is that the occultist does not communicate hypotheses, but facts that he has seen for himself. But that does not prevent anyone from accepting these things as useful life hypotheses, as long as they cannot verify them for themselves. And it is certain that anyone who behaves in this way, sincerely and honestly, will sooner or later come to see for themselves. For there is no more fruitful path to higher vision for present-day humanity than to first hear the teachings of those who have already seen, and to accept from them what one can consider reasonable and acceptable. Many would soon declare themselves in favor of the reasonableness and acceptability of the occult teachings if they could cast off the shackles of prejudice and materialistic superstition. But many are completely taken up with the belief in authority and the cult of personality towards their materialistic greats and therefore cannot devote themselves to the messages of the occultists without prejudice. Those who free themselves from this cult of authority will soon see how plausible the teachings of so-called secret science are for the mind and heart. For man is predisposed to truth, not error, through reason, feeling and perception, and only prejudice and bias can stand in his way.

Anyone who does not appeal to the intellect of his listeners or readers, but demands personal cult or blind faith in authority, has not understood the essence of occultism. There is no better way to recognize that someone is an occultist than by demanding such blind faith or personal recognition. He is then not an occultist, but a vain fool. If you get to the bottom of the truth, you will always find that – apart from a few who have yet to work their way through to the right path – those who complain the most about personality cults are those who feel that their own person is not given enough worship. But they should look into themselves a little and not want to rob anyone of one of the most beautiful feelings, which consists in the veneration of those who make the truth accessible to one. This feeling is a personal matter for each individual, and the malicious voices of vain critics should not be allowed to interfere with it. Those who themselves have a grateful mind and show respect and love for their spiritual helpers will never be able to condemn these feelings in others. Let everyone begin by criticizing themselves first, and by working to spread the truth, and they will best serve others.

A further question is then asked: To what extent does justified criticism of the deplorable state of our social life harmonize with the abstention from judgment so often emphasized by occultists and theosophists? That this genuine criticism is not excluded by the occultist demand will be shown in detail in the next section. Unfortunately, there is no more space left to answer this question.

The following question has been put to me: “It is often said that a person who is undergoing training in the esoteric sense should refrain from all criticism. Does this also mean that all just criticism of real bad deeds by people is to be avoided? Is it not rather our duty to eradicate damage in our environment and wherever else we can exert influence, so that the better can take the place of the worse? And does not a person sink to complete inactivity if he regards everything with absolute indifference?” First of all, it should be said that the rules of conduct for the secret student are requirements that correspond to strict laws. And as such, they only say something about the connection between the fulfillment of a corresponding requirement and the student's ascent into the higher worlds. You should refrain from criticism, which means that, in life, in cases in which circumstances provoke you to censure or condemn, you should not follow this impulse, but work without criticism to improve what is harmful, bad, etc. To the same extent that you refrain from criticism, you will ascend. Abstaining from criticism does not at all imply that you should pass by the bad, evil, etc. with indifference, and that you should leave everything as it is. You should only try to understand the bad to the same extent as you understand the good. By understanding the causes, you will even be best prepared for the work of improvement. It is not blindness to evil that is useful, but understanding tolerance. The third of the four first sayings in Light on the Path expresses most clearly what is to be said about this: “Before the voice can speak in the presence of the Masters it must have lost the power to wound’” This means that beings from a higher world only speak to a person when his words have completely given up the unloving wounding, the rebuke that is capable of hurting or grieving, and are only spoken in the service of loving embrace of the whole world. And the “words” here also mean the unspoken words, the mere thoughts. The point is to be found in the preparation of pain. The master and higher beings do not speak to us from outside; they use our own words and thoughts as a means of communicating with us. The tone of their voice penetrates us, and from there it goes out into the world through these words and thoughts. And only when it finds this path open and unobstructed does it become audible to us. Words and thoughts that cause pain are like pointed arrows that come from us. And at the tip the sound of the master finds an obstacle; it bounces back and remains imperceptible. Words and thoughts, however, that are shaped by love open up like flower corollas to the outside, gently enclosing other beings; and with them the master's voice finds the way open to penetrate the world. Only through this does it become audible to us.

The question is: “Isn't the word ‘theosophy’ misleading? If translated literally, it would mean ‘wisdom about God’. However, what is usually called theosophy is not concerned with the actual science of God, but with the nature of man, reincarnation, karma and so on.”

The word is not misleading if it is understood correctly. It does not mean “science of God”. Theosophy differs from ordinary science not in the subject matter it deals with, but in the way it arrives at its ideas. Man is a dual being and his knowledge is also twofold. He is divided into a transient and an eternal essence. The sense organs belong to the transitory nature of man. What he recognizes through them therefore also belongs to the transitory world. And when the mind deals with the experiences of these sense organs, combines them, seeks to investigate their laws, etc., it is also dealing with the transitory. In this sense, ordinary science deals only with the transitory. All botany, physiology, history, etc., which come about in this way, belong to the realm of the transitory. In them, the transitory part of man recognizes. Now, an immortal part also lives in this man. This can be awakened within. This happens when a person works on himself in such a way that his inner senses are awakened. He then gains insights into the supersensible world just as the outer eyes gain insights into the sensible world. It is therefore no longer a matter of knowledge in the sense of ordinary science, but of knowledge in a completely different state, into which a person places himself through inner development. He then does not need to recognize other objects, but he views the same objects that are dealt with in ordinary science in a different way. Science, for example, deals with plants, that is, through them, the mortal human being describes what he has around him as the plant world. Theosophy also deals with plants, but through them, the immortal part of the human being directs the awakened higher senses to the plant world. The theosophical observations are therefore meant from a different point of view than those of ordinary science. The part of human nature that is imperishable, that is, that has a share in the supersensible world, is called the divine essence in man. In theosophy, therefore, it is not the perishable but the “inner”, the “divine man” who recognizes. It is not what it treats, but how it treats things that distinguishes theosophy from ordinary science. It is the wisdom that has come about in human nature through divine power.

Thus, Theosophy can never contradict the results of external science. For both initially proceed side by side. However, it is natural that Theosophy must also illuminate all facts in its own way, which are otherwise the subject of ordinary science, for example, the facts that are perceived through the microscope, or the phenomena of the starry sky. It does not then say anything about them that can contradict the perceptions of the natural scientist, but rather what results from these perceptions when the awakened inner sense observes them. What then comes out through them can contradict science just as little as the statements of a seeing person about an object can contradict the information that a blind person makes about this object on the basis of the sense of touch. If scientists were willing to understand this, they would no longer fight against the theosophical worldview. They would realize that they cannot reject its results any more than a blind person can reject the information of a sighted person about the world of colors. But scientists are intolerant in this regard. They do not want to remain in their own field and allow others to do the same, but simply declare: What we see is the only truth, and what is not investigated in our way is error, unscientific. Therefore one can hear it said: What Theosophy teaches are fantastic ideas, because in the sense of our science such things simply do not exist. But it is not considered that the one who knows nothing about the inner senses cannot judge the results of Theosophy. At least one truth should be admitted, that is, that a person who does not perceive something cannot decide about it, but only the person who perceives it. If a thousand natural scientists say: this is superstition, because we do not see anything of it, that weighs nothing against a single person who has seen the corresponding thing.

Or else, it is also said that theosophy speaks of things that exceed the human capacity for knowledge. Man cannot know anything about them. To this the theosophist has the answer: How can anyone speak of the limits of the capacity for knowledge? He cannot know more than that he does not notice a higher capacity for knowledge in himself. But can he then conclude from this that others do not have such a capacity either? Can anyone claim to be the sole absolute standard for all human knowledge? If only people would stick to what they recognize as positive and not try to draw conclusions about others! No one should try to determine where human knowledge ends. For each one can only say how far his own knowledge extends. A little episode will be related here which is quite suitable for shedding light on all this. When Eduard von Hartmann's “Philosophy of the Unconscious” (1868) appeared, a great campaign was launched against it by natural scientists. In particular, it was the supporters of a certain way of thinking, which was linked to the name of Darwin, who found Hartmann's explanations of the nature of animals and humans from a Darwinian point of view to be completely unscientific. Hartmann was considered by them to be an absolute ignoramus of all “recent scientific achievements” and his teachings to be the product of crass unscientific behavior.

Among the numerous opposing writings against the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” was one by a man who initially did not give his name: “The Unconscious from the Perspective of the Theory of Descent and Darwinism”. It was a brilliant refutation of Hartmann's teachings. The opposing natural scientists were delighted to have this new ally. There were some among them who declared that they could never have said anything better themselves, for the unknown author had forcefully emphasized everything that they themselves had on their minds against Hartmann's dilettantism. Others said that the unknown author should reveal his identity, as they considered him to be one of their own. After some time, a second edition of the work, which was so welcome to the natural scientists, appeared. Now the author gave his name. It was Eduard von Hartmann. Whatever one may think of Hartmann's philosophy, one thing was irrefutably established by it: Hartmann could say everything that the natural scientists had to say against him, that he was superior to them all. People should learn from such examples. They should understand that objections may have no value at all under certain circumstances. Such objections can always be made by the person who has taken a higher standpoint and then lowers himself to a lower one. No theosophist will deny that his assertions can be objected to from the standpoint of sensual science, if the scientist in question takes the intolerant standpoint that everything that is not evident to him is nonsense. Every theosophist who is truly at the height of his position can say to himself everything that opponents from a non-theosophical point of view would say. Just as Hartmann was able to present what non-philosophers had to object to him. - If the theosophist takes the position of the ordinary scientist and disregards the insights of the higher senses, then his assertions will be no less scientific than those of the official representatives of science. — Researchers should talk less about what “man” cannot know, but instead remain aware of the limits of their own knowledge. Communication between theosophy and natural science will be easy at the moment when natural scientists stop regarding themselves as infallible judges in all matters about which they have not researched.

It may be admitted that many natural scientists do this in theory; but in the practice of their behavior there is something quite different. They are mostly unaware that this is the case. Due to their way of thinking, they speak about the things of their subject as if the positions of their sensory knowledge made any kind of supersensible research impossible. In many cases, the stumbling block is not what they say, but how they say it. That is why our natural scientists should familiarize themselves with the results of theosophy. Their whole manner would then change. There would be something in the tone of their observations that would make it impossible for the observations of purely external reality to be repeatedly perceived as a contradiction to theosophy and to have this effect on the public.