The Rudolf Steiner Archive

We did not accuse Mrs. von Tschirschky. Mrs. von Tschirschky accused herself by taking things personally. She grasped the matter in a peculiar way, did not bring forward anything to refute the charge but declared outright that society is a gossiping society because things that have been said are said again here.

Now, let's leave aside the fact that one can have different views on whether things should have been said or not. They have been said once; and after all, it is not a principle in the world that the one who tells something about another person's actions is the guilty one, but the guilty one is the one about whom one has something guilty to tell. But what Mrs. von Tschirschky presented was only that it was an improper procedure, that the things she could not refute were presented. She did not lack expressions that are legally incriminating in her speech. I just recall: “I thought I was dealing with a friend, and now I see I'm dealing with a spy.” In short, the speech was full of insults. You will recall that the whole speech was full of insults, also in tendency. During this speech, Mr. Bauer made a comment. Ms. von Tschirschky immediately responded to this, coining the term herself: “mystical eccentricity.” She herself labeled what she wanted to describe as “mystical eccentricity.” Then she announced her resignation and explained why she could no longer be a member of the Society. The Society listened. Let us hold on to this fact.

Mrs. von Strauss, whose name was also not mentioned, said in her letter: “This is an exaggeration.” She could be quoted exactly: She came in again, but did not say a word to explain that the things were not true, only that they were grossly exaggerated, and that the matter played no role in her spiritual life, and then she left the room.

Fräulein Wernicke also left the room with some comment. In the next few days, it came to the well-known dialogue. Then Fräulein Wernicke appeared and gave us a lecture, which in turn, was truly not free from legally actionable expressions. I recall only that at that time the expression “dirt” was used. There are many here who heard that. I also recall that a comparison I used a few days earlier, when the ladies were still there, was taken as a starting point to hurl a legally contestable insult at the whole society. A few days earlier, I had spoken, in a positive sense, about society being a living organism, and I didn't just say it for superficial ears, just to hear it, but I defined it further. I said: other societies are formed on the basis of all kinds of program points; they can fall apart again. Our society differs from the others in that it was founded on a reality. I mentioned that you have our cycles in your hands, and I mentioned that our society, by forming an organism, leaves a corpse behind when it disintegrates, and that from this external, materialistic point of view alone, it must be true of our society that it is not an association, like another association, which can disintegrate, but that it leaves something behind. We cannot get rid of it. Really, this was a serious discussion about the nature of our society. Friends have abused this serious discussion. They have now thrown the insult in our face that society is already in decay, that it is already a corpse. When you throw the words corpse and decay in someone's face, it is of course an insult, and in all this, society has listened.

Ms. Blasberg was given the choice of whether she wanted to stay here or not, and to say whether she believed the dirt was here, with us, or not. And that led her to leave by saying that those ladies – who, as demonstrably true assertions, have said so many things that they cannot assert – and in particular Mrs. von Tschirschky, could not have said anything incorrect.

After a short time, a flood of express letters from Mrs. von Strauss began to pour in on me. I wanted to spare you these at first because I believed that there was no reason for the society, which had remained passive until then and had not really said anything substantial about it, to continue the proceedings in this matter. Because everything that had happened had happened on the part of the ladies. There was no expulsion or anything of the sort. No official explanation was sent to the ladies. Some members of this House felt obliged to write to the ladies for certain reasons, reasons that, even if some words were out of place, were nonetheless entirely commendable; for the writers of the letters actually tried to appeal to the ladies' consciences. If you follow the letters, you will see that the writers may have made mistakes in some of their statements, but basically they just wanted to appeal to the ladies' consciences.

Mrs. von Strauss wrote in her letter that she has many regrets and should have done many things she did not do, which would probably be because she did not do the ancillary exercises. She sends these letters, I don't know why – I couldn't find any reason why – to my house. In Mrs. von Strauss's letters there were things in them that one would have thought referred to other letters, that Mrs. von Strauss would have mixed up the letters, because she characterizes them in a way that is highly offensive. It was further insulting in these letters the term “lie”. It is an insult if there is no mention of a lie in a letter that Mrs. von Strauss claims says “lie”. She says that she is being accused of a lie. But you are calling someone a liar if you say that they are lying when the word “lie” has not been said. Similarly, the word “immorality” does not appear in any of the letters. Mrs. von Strauss accuses us of accusing her of immorality. There are many things in these letters that are objectively untrue. To allege such things about someone is an insult and can be prosecuted. I am not allowed to say that someone has made an insulting comment if it is not true that they have said it, so from this point of view, the letters are full of insults.

We have to look at the matter very soberly. The way these ladies deal with insults is quite peculiar. One of these ladies, for example, has said a real insult. She used the term “gossip” or “blabbermouth” about someone, and the strange thing is, she said it about herself.

So you can't really get out of things by looking at them in the sober light of day. In a sense, it was a dilemma for me to read the letters to you because Mrs. von Strauss simply forced you to read the letters. Therefore, they had to be read. That's actually how it looks. No matter how meticulously you search, there is no way to find the slightest reason for the ladies to complain about anything; because absolutely nothing happened to them. Nevertheless, they are even threatening to hire a lawyer, and they keep talking about injuries and about the board of directors staging a Haberfeldtreiben against them.

So, my dear friends, the sober fact is that someone compares another person who is a member of society to Judas; that someone says this about another person who is also a member of society. These are things that have been amply characterized. These things come out unfortunately, and the gentleman now demands not merely that he shall not be sued, though he could be sued ten times, twenty times—for these are all actionable things that the ladies have said, really actionable things. We have no intention of filing a lawsuit, but these are all actionable things. Rather, he threatens us with a lawsuit. We are really dealing with a serious perversion of the facts; it is an outrageous thing. We must realize this situation in all seriousness and sobriety. It is necessary that we realize this. Our society must be one built on true love. But if it should happen again and again that, when it is necessary to achieve this or that here, this or that person comes and takes the side of those who attack the others in the sharpest way, how are we to really get along? In our society, it is certainly justified to show a lot of love; but it is important to do so with reason, with reason. This is extremely necessary. And we will need to emphasize correctness and accuracy, especially in this time, when we are surrounded by a bunch of the real opposite. We have to be clear about what is actually going on.

You see, that is the situation and from this situation the board will have to find the necessity to prove, really file by file, piece by piece, that the matter is really as it has now been characterized, namely that someone who has behaved in the most incredible way, after running away from the company against its every wish, is now demanding that those from whom he has run away apologize to him. The matter is actually so absurd that one could even imagine that if one were to take the matter to court, the judge would say: Yes, if the matter were like that, then it would be quite absurd. It would have to be quite different, because it is not possible that reasonable people demand such a thing in the world.

We have now been forced by Mrs. von Strauss to talk about the matter again, which was absolutely unnecessary. But we are in a real society. If the absurd is real, then we must also deal with the absurd. That is also part of the concept of a living organism. But if we negotiate here, and it can then be made the sad discovery that our negotiations, which we conduct among ourselves, are even carried out - yes, where do we end up if we are exposed to this danger for all our affairs?

Just think, my dear friends, that there is the possibility – because more important things than this basically highly unimportant thing are also being negotiated here – that the most intimate, even esoteric things that are said here, can be easily communicated to the outside world. This is how we take what is always emphasized: that certain things have to remain among us.

I would like to know, my dear friends, if any society of the kind that our is, which only approximately takes into account the principles with which we have to deal, could do such things; it would be considered quite impossible. If such possibilities arise again and again, that things are carried out, then it is of course of no use to us to set up inquisition courts and ask who visited this or that person. The fact that this or that person can visit this or that person is beyond our control, it is not our business. But the fact that the things that are discussed here are told outside and that no attention is paid is what is so bad. And that's why we have to say one day: we're closing up, we're not talking about what should be talked about here at all, because if we don't have the opportunity to do our thing seriously and with dignity, then we shouldn't do it at all. Then we are in the sad position, my dear friends, that we have done everything for years that has led to the construction of this building here and everything else, and that we are now, simply because of these things, faced with the impossibility of continuing the matter. That is also part of the nature of a living organism. Basically, we are being led by sheer impossibility. We are not in a position, basically we are not at all in a position to continue talking about the matter, because we do not know how the matters were carried out. So we actually have to stop talking. I therefore believe that in this case, which we must come to an end at some point, the members of the board present here can be commissioned to carry out the case, to examine it in a smaller circle. It was necessary for us to get an overview of the whole matter. It was necessary for us to visualize what is actually at hand and what is possible among us, and to really set out to consider society as a society.

It is truly not an easy fate to be compelled to engage in further debates in society when one cannot even be sure that one is free from the things that are said on the condition that they are not carried out, assuming that they can be carried out at any time to anyone. It really must be said: It is a sad fate to have to work in society.

I will just say this one word: I read the lecture that I gave in Berlin, the lecture on the foundation of the Theosophical Society for Type and Art. I ask you to note that this lecture was actually read with the intention of ensuring that this matter is accurate. You will have noticed that the word “esoteric” does not appear in this lecture. So when someone speaks of an esoteric foundation, this is an objective untruth. It is not a matter of something esoteric, it is a matter of what has been expressed in these words, and since this very matter has been used for attack, I ask you, especially on this point, as soon as you speak about it, to speak very carefully and not to fall for the idea that because esoteric things have been practiced in this or that case, this or that must also be understood in that way. This is not an esoteric matter. I had to make these comments so that they all know what is necessary to know about this.

You see, nothing is given to what I say. This is evident from the fact that someone leaves the company, that someone can be said to run away. A society in which that is possible cannot deal with its problems. It won't do any good what we do – that's possible; but we have to do our duty, even in a case like this, where we know full well that we won't achieve anything by doing it, we have to do our duty.

And now, in conclusion, I have a few remarks to make, since our time is up. It is with an extremely heavy heart that I do so. But, you see, my dear friends, so much has happened in relation to our society, so much has occurred that is truly not for the benefit of society, that society does not particularly promote. We only need to think of one or the other thing that someone could really raise the question: Yes, why is it that things that could have a harmful effect are not pointed out at the right time? Why must everything proceed, as it were, in secret? Why are certain things not pointed out at the right time, certain dangers, certain harmful things that are harmful to the life of society? It is only for the reason, my dear friends, that in view of the sorrowful and painful events that have taken place in recent years and up to the present day, such a question could be asked and could be justified, that I would like, quite à contrecoeur, I would like to say, against everything that is pleasant and agreeable to me, I would like to say a few words about something that can already imply significant dangers, significant things, and in the face of which one will have to say: It should be pointed out in a society at the right time to such things, which really has different conditions of existence than some other societies, which must work out of different impulses of the heart and soul. I would like to say: Fortunately, what I have to come to you with today has nothing to do with anything that initially belonged to our circles here today, insofar as these circles are concentrated around the building site. There is no one who comes into question who would have anything to do with our building here. So, as I said, we who are here are not directly affected by what I have to talk about. But it is something that could very well have something to do with our building and with everything connected with our building later on, something that must arise as a development, as a natural and correct development, and that the building must be placed in. This could really become a matter of life or death one day.

In the days since I have been here again, I have had to learn something truly distressing! Now, I do not want to burden you with all the distressing things, because the proclamation of truth has always been associated with obstacles in human life, with a certain necessity to suffer and bear pain, and in some respects I consider it foolish to talk about this pain. You accept it, you bear it, but you don't put yourself forward as a bearer of pain. So it's not in that style that I want to discuss it: to put myself or someone else forward as a martyr. That is, so to speak, a matter of course in the proclamation of truth in the development of the world, that one doesn't really talk about. But you see, from a different point of view, I have to talk.

I was obliged to read two letters in the last few days, among many other distressing things. I will say nothing about these letters for the time being, about their origin, their authorship, because they are letters. But they are, after all, letters that seem to me to have been read not only by the addressees but also by others. Two letters – yes, about the content of these two letters – that affect not only me alone, but one of these letters also affects, for example, Dr. Steiner, while the other letter concerns me and some indefinable others who are around me, whom one does not even really know are there, much less who they are supposed to be. But as I said, I had to read two letters. I do not want to go into the origin and authorship of these letters any further, but the things mean a beginning – and that is why one must speak from the point of view that I meant. The things mean a beginning, and I do not say 'the end', because much can develop from what is in these letters, very much can develop. Do not misunderstand me. What I am going to say – that something can develop out of what has been expressed in these letters – is not said as if one or the other of these letter writers had the intention of developing it. That is not the case. But it does not depend on

human intentions, when a person does this or that, what develops from it, but it depends on the objective course of events. Sometimes people can have, well, who knows what intentions in what they write or say: something quite different from what they intended can develop from it. So it is not about someone's intentions or someone's opinions – that or the other should develop – that is being discussed here, but rather what can and must be discussed is what can actually arise from such things, so that it does not again appear as if we are going into everything completely blindly, when in fact a great deal can be clearly seen in the future. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, one must always remain silent about certain things. Now, these reasons for remaining silent about this or that can be discussed in general terms.

Both letters have a certain peculiarity; and since I am talking about “cases”, what I say can be accepted with a certain generality. Both letters have a certain peculiarity: they contain from beginning to end – in a certain sense this is spoken – not a true word, but only inventions, not a single true word, but only inventions! In one letter, to characterize only that, for example, Dr. Steiner is accused of being a particular political agent, of wanting to develop particular political currents, of secretly engaging in particular political agitation. Well, I have known Dr. Steiner for a long time, and I can assure you: I know her very well and I know very well that these allegations of political aspirations, as they are characterized there – and in a way that must be called downright unscrupulous – that to assert such political aspirations about her is simply ridiculous, in an objective sense it only seems strange, only really strange! So that one could only think of a pathological imagination when considering someone who makes such an assertion. Because nothing could be further from her mind than to deal with politics at all – just as nothing could be further from our minds in our endeavors than to connect any political endeavors with the theosophical-anthroposophical endeavors. When the word “policy” came up – it was in particular the late Misses Oakley who took this word “policy” into her pen in her writing [and] of course also into her mouth, and then Misses Besant – I emphasized: If only this word “policy” would never be heard within this movement, because anything that can remind one of what can be designated by this word, that is impossible within our movement. But truly, to be so deeply involved – without wanting to say anything bad about Dr. Steiner, or to say anything disparaging – to be so deeply involved in any political cause, in any political current with the interest to be so deeply involved in order to do anything politically, that was never the case with her! She has always been highly politically passive! So if it weren't so damaging to make such an insinuation, it would actually be just funny, or could only be attributed to a morbid imagination. But it is not only said that she has such political aspirations, but that she has had the intention of getting someone else directly into her hands to make them her political tool. - Something more ridiculous is impossible to imagine! - Well, it would only be ridiculous if the matter were not so sad.

Another letter talks about how we – yes, I don't know how many years – have had any political intentions, in particular by using a personality, and it is impossible for us to even locate the personality that is quite accurately characterized in this letter! One cannot even imagine who could be meant! There is no one who even remotely resembles such a personality. So it is another completely ridiculous, downright idiotic claim. This is then linked to the fact that Jesuitism is interfering, linked to the fact that “super-Jesuitism” is interfering, which is now supposed to assert itself as a new current.

It is not easy to see how we are connected to all this. But all this is being linked to the brochure I wrote, “Thoughts During the Time of War,” in a very serious way, but it is explicitly emphasized that the person in question has not read this brochure, has not received it, and is actually making all these claims because she has not been given it - I don't know why she has not been given it, she could just as easily have been given it. She is not making all these claims because of what is in it!

Yes, in addition, the very nice thing is that they want to turn to the secret police or to another secret political body in the country concerned to get hold of this brochure so that they can see what secret political machinations are actually taking place.

The other letter also mentions this brochure, well, it is mentioned in such a way that it has been read, but the way it is talked about is that – well, that is subjective, I don't particularly want to touch on that – because of the particular way it is talked about, every word is actually a gross and irresponsible insult. And since the letter was sent to someone close to me, who I knew would pass it on to me, the way in which the “Thoughts During the Time of War” are discussed, which, as anyone without prejudice can see, are meant to be completely apolitical, is a direct and irresponsible insult. Furthermore, the whole way of speaking shows that the person who wrote this letter only regards phrases as something real, because on the title page of this brochure it is stated to whom it is addressed, so that what is stated on the title page of me - who, I think I may say that, that I have never said a phrase in my life - that of me this may not be taken as a phrase! So anyone who, in such an insulting way, in a deliberately hurtful way – and if it is not pathological, it is deliberately hurtful – responds to this brochure in such a way, and responds in such a way that he cites a German sentence, translates it into his language, shows through the translation that he makes something completely different out of the sentence. The translation is something completely different from what is stated in this sentence - it is the opposite of it. When speaking of falsifications, one of the main sentences in this translation is one of the most unscrupulous falsifications, in that the opposite is translated into the translation.

And so in the rest of it too.

The whole thing is written, my dear friends, in such a way that there is life and a remarkable life in the spirit, which can only be characterized as I want to characterize it.

Furthermore, there is a connection between the content of one letter and the content of the other! They emerged from the same machinations, as is clear from the first letter. They emerged from the same machinations, so the two letters are intimately connected.

If we can be so suspected in the world, as is the case with this letter, if that can be said about us, can be spread, if that becomes opinion – so here I ask you to observe carefully that I said, “I do not attribute it to the letter writers as an intention” – they may have meant something quite different by it, but that is not the point. What matters is reality, what can arise from these things. If this is spread, if this is thought and said, and only the wrong thing, or what has been incorrectly heard, is said and thought, then it certainly has dire consequences under the current circumstances, that we, yes, we here are to be expected, at least Dr. Steiner and I, to be exiled from this building, that it will be made impossible for us to ever participate in what happens in this building. It leads to wrest this building out of our hands. It will be for that. - If others want to wrest from us what has been achieved here from the depths of the soul, from pain and suffering, if they want to wrest it from us, then they will be able to wrest it from us in this way, then they will be able to make it so that we can no longer set foot on the ground on which this building stands. Despite all the “admiration”, that will be the effect.

This is what I would like to entrust to you, so that you can see how what truth wants to represent has been hanging in the clouds. May the people who do such things think whatever they want, but you see what enmities arise where nothing else should happen but to advocate the truth, and how people try to cloak the enmities - because of course the two letters were written “out of the purest enthusiasm” for the just cause. Of course, so may be the plan!

I would not have bothered you with what is in such letters – which, as I said, are only available to a very limited public. But these things go further. These things draw their circles. And the beginning is made to that, whose end will be that

it will truly not be through our own free will, not through anything we do, that we will be made unable to come here. Because if these things are said, as they are presented there, if these things are written across the border, if these things are discussed as they are already being discussed through the very similar insinuations of Misses Besant, whose job it is not to tell the truth, if these things continue in the appropriate manner, then the consequence of this is that we will be exiled from this building. Not that this is the intention – I repeat – but that is the natural consequence that must arise from such things. I, my dear friends, will do my duty to the building as long as it is possible. I will certainly never let myself be separated from the building by my will, but the forces are at work that could bring this about.

Appealing to you, my dear friends, as I had to do again yesterday, always goes hand in hand with a deep sorrow in my soul. But such appeals must be made for the reasons that have been sufficiently stated, especially with regard to some recent events. And if I did not appeal to you, some things would not be given the necessary serious thought. In our circles, too, some things must be considered with the necessary seriousness.

One could have expected that some things, which are being discussed and thought about in the world today as a result of those events that we all know, would be considered here in a different way. This has not happened in the way that could have been expected, as many will know. The anthroposophical impulses have not yet brought about a state of immunity to the temptations of today's unrealistic thinking, especially in wider and wider circles. Perhaps it is good to raise this more and more to a certain clarity.

Then a good deal could be made good. However, we shall have to free ourselves from much that is surging into this movement and greatly disturbing the pure truthfulness in it. We have indeed had to experience many phenomena that can really only be experienced within such a movement. I would like to see the time come when conditions might arise under which the basic anthroposophical impulses will be strong enough to counteract many things that they are not yet strong enough to counteract.

Of course, my dear friends, what I said at the end yesterday had its profound justification, because many things develop in a way that is not intended at the beginning. But what matters is not what is initially intended, but what may also occur as a consequence of the unintended. Sometimes one does not intend this or that and then claims that one did not intend it. But it can occur. And the things I predicted yesterday are by no means outside the realm of possibility, not even outside the realm of probability.

And it is better to face things with seeing eyes than to face things blindly. If it is possible that certain things can be turned into their opposite in order to cultivate personal defamation instead of factual discussion, then much is possible. Because when such things come into play, people are seized by very strange powers. You see, if you go through everything that we have had to experience in the fourteen years, in the now twice seven years of our endeavors, you will always find one thing: If it became necessary for us to engage in this or that that looked like a fight, then it was always — just look! it has always been so that it was first in the factual-real area. On the other hand, it was always drawn into the personal. Look everywhere: from the first struggles we had to lead to the last symptoms that occur, see how the endeavor exists to lead factual things over to the personal. And see the characteristic, the typical in the particularly objectively refined case that has now been discussed; see how objectively, where no consideration is given to any personal aspect, it is treated in such a way that the personal aspect resonates from the other side! I beg you, just try to examine this! But really examine it! That is how it was in the two times seven years in which we worked.

Of course! This or that person may have an opinion about something that I have written about. One would only see what could be objected to the well-founded things if one remained in the realm of objectivity and impersonality. But one refrains from sticking to that. One transfers the things into the personal area and fights with objective untruths. This must also be pointed out now that we are at the end of the two seven-year periods.

Next time, on Saturday, we will probably meet here again at 7 p.m.

My dear friends,

We first commemorate those who are in the fields of the difficult confusions of the present and turn to their protecting spirits:

Spirits of your souls, watchers in action!
Your wings may bring
Our souls' imploring love
To earthlings trusting in your protection!
That united with your might
Our plea may helpfully shine
On the souls it lovingly seeks.

And while we turn to the protecting spirits of those who, as a result of these events, have already passed through the gate of death:

Spirits of your souls, watchers in action!
Your wings may bring
Our souls' imploring love
To the people of the spheres who trust in your protection!
That united with your power
Our plea may help to radiate
The souls she lovingly seeks.

And the spirit we seek through our spiritual science, the spirit that wanted to go to the salvation of the earth, to the freedom and progress of humanity through the Mystery of Golgotha, be with you and your difficult duties!

My dear friends!

In our present time - and I mean present in the broadest sense, so that it encompasses the centuries in which we live, the centuries of our fifth cultural period, which began in 1413 and we now stand in this our present – we find few such people who live life to the full like the now less well-known but once quite sensational philosopher Schelling, who died in 1856. Let us take a brief look at the nature of this philosopher Schelling. It is something that people of the present day find extremely difficult to understand. As early as the 1790s, the philosopher Schelling appeared in Jena, exerting a powerful influence at the university through the power of his speech, captivating everyone with the spirituality of his entire being. What he presented at the time was a kind of worldview, one might say, which attempted to grasp and depict reality from two points of view. He presented a natural philosophy and a spiritual philosophy. He wanted to grasp reality from these two sides – from the side of natural existence and from the side of spiritual existence.

It was in fact one of the high points of German intellectual life. For at that time one could, as it were, learn - you can read about it in my book 'Vom Menschenrätsel' - one could learn from a personality such as Schelling's, from the way the spirit speaks through the human being. Then came the time when Schelling had, as it were, taken a further step, when he presented what he had presented earlier in a different form. It was the time when he wanted to present more, not the world from one side, the side of its natural existence and from the other side, that of its spiritual existence, but rather that which underlies nature and spirit in common. And again he spoke, as it were, captivatingly, fervently, magnificently, but as if from a different key, presenting the same thing. Then came the time when he lectured less and devoted himself more to writing, when he immersed himself in Jakob Böhme's profound worldview. He then presented what he had previously presented as natural and spiritual philosophy from a different point of view, in very different words, in a very different way. And only by delving into this in such a way, by absorbing what he, one might say, was able to grasp more in abstract thoughts in his work with Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and by deepening this through the great, powerful insights of Jakob Böhme, was he able to present something like something like “The Mysteries of the Deities of Samothrace”, where he really brought to life again from certain spiritual depths what these strange mysteries of the first period of the fourth post-Atlantic period, the last period of the third post-Atlantic period, held in their bosom.

Then came Schelling's theosophical period, as it is called, the time in which he tried to penetrate to the deepest sources of being, in which he tried to depict human development from a unified world source.

So his theosophical period. And finally came the time – it was the time when he was called to Berlin by Frederick William IV – of his so-called positive philosophy, which has been preserved in his two-volume significant work “Philosophy of Mythology” and in his other two-volume work “On the Philosophy of Revelation”. There he attempts to present what has flowed into human development in the ancient mysteries and through the mystery of Golgotha. He was not well understood. He spoke, after all, about things for which our time has little time, and one can say, if one wants to compare someone with Schelling, not in terms of the intensity, comprehensiveness and artistry of his work, but in terms of his individual humanistic approach, then in modern times it could only be Goethe. What is the significance of a personality like Schelling? Schelling, who in his old age, with his eyes enlivened by the spirit, made an enormous impression on those who still got to know him – what was it that was most remarkable about Schelling?

Yes, my dear friends, what was remarkable about Schelling was the peculiarity that he, more than other people, was able to work independently, even though he was not fully aware of this activity, to work in his etheric body, not just, as is usually the case with modern people, in his physical body. The possibility of thinking and feeling in a healthy, relaxed etheric body was something that Schelling had.

And there was something else connected with this. It was connected with something that modern philistinism can understand so little: Schelling remained capable of development to a certain degree well into his old age; he remained capable of development well into his fifties. The modern person does not remain capable of development. The modern person concludes his ability to develop - we will have more to say about this later - at a relatively young age. And he is indeed proud of having concluded his capacity for development at a young age. Even today, one rarely encounters people who, let us say, at the end of their twenties or the beginning of their thirties, have the right sense to listen to fairy tales; indeed, even have the right sense to take in Goethe's Iphigenia or Schiller's William Tell with soulful vividness. That is what children absorb when they are young; adults do not concern themselves with it.

My dear friends, compare the extent of the difference in today's people between development in young years and later development. In young years, people are still completely connected with physical-bodily development in their spiritual-soul development. As we know, the child develops physically and bodily, but it is connected with this physical and bodily development, with the consolidation of the nervous system, with the strengthening of the muscular system and so on, with the inner configuration of all organs, that the child's spiritual and psychological development goes hand in hand with physical and bodily development. And how dependent people are on their physical body in their 14th to 17th year! This changes later. Then the spiritual-soul development goes its own way, and for most people today it does not go any way at all. They retain the same way of judging, the same way of relating to the world, and so on. If someone like Schelling appears in the present day, then, yes, then one finds that he has undergone transformations in his life, as they say; that in his forties he spoke from a different key than in his twenties. Of course, he spoke from the same source of truth, but in a different key.

And when Schelling presented his “Positive Philosophy” in Berlin in the 1840s, people could not understand how the man who had presented natural philosophy in his youth could now speak of positive Christianity in such a way. In modern times, Schelling was one of those exceptions who remained capable of development as a personality throughout their life, who were truly able to transform the stiffness and stuffiness of the original philistine that is found in people today, and remain agile in spirit.

Now there is something else about Schelling: the fact that modern man, if he does not undergo an inner spiritual development in the sense of our modern spiritual science, then he has an extraordinarily difficult time, if he does not remain as capable of transformation as Schelling, to also come to inner, positive, spiritual experiences. That is why it came about that what Schelling then called “positive philosophy”, as “philosophy of mythology”, in which he treated the mysteries, as philosophy of revelation, in which he treated the mystery of Golgotha - that is why he really spoke in quite abstract terms in this part of his later age. In terms that not only repelled people who said to themselves: Now what does he want, he used to speak of natural philosophy, now he suddenly speaks of the mystery of Golgotha? Not only did he repel people who could not understand such a thing, but also those who wanted something, one could say, more real.

When he spoke of potency a 1, potency a 2, of being before creating and after creating, and so on, these were abstractions that were alive for him, but he did not understand how to make them come alive. Where did it come from? Yes, you see, in a personality like Schelling's, you find something, let's say, like an atavistic retardation. Schelling was actually a transferred Indian rishi. Schelling was capable of development to the highest age, but so were all the people of the primeval Indian time. They remained as today only children are capable of development. They remained so dependent in their spiritual and soul life on the physical and bodily to the highest age - as children today are in their youth. But these people of the primeval Indian times, just the first time after the great Atlantic catastrophe, they did not feel as Schelling did, who was, so to speak, an atavistic latecomer. They remained capable of development well into their fifties; then they felt the spiritual radiating and flaming up within them in a special way.

When our children today show the dependence of the soul-spiritual on the physical-bodily, it is in the time when the physical-bodily is growing, becoming more perfect, is in ascending development. The consequence of this is that during this time children primarily feel how their etheric body promotes growth, blossoming and flourishing; how their etheric body works in the physical body. Between the ages of seven and fourteen, a person could already receive tremendous revelations, but they cannot do so today because the etheric body is busy with something else, because the etheric body is busy helping the physical body to grow and flourish. And if a person were to have significant experiences in the etheric body – in their forties or even fifties – then they are no longer capable of development today, the etheric body is no longer suitable for doing more than just store our memories of youth better than those of later experiences. We then say: memory decreases; but the memories of our youth then come to the fore. But there is another way in which we notice this downward development, which begins at the age of 25 and becomes particularly pronounced in these later years. We mineralize ourselves, one could say radically, we sclerotize ourselves. And with the hardening, the compaction of the physical body was connected in these ancient times, in the first period after the Atlantic catastrophe, in the primeval Indian times, that the human being did not now notice his etheric body being used for the physical body. The physical body collapsed, but the etheric body was particularly receptive to really receiving the spiritual world within itself. And the consequence of this was that in this first epoch after the Atlantic catastrophe, people remained capable of development until the age of fifty, until the age of fifty-six; then later until the age of fifty-five, fifty-four, fifty-three, fifty-two, fifty-one, fifty, forty-nine ; that these people could wait, so to speak, their whole lives for this great event, which then occurred according to the experiences of others; that the body collapsed, and the soul, so to speak, already here, still bound to the physical body, felt at home in the same spirituality into which it passed when it went through the gate of death. In this first, primeval Indian age, the transition into the spiritual world when passing through the gate of death was therefore not as significant as for a modern human being, because the human being was already inside, so to speak. He had become independent of the physical body at an advanced age. Today we are also becoming independent, but we do not notice it because we do not remain capable of development until this time.

You see, this is a peculiar and significant phenomenon, which, for certain reasons that we will discuss later, is particularly important for the present to be considered. The development in the old days, in the first days after the Atlantic catastrophe, was such that people remained capable of development without being stimulated from within, without them doing anything special; so immediately after the Atlantic catastrophe was over, they remained capable of development until the age of 56, then less and less, and finally until the age of 49. This, my dear friends, gives us the approximate age of the human race as a whole. We could say that at that time, humanity was declining from the 56th to the 49th year. The individual human being begins with the year one, two, three, and is getting older and older. Humanity as a whole began its age after the Atlantic catastrophe at the age of 56 and is getting younger and younger. And when the first post-Atlantean period, the primeval Indian period, was over, human beings only remained viable until the 49th year, then until the 48th year, and so on. They could not gain experiences of the spirit in such an intensive way as in earlier times. Imagine what a completely different impact that had on social life at that time than our kind of human development has on our present social life. Every person in those days knew in their youth that the patriarchs are those who are suffused and aglow with wisdom. And people looked up to these patriarchs as the leaders of humanity. This gave the social life of that time its character. Today, every young badger in his twenties already feels finished, wants to be elected to parliament and pass judgment like the oldest person. That is the big difference between that time and today, when people listened to those who had matured not only in their ascending physical life but also in their descent. And while the ascending physical life is such that it actually hides the spirit, the descending physical life, where we, as it were, mineralize, is such that – while the body declines – if one remains capable of development – people today no longer do – it is precisely then that the spirit blossoms in the soul. In the second post-Atlantean cultural period, things had already changed. People only remained capable of development until the age of 48, then until the age of 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42. So the whole human race is declining in age, and the human being is entering. That was the time when there were still people who, so to speak, remained capable of development even as their physical bodies were declining, who had direct experiences from the spiritual world. But these experiences were no longer as strong as in the older times. This is because in this period people could no longer use the etheric body to the same extent as in the older times. That is the peculiarity of the ancient Indian cultural period, that people were able to use their etheric body in a quite extraordinary way, in a quite independent way, and therefore to experience in the etheric body that which a person then goes through when he has passed through the gate of death and discarded the etheric body. But with the etheric body, one can experience this to a certain extent if one remains capable of development in the way that was still the case in the primeval Indian period.

The time when people only experienced things in the sentient body, as was the case in the ancient Persian epoch, was already more divorced from the spirit. But even so, it was the case in this ancient Persian epoch that, especially in a state of sleep, in a state similar to a sleep interspersed with real dreams, people felt when they reached their forties: Yes, this soul that dwells in me, it belongs to the spiritual world, it lives in the spiritual world within me; when it has passed through the gate of death, it enters into this spiritual world. Those who died young at that time were not excluded from the feeling of happiness that consisted in being able to say: One grows old and then wise, spiritually mature; for those who died young knew at the time that there are repeated earthly lives – but they also knew that when someone dies young, they are used for something else in the spiritual world, that they have a good task there, that the gods need this soul, which has not fully lived out its earthly lifetime. On the whole, however, social life was particularly meaningful because of this atmosphere, so that one knew: if you live to be so old, you will reach your forties, then you will experience that you know, your soul belongs to the spiritual world. Only when you are fully awake during the day does your body prevent you from seeing it. That is why it was called the “dark world”, in which only the body sees physically; and the other was the “world of light”, in which one was in such exceptional states. This is the origin of the teaching that came to mankind, somewhat coarsened, as the Ormuzd and Ahriman teaching, as the teaching of light and darkness.

On the whole, however, it can be said that in these two oldest periods, in the first and second post-Atlantean periods, people still truly perceived the spirituality of nature around them. Air was not just air to them. Nor was the air just air for these people back then, as it is now when I pick up a living being, which is just matter. It is matter that has been lived through and ensouled. So at that time the air was not just air, the flame of fire not just a flame of fire and water not just water. Rather, people knew that spiritual life was in all these elements. Therefore, they were in a certain way dependent on the air that they took in with their breathing, dependent on the water that they absorbed and that lives in the human being from the environment, dependent on the warmth of the environment. What do people today know about these elements in which we live? They know in a pinch: Well, now the air is inside me, then it is outside.

The fact that the air is sometimes inside and sometimes outside still gives people today a thought about their dependence on the world of elements, but it is a feeling of a purely physical dependence. That spiritual things enter me through air and warmth is something that people today no longer know, and they know even less about the significance of this. That, for example, what is called the national soul lives in these elements was still something that people of the first and second cultural periods experienced as perception; something that was as certain to them as anything that we perceive physically and sensually today. What does a Frenchman know, for example, when he drinks wine from his country, when he drinks water, that his national soul is in these elements? As truly as the soul of our individual human being manifests itself through our flesh and blood, so truly does the national soul manifest itself in French wine and water, that is, in that which is connected with the national element, the national soul. This is the body of the national soul. Likewise, the Italian national soul lives in all that is air and permeates the air. The Russian national soul lives in all that flows into the earth as warmth, into the soil and then rises up from the soil. The Russian national soul lives in the warmth, but not in the warmth directly, but in the warmth absorbed by the earth and flowing back again. And so we can point this out about every single nation. Some just do not allow it because then they would call us names and say: we are being arrogant about them. But these are truths. The truths that are drawn from spiritual science are not always convenient, but they are the truths that one must know if one wants to stand in reality today.

What lives in the elements in this way was known in the first post-Atlantic periods; people felt it. But this went back further in time, when people in the third post-Atlantic cultural period, in the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch, could only use this sentient soul. There, people were only capable of development in the beginning up to the age of 42, then up to the age of 41, 40, 39 and so on, until the age of 35. Then they entered the period of non-developability. From then on, they only remained capable of development if they took in spiritual life through the mysteries. It came less and less from within. The spiritual life united with the human being less and less by itself. This was also connected with the fact that people no longer felt their belonging to what lived as elements on the particular stretches of the earth. That the same does not happen from above over Indian soil as over Persian soil or even Greek soil was as clear to people in the first period after the Atlantic catastrophe as we know today that the nose cannot be in place of the ear and the ear cannot be in place of the nose. What developed as Indian culture had to well up at this particular point on the Earth. What developed as Greek culture could only well up at a certain point on the Earth. This gave the whole Earth a physiognomy. But there was not the same discrepancy within as there is today in our experience. Just think what people today know about how they are spiritually connected to their piece of Earth! What do they know about it? They also do not think about why the nose is at the place where it is, and why the ear is at its place. And so we can experience that today people have no idea about the most important things.

Many people of the white race emigrated to America. That they become quite different people in America than in old Europe, that is not realized today. And again, they do not realize that they are different people in eastern America than in western America. In eastern America, the gaze will be quite different, the human hands will be much larger than in Europe! The skin color will be different. That turns out. The people resemble the old population of America in some ways. This is not the case in California, but it is the case in the east.

Reality is there, but people do not live in that reality. They live in abstract concepts. That was precisely the difference between the ages when people remained capable of development well into old age, that they felt dependent on what they belonged to; that they also felt it spiritually.

You see, humanity is getting younger and younger. The older person grows into a certain age, and humanity is getting younger.

Now we come to the fourth cultural period, the Greco-Latin epoch. Yes, humanity remains capable of development only up to the age of 35, at the beginning. The Greco-Latin cultural period begins in the year 747 before the Mystery of Golgotha and ends in the year 1413 after the Mystery of Golgotha. In the early days, humanity was capable of development until the 35th year, then until the 34th year, into the 33rd, 32nd, 31st year. When the year 1413 approached, they were only capable of development up to the age of 29. Beyond that, people could only remain capable of development by kindling spiritual life in their souls. Nothing comes to people by itself anymore; that is the important thing.

But still, in this fourth cultural period, people were still capable of development until the time when, at the age of 35, man reaches the height of his life. During the ascent, they were capable of development. 35 is the middle of life, then the descent begins. That is why the Greeks still felt to the utmost: in everything that lives physically, the soul lives. The Greeks, for example, could not imagine that one walks without the soul moving the legs; that one moves the hands, the arms, without the soul doing so.

Only: They could only experience the soul as being connected to the body - no longer as in ancient times, when it went downhill from the age of 35 onwards, that the soul was experienced as being active in the spiritual world. Therefore, something peculiar occurred to those who were not initiated into the mysteries. For them, it was different, of course; those who were initiated into the mysteries learned there how the soul lives in the spiritual world after passing through the gate of death. But those who were not initiated into the mysteries could become very wise in Greece, as Aristotle was very wise. But from what could be achieved by mere human knowledge, people without mystery wisdom could not achieve anything other than a knowledge of how the soul animates the body. But they could not learn that the soul lives without the body after death. That is why Aristotle's idea of immortality is that if I cut off one arm, he is no longer a complete human being; if I cut off two arms, even less so; if I take his whole body, then he is no longer a complete human being at all. Aristotle, therefore, clings to his wisdom even after death, but the person who has passed through the gate of death is an incomplete human being. For the Greeks, a complete human being was one who consisted of both body and soul. The independent life of the soul in the realm of spirits could only be achieved through the mysteries.

Aristotle, who was only a supreme sage, but who certainly stood at the highest level of historical wisdom, regarded the dead person as an incomplete person because he lacks the body that belongs to the complete person.

You see, it was under such conditions that the time came when great changes had occurred in the linear development of ancient humanity, which alone made possible that peculiar human condition that we then find in the Greco-Latin age of Romanism. This Romanism is quite different from Greek culture. Greeks really experienced in the most eminent sense what had become of humanity, they experienced in the most eminent sense the 35th, 34th, 33rd year of life. The Greeks experienced it as I have described it. The Romans did not want to experience it that way. The Romans were either striving to gain power. They extended their power over the whole earth known to them at that time. Or they endeavored to use this power to gain easy access to the soul, if possible. That is why, when Romanism was dominated by Caesarianism, the mysteries were misused in this way, and the Roman Caesars forced themselves to be initiated. The first Caesar was already an initiate. As a powerful man, he was of course able to force the initiation. What had been kept secret in earlier times was forced by the Roman Caesars. “Caligula” - the word would mean something like “little soldier's boots”, “little conscript boots” in our language - he was initiated into the mysteries. And it is no fable when we are told that Caligula was able to commune with the spirits of the moon's existence during the night. He was able to do so because he had been initiated into the mysteries.

And Nero was an initiate. And what did people like Caligula, who knew Nero from the initiation? What did they know? They knew that the development of humanity had now reached a stage where physical experience no longer yields the spirit. The Roman Caesars and their friends, the initiates, knew the secrets of existence so well that physical existence on earth no longer yields the secrets of the spirit. Nero, who added the necessary madness to the initiation, therefore made the decision: Since the world no longer provides the spiritual anyway, the whole world should perish. Thus the fire of Rome was ignited, from which the whole known world should perish. He wanted to ignite the world fire! He was convinced that people had become so depraved, because people only remain capable of development until they are about 30 years old, that they were no longer worthy of continuing to exist. He wanted to convert the entire life of the soul into the spiritual, but he wanted to do it his way: through the destruction of the earthly.

Now, something else is happening. We have seen that humanity is regressing in terms of spiritual experience. In the first post-Atlantic cultural epoch, this experience lasted until the 56th year. Then it lasted until the 55th year, the 54th, 53rd, and so on. Humanity as a whole became younger and younger. And when the human race in the fourth post-Atlantic cultural epoch had only reached 35, then 34, then 33 years of age, when the ability to develop had declined to the age of 33, it happened in history that in the body of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ lived until the 33rd year of the humanity living backwards from above after the 33rd year. So that the 33rd year of Christ Jesus, when he died, coincides with the declining age of humanity. Think about what that means! Christ Jesus grew towards humanity, which was getting younger and younger, humanity, which first reached the age of 56 in the primeval Indian epoch, then reached the age of 55 and so on backwards. When it had descended to the age of 33, the Christ developed in the body of Jesus of Nazareth in order to live here on Earth for 33 years and then to bring humanity that which we have called the assimilation of the Christ impulse into earthly existence, to bring that which humanity could no longer attain. For Aristotle, the deceased human being was already an imperfect human being. Through the Mystery of Golgotha, it was possible to grasp immortality again, to absorb impulses again in order to recognize the connection between man and the spiritual world. When the development of humanity had regressed to the age of 33, humanity would have perished without the Mystery of Golgotha, without the ignorance of the spiritual world, had Christ Jesus, who had become 33 years old, not come to meet humanity, having become 33 years old himself, and poured out his love upon humanity.

This is a profoundly significant truth that spiritual science reveals to us about the connection between the Mystery of Golgotha and the entire development of life of humanity on Earth. And it really is one of the most harrowing truths that can come to us from spiritual science when we feel such a colossal connection between the development of humanity up to the 33rd year, the growing towards of Christ Jesus to this humanity, and their meeting. It is one of the greatest insights that can be gained by people in their earthly existence. From it they can see how short-sighted and obtuse are the people who claim today that spiritual science detracts from Christianity; whereas it supports it in the most decisive way by deepening it, by knowing how to make such great and powerful things out of the historical truths and will do more and more. The anti-Christian people are truly not the intellectuals, but those who want to be within the positive denominations, and who thereby exclude the real insights that humanity needs today from Christianity. That is the terrible thing, that today we see people at work who join one or the other denomination as pious people, and who actually fight Christianity with the words of Christ Himself, by not letting arise what is in the Christ-word:

I am with you until the end of the world.

But not for the reason that people can lie on the lazy bed and say: We no longer want to strive, the Christ will make us happy. Rather, Christ Jesus is on earth so that we can accept him into our souls and develop our knowledge more and more, develop it more and more.

But you can see that we are now living in a crisis in the fifth post-Atlantic period, which you will recognize from what I have discussed. Because the human race is declining, it declined until 1413 to the age of 29, then to 28. And now we live in the age where people only remain capable of development until the age of 27. Then, if a person wants to remain capable of development, he must absorb an independent soul impulse through the study of spiritual science or something similar. Otherwise, a person who only wants to absorb what human development itself provides will always remain 27 years old, even if he lives to be a hundred.

This, my dear friends, is something that makes so much understandable to us in the present time, when we are surrounded by so many riddles. We cannot solve these riddles, at least not to the extent that we need to solve them, with the concepts and ideas that humanity has today, which know nothing of spiritual science. Only by looking at the bigger picture of existence, only by learning to recognize that humanity has regressed to the age of 27, can the riddles that surround us today be resolved. And today it is really the case that we see people who want to rule life with their ideas, but who do not grasp life because they do not want to take up an independent spiritual development, but stop at the age of 27. There the ideals have not yet been permeated by reality. There the ideals have not yet been permeated by reality. Oh, it is so difficult for people today, so very difficult, to grasp the difference between ideas that are related to reality and mere euphonious ideals, which, if I may put it trivially, make one lick one's chops with spiritual and mental voluptuousness. But they are not capable of intervening in reality.

In the realm of world observation, people do not want to profess ideas that are akin to reality. They look at a clock, which is a real thing, it is an object that is there. Fine. That is what it is. They also look at a flower that they put in front of them, just as much as a real object as the clock. But that is not what it is. The clock is something complete, it can exist in itself as it is. I have to cut the flower, there has to be a root. If there is no root, it is not real. If I imagine a flower without a root, then I have an unreal thought. Mankind will have to learn this again, that a thought must not only be logical, but that it must also be real. Today, mankind has forgotten this because it does not develop beyond the age of 27; because people stop at words that merely sound beautiful. What use is it, my dear friends, when someone declaims: We are entering, through the great trials of this war, into an age in which people will think and feel differently, in which every person must be placed in their rightful place, and in which each person's abilities must be recognized in that place. You can't object to fine words. A right word – but must it [then] also be a word of reality? If the person concerned is then convinced that his nephew is just the most capable person for a place, then the whole tirade, the whole phrase of “the most capable in the right place” is of no use.

If only people could grasp the difference between ideals that are close to reality and those that are abstract ideals! It is not so bad, relatively speaking, when we mistake a flower for something real. But it is bad when we want to introduce and incorporate unrealistic concepts into social life, into state life. This is how it has come about that we have the most unrealistic concepts in science. Because what is being peddled today as economics, and especially what is being peddled as political science, is not just not a science, but it is a completely unrealistic talk; because people do not even know how to form real concepts about state connections.

Let us put this to the test: there is a person who is actually an excellent person, who is even sympathetic to my aspirations, the Swede Kjellén, who has now published the book “The State as a Way of Life”. Study this book from beginning to end. One can say: If someone today were to want to build something in the natural sciences with similar dilettantish, abstract concepts, as Kjellén did with the state as a form of life, they would simply be laughed out of the room. If someone were to talk about a botanical question the way Kjellén talks about the state as a form of life today, it would be so ridiculous that even someone with only a primary school education would laugh. The concepts are so unrealistic. But that is not apparent today. It is stated in the book: the individual human being relates to the state as the cell relates to the human organism. The individual human being is therefore the cell. Yes, my dear friends, that is the most ridiculous thing you can imagine in the face of reality.

If anything can be compared, then it can only be the whole development of the earth, and only individual deeds can be compared with the earth. The comparison would be valid. But to regard the individual human being as a cell in relation to the state as an organism – that is mere talk.

You see, this is what is so little understood today, this growing together with reality, which must come through inner spiritual development. That is why we live today in a time that is so infinitely full of trials for man. Man must go through this crisis, this estrangement from reality, but one must learn to understand it.

Rather than mention a nearby example, which would be difficult for the audience to understand, let us take a more distant example. I can choose this example because I characterized this personality long before the war, so that one need not believe that the jingoism generated by the war is evoking this characteristic. I was looking for a typical person who is no older than 27. Yes, but because this person is in the most important position, one could even say in the very first position today, a great deal depends on whether the ideas of a twenty-seven-year-old are poured out over the world or those of a person who has undergone spiritual development. Today, one has to grow into it through spiritual development.

A typical personality, who, even if he lived to be 100, would still be no older than 27, is Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States of America. He is truly a typical personality. And, one might say, the cross of the present, the immediate present, hangs on it. Hence those intoxicating ideas that this man sends around the world in his rallies, all of which are so alien to reality – so alien that he sends a proclamation of peace around the world and then, in a few weeks, has a war in his own country. So little does what this man is able to say engage with reality. His ideas are fine: freedom for all peoples, and so on. The ideas are fine as such. In Germany there are outstanding writers who call these ideas profound. But it is not a matter of liking ideas. What matters is not that one should feel, as it were, a sensual pleasure in ideas, but that ideas are capable of sustaining reality, of immersing themselves in reality. But when people who do not live past the age of twenty-seven come across ideas that are full of reality, they consider them to be unrealistic.

So, my dear friends, it is with the human being of the present time that he, as it were, removes himself from reality. Since spirit is also present in reality, one simply, one might say automatically, removes oneself from reality when one removes oneself from the spirit. But one cannot place oneself in reality if one remains capable of development only up to the age of 27.

Now, this is also connected with what we feel to be such a depressing mystery in our time. People are moving away from reality. As a result, they are also losing their sense of proportion to a high degree, the sense of simply grasping the facts correctly. Because this sense of fact is diminishing to an enormous degree. And these things are connected with what we feel to be such terrible, earth-shattering events. But it was difficult, before these times, to even talk about these things. Read what has been said about the social development of humanity in the cycle that was given in Vienna about life between death and a new birth, where there is even talk of cancer in a social context. These things have not been taken with full seriousness and full importance. Do you remember an answer that was given often? Even during public lectures, people kept asking: How does the increase in the Earth's population correspond to repeated Earthly lives? I gave the various reasons that suggest that things are quite compatible. However, I never forgot – you will remember – to add: But the time may come very soon when people will be horrified to realize that humanity can also decrease. Of course, one could not speak directly of the serious misfortune that awaited humanity. But that is connected, my dear friends, with this distance from reality. And when we face this difficult time today, we must realize that it is above all important to live through it in real wakefulness, in genuine wakefulness.

You will recall that in earlier times, up until 1914, I mentioned a variety of people, including Herman Grimm, who died at the beginning of the 20th century. Certainly, if we now follow the soul of such a person in the spiritual world, it relates itself in a certain way to the momentous events of the present. But one can also have the thought of asking oneself how a spirit like Herman Grimm, who expressed great and meaningful things, who spoke in a very penetrating way from the point of view of the nineteenth century, can think about world events. You see, Herman Grimm, for example, coined the beautiful word in the last days of his life: 'mankind's reckoning is at hand'. But how did he imagine this reckoning? He indicates it in his collected essays, called “Fragments”, in the volume that he himself published. A reckoning of the time is at hand, he says, great figures that today history cites as great figures will disappear into the nullity; others that today humanity pays little attention to will be highlighted. And when the year 2000 has come, people will talk about a completely different story.

And Herman Grimm expressed many other profound things in a similar way. So that one can ask: He did not have spiritual science, he also rejected it, but one could always imagine: He stands beside me as a spirit of the nineteenth century. But since 1914, I can no longer think that he is standing beside me when I mention him. Since the summer of 1914, he appears as if he had lived centuries before and had become a stranger to what he loved on earth in his last life on earth; he stands there like a mythical figure. For we have really lived through more in these three years than we otherwise would have in decades, if we have lived through what has been compressed into these years. And what has gone before seems, one might say, to have become as alien as what one has taken on from the history of past centuries; even those personalities with whom one has lived, with whom one has exchanged words and thoughts. And one would like to see an awakening of humanity. But this awakening can only come about through spiritual science penetrating much deeper into the human soul. As you can see, spiritual science does not come as something arbitrary. Because humanity has declined in age, because it only ages 27 years by itself, that which makes people capable of development must come from within. The soul must be made capable of development independently of the body. But this can only be done in a spiritual way. Those who do not want to know anything about the spiritual will always remain 27 years old, even if they live to be a hundred. Therefore, today one would really like to be able to enliven what one has to say, what is necessary to awaken humanity; one would like to be able to enliven it in a different way than through words; for words themselves have already taken on something of abstractness. What words were in earlier times! When people said “doubt,” they felt that the “dou” and “two” were in it; that, so to speak, the idea was split into two; they still felt the connection between “two,” “dou,” “conflict,” “although.” All of that has become abstract; people have turned away from reality itself in language. Or who today feels a reality pulsating through language in a deeper sense? We say “human being” today. Then we open the dictionary and find the Latin “homo”, also human, and we believe it is the same. We find the Greek dictionary and find the word “anthropos”, human; we believe it is the same. We have become “lexical”, that is, unreal in such matters. But “human being” is related to “Manas”, to the Sanskrit word “Manas”. But that means: the “spiritual self” in man. And the one who uses the word “human” as a word for that which walks and acts on two legs, which has hands and thinks and so on, who uses this word “human”, which is the adaptation of the oriental word “Manas”, he looks at the spiritual in man and describes man above all as spirit. The one who, like the Greeks, says “anthropos”, refers to the “speaking of the soul from the eyes”. The “shining eyes” are called “anthropos”, the soul that speaks from the eyes, from the face. We can already see that this is something different from when we use the word “homo” or the French word “homme”. In this case, French points to its origin.

So you see how people from different nations describe the human being itself, this gives the language special nuances of reality. Who has a feeling for this today? Isn't this feeling lost when we open the dictionary and read one for the other? We no longer even have a feeling for it. When we say, for example, “pretty good,” we mean “almost” or “nearly” good today. While the word “pretty” is related to “befitting,” “befitting,” “befitting.” So that you can actually only use the word if you want to imply: It is completely good, pleasantly good, befittingly good; so good, as befits.

But we feel how the unreal sense of the present extends even into the words. One would like to have something other than words today, because the words themselves have already become unreal, if one wants to speak through what, as spiritual science, wants to come into humanity again, so that the human soul may become related to reality again.

It is therefore not surprising that unfortunately what we have just spoken about is also evident in our field. A friend who had heard from me about this 27th anniversary of humanity, a friend who is involved in the political struggle of our time, said to me: Yes, that is a ray of light that finally illuminates much for me that is now passing away around us. One would like people to try to understand with this ray of hope what is so enigmatic in reality. Then one cannot be surprised that even within our small section of reality, what we are seeing now is happening.

I know very well, my dear friends, that in this society there are always people who do not want to see this because they see it as something ordinary that is spoken of in such terms; they would like to withdraw gracefully because, as they say, they want to promote peace. But this has finally led to the emergence of an attitude in our society that the person who is attacked is actually a bad guy, and that we should feel as much compassion as possible for those who attack.

But this can only lead to disaster; as has become quite clear to date. Therefore, because we have to talk about the necessary measures to be taken, I have to mention a few things here that are truly not “personal”. Because by trying to push things into the personal sphere, they are trying to eliminate spiritual science, which is already becoming uncomfortable; they know that this would not be possible with a decent polemic. They try something else, and I must say: our members must keep their eyes open for this, and they must know how this society actually had to be founded so that things are possible that are actually only possible here, that would not be possible outside. They will come, but today they are not yet possible to the extent.

Let us assume that I have discussed the case often, but it should have been discussed much more often; it should not have been kept secret in such a distinguished way. There we have it, a man being pushed into the Society by members. He comes to the lectures, takes part in everything, gets hold of everything that can be read, and copies down everything he can get hold of from other members in private transcriptions and so on.

You may ask: Why is such a person accepted? Yes, you see, that's a dilemma. You can't say to him, because of something a person will do in the future, “You're a bastard – excuse me – and that's why I'm not accepting you!” Even though you know full well that the man shouldn't be accepted – he has to be accepted. Well, this man, after he had obtained everything he could, went to America. Before he left, he solemnly swore that he would behave decently. He would publish a book, he was still discussing the title because it was so difficult to translate; I myself had given him the instruction to say “world conception”. It's not really a word that the English appreciate, but [gap in transcript]...

Well, he went over there. He wrote down everything he had heard here in his book, but he also wrote down everything he had received from private transcripts and notes that had not yet been published. But he did it like this: he wrote a preface to the first edition in which he says that he had heard a lot from Steiner, but that it did not give him the final conclusion. This conclusion was brought to him when he was called to a master in the Transylvanian Alps; he gave him the final touch, the last truth.

And now look: what he had received as the final polish, as the final truth in the Alps from a master: these are the things that he had copied here from the unpublished lectures. Now you can say: that's American! Fine. One says to oneself: something like that can happen when one knows American ways. But that's not all. Here in Germany, a bookstore was found,

a book publisher who had the book translated, and a translator who translated the whole book. So we have the outrage of things migrating to America and being brought back again, of the publishing house of Hugo Vollrath having the book printed in German, and saying: Yes, the things would have had to be brought from the impure air into a purer air, which the other had copied from the one who had lied about the Transylvanian master.

You see, for something like this to be possible in literary life, this society had to be founded, because if something like that were done outside, one would immediately have the right judgment about such an outrage, about such disgrace, which is also done to the publishing industry. I have mentioned this more than once, nothing has happened except that these “lesson letters” — as such he publishes the book — are sold everywhere. That was a great outrage. But these things happen. We have no way of intervening unless discernment sets in, unless the members stop regarding everyone who is a little twisted as a “high initiate”; unless they stop regarding everyone who rants about everything as a victim, but rather start making their own judgment.

For we are indeed experiencing in the worst possible way how people are distancing themselves from reality. Along comes a magazine called “The Invisible Temple”! Yes, that's very nice, you have to find something deeply mystical: “The Invisible Temple”! It is a magazine published by an association that is tremendously “significant”.

In one of the issues of this magazine, it says: the philosophers – and I am also called a philosopher – claimed that only they themselves had wisdom; all others had only a sham and false wisdom. “So to read with Haeckel and with Dr. Steiner.

Now I ask you: Where does it say that what I said can only be found in me, that all others have only a sham and an after-wisdom? Or where is there even something similar? Yes, do you dare to call such things by their right name today, no matter whether the tirade maker Horneffer calls his magazine “Invisible Temple” or something else? One should not be misled by the mystical verbiage on the title page, but call a lie a lie – because it is a lie. One should really strive towards the truth, because it is important that we seek the truth, that we develop a sense of fact, not mystical fantasies, but a sense of truth. For with a sense of truth, we must also enter the spiritual world; otherwise we will not find it.

You see, a man from a town in central Germany once wrote to Dr. Steiner saying that he had now reached a turning point in his spiritual life and did not know what to do. Should he [marry into a business] or should he devote himself to Theosophy? How understandable, Doctor Steiner told him, that it was not her job to help him marry into a family and so on. After some time, he appeared in the then Theosophical Society. Those who were present at the general assembly could hear how he, without a trace of recitation talent or skill, poured Schiller's “Cassandra” over the unfortunate audience. Then he decided not to become a painter, but to be a painter. We really did everything possible to give him the opportunity to learn in Munich. But he didn't want to learn anything, he wanted to be a painter, not become a painter. However, we couldn't declare him a painter overnight. We could have declared him, but not made him a painter. So he was so disappointed that he now wrote all kinds of foolish things, for example that he got bruises from exercises and so on. In short, a person who approaches us with such questions as to whether he should marry into [a business] and who behaves as this man did should be looked at with a critical eye, that's what matters.

And then we had a member, a man whom many knew as a loyal member who even wrote articles advocating anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. He wanted to publish a book through our publishing house one day: “Who Was Christ?” Until then, he was a follower who grumbled here and there, especially when he knew that it could not come directly to our ears – but some people do that. But you see, this writing is only a small-scale edition of what the Heindel writing is. Grasshoff called himself Heindel in America, here he was Grasshoff and copied. In America, he published what he had copied here as Heindel, as the master's emissary in the Transylvanian Alps. That is in Transylvania. People always pointed to such areas where there are castles that you don't usually go to because not even small trains go there, right, where the mountains form a triangle.

However, a man from Budapest once said to me: “Mrs. Besant has pointed us to a master who lives deep in Hungary in a certain castle.” We went there and found a castle, but nothing that reminded us of a master. We found that the castle belonged to the Hungarian treasury.

Everything Mrs. Besant said was wrong, but: “You have to believe her!”

Well, you see, in the book “Who was Christ?” that the person in question wanted to publish, there were things in it that simply could not be published by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House because they were partly borrowed from cycles; but in particular it was a certain audacity - at least it made such an impression on Dr. Steiner - that he said: Dr. Steiner has indeed made allusions, but these allusions must now be further explained. Well, that could not exactly suit the manager of the publishing house, that the person concerned brought the explanations that not only came from cycles and lectures that were not published. To a certain extent, it is a Heindel case again. But this member has now become an enemy! A real enemy.

As far as I am concerned, people should write about “contradictions”. [gap in the transcript] Well. “Mysticism”, for example, is not the same for everyone. If you talk about mysticism in two places, you have to characterize it in this way and in that way; everyone can find contradictions there. But you don't attract a dog with such “contradictions”. Therefore Seiling would not have made an impression - because that is his name, who was previously seen as a loyal supporter. It is very telling that the man simply becomes an enemy after his writing is rejected. No one would want to claim that there is no causal connection here. Talking about contradictions - factual articles - can never harm the humanities, even if such articles are incomprehensible and foolish.

Or the Dessoirs and others. I make a strict distinction between what is factually possible, even if it is disapproved of, and what is indecent and impossible.

You see, the good, dear Deinhard, who died last week, is one of those who has done the most for what I call anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, and he has come to us from the position of opposition. And he must be considered one of the most meritorious people in our field. When I started going to Munich to give lectures at the beginning of the century, the following announcement appeared: under the influence of Deinhards, the announcement “The traveling salesman for Theosophy from Berlin is here again”. I did not consider that to be something bad, but rather something quite possible. Someone can express his opinion in crude words that I am concerned with peddling Theosophy on my travels. There is nothing wrong with such a judgment.

Or when Meyrink wrote an article in “Simplizissmus” in which he describes “Doctor Schmuser” – or something like that – with which he means me and those who are friends with me, it is extremely amusing, but it does no harm. But Seiling is not about anything like that. He started off by writing an article about the silly arguments about the contradictions, embellishing them with what I supposedly said at the meeting. But he then told objective untruths. I never said that I felt offended by the part about contradictions, but I told him that the doctor would have been annoyed by it. It came down to the fact that vanity was at play [gap in the transcript] So he spun a very nice yarn.

Or he went further in a sophisticated way to the fact that he wrote an article “in defense”, in which he speaks of the most harmless thing there is – because there is nothing more harmless than our marriage; but other women have made a scandal. How does he use this scandal that others have made? By cleverly weaving his sentences so that he says: Our marriage led to an incredible scandal. But it wasn't meant to; because it was no one else's business. But others made a scandal. This is an addiction to vilification! An addiction to vilification taken to the point of vulgarity that one can hardly imagine being increased any more.

And when these things were discussed in Munich, it was said that the worst case, the case of Goesch, was yet to come. This Goesch, who has concocted handshakes and other absurdities, whose entire attacks consist of nothing but a smorgasbord of absurdities and spite. But there are editors who print such things. Things will get worse, because people today, when they are sexually aroused, consciously sexually aroused, see it in others. That is one of the secrets of our time. That is why it could happen that a member – she had been a member for a long time – who actually always had to be turned away, who was never given serious exercises, and with whom I have not spoken since 1911, except [a gap in the transcript] an information about her mother - that she wrote an article that above all also vilified Dr. Steiner, an article of such nonsense, such hatred and such foolishness that nothing like it had ever been written before. This personality is capable of writing: Dr. Steiner spoke of the Lazarus miracle, where the human being is transformed. He apparently wanted to perform this miracle with me. Therefore, when I was in a sanatorium, he sent chocolate to thicken my blood and so on and so on.

So this sending of chocolate is a particularly magical act. And think: such a personality finds paper and printing ink at his disposal and the editor even makes the comment

[These are follies that could send a sane person to the insane asylum! - Ed.]

So, if Frau Doktor had gone to a fruit shop, she would have probably taken oranges with her; instead, she went to a pastry shop and bought chocolate – because she was supposed to perform the Lazarus miracle on my behalf! Yes, it cannot be said. For example, there is a note that Dr. Steiner sent sculptures or the like to the person in question. I would have stepped in from behind and performed magical acts.

The whole thing refers to the fact that once group photos came from Norway. The personality in question brought something she wanted to give up. I had not yet seen the picture and looked at Frau Doktor over my shoulder. That was the whole thing. It is stamped as a magical operation.

But that comes from the fact that such chatter has arisen and been particularly cultivated in certain circles. Therefore, such a judgment must be suggested from time to time. And so I am compelled to speak of it because such things have occurred in society, because, for example, a person like Seiling has the audacity to say: There are mistakes in my cycles, but I have not checked them because I supposedly have no time; but I would have time if I did not spend so much time in private conversations with members! - Seiling was one of those who repeatedly sought private conversations, though when he still felt like a friend and supporter. So he knows better than to say such a thing. He knows the facts. That is the / gap in the transcript].

Now, the one who has to speak particularly esoterically today before a number of people, he knows because he has to express things that are connected with the [gap in the transcript]

Today, speaking things that are meant to move people again, is something that humanity cannot bear. Therefore, the one who has to speak about such things in front of 120 people knows that among these 120 people there are 70 possible enemies; but those who can become enemies. With 120 listeners, 70 possible enemies! It is only a question of whether these enemies will then be decent or indecent. All in all, it is a necessity today, and it is as difficult for me as it can be for those who will be affected by it. It is difficult for me, but two measures must be taken. Two measures. And it would be untrue to mention one without the other.

The first is that all private conversations must cease from now on. Because of what has been made of these private conversations, by “Seiling and Co.” for example, and also by others - that is what is likely to lead to slander in the hands of dishonest editors who find it much too inconvenient to attack spiritual science directly - then they would have to study it. So they attack it by involving it in scandals, defamations and so on, up to the last article that is so foolish as to talk about Dr. Steiner having given exercises to that personality. When the personality was asked: How dare you say that you were given exercises? “Yes,” she said, ”Dr. Steiner showed me some forms in a eurythmy lesson; for the other people, the lines meant what is written in the letters and lines, but for her they were instructions for exercises that Dr. Steiner gave her on my behalf.

Now Dr. Steiner had done nothing but recite poems. Nothing at all was said about that. But then it is claimed: And if Dr. Steiner did not mean the exercises, then she is simply the involuntary medium of Dr. Steiner. So, it is imperative that the private conversations be completely avoided for the time being. I will make sure — you just have to be patient for a while — that a replacement is created. But private conversations cannot continue if such things are made of them. They must stop in the near future. Not because of the content of the slanderings - I have often said that such things must come - but so that people finally see how serious things are. One must not say, as it has been said in Munich: Because of a few people, we must now all suffer! One must turn to those few people, one will find them, and one will also find the right way to find them – not to those who, under the compulsion of an iron necessity, have to take such measures.

The second thing is that I authorize everyone to tell everything, as far as they want, that has been said in private conversations with me. What I have said to any member must never be shunned from the light of day. [Gap in the transcript] is not considered to be objectively untrue, as Seiling [Gap in the transcript] But it will be proven if such a measure is taken: Without exception, anyone can tell the truth about what has been discussed in private conversations with me.

These two measures belong together. It is sad that these measures have to be taken, but, as I said, especially those who are serious will understand that these measures are good in this day and age, when people are driven into scandals and slander.

These measures, my dear friends, must be taken. These things are also connected with the crisis through which humanity is passing. Here, too, knowledge must lead us forward. And it will lead us forward.

Humanity has become extremely frivolous. Finally, let me read you a sentence from a person who also sought the spirit, who sought it on the path through Catholicism: [von] Barres, [von] Maurice Barres.

[It is a futile effort to seek the afterlife. It may not even exist! And however we approach it, we cannot learn anything about it. Let us leave occultism to the enlightened and the charlatans; whatever form mysticism may take, it defies reason. But let us turn to the Church, first of all because she is inextricably linked with the tradition of France. And then because she, with the authority of centuries and great practical experience, formulates the rules of that ethics that must be taught to nations and to children. And finally, because, far from abandoning us to mysticism, she defends us directly against it, silences the voices of the mysterious groves, interprets the Gospels and sacrifices the generous anarchism of the Savior to the needs of modern society."

There is the church, let's go inside, even though we say: the afterlife may not even exist! Imagine the cynicism! This is the attitude that Maurice Barrös, a truly characteristic person of the present day, has expressed; this is how one seeks the spirit in Catholicism. He has no desire to become Catholic, but: Catholicism has deigned to interpret the Gospels in such a way that [gap in the transcript], where the Savior is only taken as he suits modern humanity.

Humanity must pass through this test. But we must know that the realization of the spirit is to be sought from the impulses of the spirit. If we familiarize ourselves with it, we will find the way that is to be sought for humanity today.

When you undergo a spiritual development, you get to know the spiritual life. But there it is always, this spiritual life. For the ordinary human mind, it is much too fine and unfamiliar compared to the external world, and man cannot go beyond the familiar.

This spiritual world is the area where man lives between death and the new birth. With those souls with whom one had no connection at all here in life, no relationships can be established from here after death. The moral and intellectual life continues over there. In ordinary life, one cannot achieve such a strong ability to get in touch with that area.

Here, in the physical world, we hear what someone else says. If the disembodied soul wants to connect with another person here, it is the other way around. The disembodied soul tells us what we ask it. What comes from us, the dead person tells us, what comes from the “dead resounds in us. It is very easy to say this, but it is so difficult to fulfill, because it is usually overlooked that the messages come from us, which we think we are receiving from there. The moments of falling asleep and waking up are the most favorable for the usual communication between this world and the spiritual one. The spiritually developed person can, of course, also use other [moments].

If you want to come together with a [deceased] soul at the moment of falling asleep, then it is good to summarize what you feel for the dead person in a question to the dead person, just as you would have done when he was still alive, as far as possible in the same way as you were accustomed to during his lifetime. This can have an effect in dreams. It can lead to illusions; it is not the dead person who speaks, but what we have thought, felt and wished during the day in relation to the dead person. This comes back to us from the dead person in a dream. It is right at the moment of waking up, when something comes from the dead person into one's own soul and this comes up again during the day. During sleep, what we have thought of the dead during the day comes up; during the waking hours, what has come to us from the dead during falling asleep and waking up.

Spiritual science does nothing other than grasp with the mind's eye what is in the spiritual world. Much more plays out of the spiritual world – including the one in which the dead are – into our world than we know.

For a long time, not enough attention has been paid to what changes in the different periods. What we have experienced during life between death and a new birth lives in us. What we bring with us from the spiritual world is woven into the inherited physical body - into the blood, the nervous system, the muscles and so on. The soul that moves in with the birth is wise. We are actually tremendously wise; enchanted, we carry this wisdom within us. And we have to release what pulses as a wise being in our blood, nerve, muscle and respiratory systems. What soul mood is most suitable for this? The one that has been lost to people in recent centuries: faith in life. This is connected to a casualness in relation to religious life.

We now only really believe in our youth and young adulthood into our twenties; only up to that point can we get something out of the development of the body – up to around the age of twenty-seven. In ancient Greece, it was still possible up to the age of thirty, and so on.

But we have to replace the physical and bodily, which no longer has anything to offer, with the spiritual and soul. We must learn to believe in the whole of life. Even if I want to be able to experience something different at forty than at thirty, I have to imbue myself with the spirit that makes us capable of always experiencing something new. Not like today, of course, when twenty-year-olds are already saying, “From my point of view.” How can you have a point of view at twenty? A person must give himself impulses. Today it is the case that a person stops at the age of 27; he does not live further. That would be a person who, in terms of character, is rooted in our time, a self-made man, not a grammar school student, who already takes up traditions, not only

not only what comes from the time. Coming from a poor background, gifted with an active intellect, elected to parliament at the age of twenty-seven, and thus committed for life: that is Lloyd George, a true representative of our time.

We must rediscover our faith in the meaning of life. The different parts of the human body have different speeds, so to speak. What is in the head and what is in the trunk has different rates of development. The main organization develops relatively quickly and is completed by the twenties. The heart organism – let us call it that – develops throughout life. Our educational and social lives actually only serve the development of our minds. Our head would be ready to die at the age of 27. But there is also a spiritual side to this. If people only cared about developing their minds, humanity would soon become decrepit, physically too. It must become a principle of education that memories of youth appear like a paradise. The head that is ready to die at the age of 27 must always be able to draw new strength from what radiates from youth. Those who study spiritual science know that there are things they cannot know in their 30s or 40s, because only in their 50s can this or that enter into them. If we acquire a sense of the whole of life, then we will not be thrown back by the leap from the physical to the spiritual life, but will develop more quickly.

The leap from the physical to the spiritual life does not bring us back, but develops us faster. People today can demystify much more of the “wise” than was possible in an earlier time.

Only by starting from the point of view that Goethe can now tell us something completely different than in 1832, only by finding the strength to live with the Goethe of 1882, have I been able to achieve what is called Goethe research, which I have done.

One must set age higher, in the social higher than twenty-seven, where people are elected to parliament.

The dead should be allowed to speak. For example, Goethe's “Wilhelm Meister's Journeyman Years”, what is said there about social issues, should be allowed to affect the soul of people who are socially active. We can always give something to the world after we die – let the dead be fruitful for the living. This is to be taken together with what was said at the beginning about the relationship to the dead.

Dessoir: “Philosophy of Freedom”, one of Dr. Steiner's “first works”; [in the second edition] a first work in the theosophical field - all the more wrong.

It is necessary to develop a sense for the concrete, a sense of truth; to feel pain at what is not true. Full participation, pictorial participation, has declined sharply today; that wants to get into the souls later than in the 28th year.

A speaker once said, after raising many questions: “Now I have presented you with a forest of question marks.” You just have to imagine that. You have to be careful not to slip up in your speech.

How a person expresses himself in his thoughts - the “how” of thoughts - from the way a person thinks, you can see how he stands in life. A Herman Grimm has won and fought for what he says. A Woodrow Wilson seems to be possessed by his point of view, by demons. Today it is not so much the content of what one says that matters, but the “how”, whether it is identical with the personality or whether the personality is possessed. Today it will matter less and less what the content of theories is, but rather how they are presented.

We must gain a sense of the whole of life and make it fruitful for the whole of life, including life after death, and how the hereafter is referred to here. Today, despite the catastrophic events taking place outside, life is being overslept a great deal. Many people today have not yet realized that since August 1914 we have had to think differently.

In the spring of 1914, Dr. Steiner said that there was a cancer in social life and so on. This cancer soon broke out. You have to rethink and learn to feel.

When physics and so forth speak of negative and positive and so forth today, that is quite correct, but what we say about Lucifer and Ahriman is just as correct. But there must be balance between the two poles. The Luciferic lives in the spiritual world as well as here, it lives in the selfish drives. This has long been taken into account in the social structure: medals, titles and so on. In our social structure, far too much has been attributed to the one-sided Luciferic. Now the Ahrimanic is rising. The public is at the mercy of what is printed. Now it is the case that people want to take the social structure into their own hands, so to speak, in an Ahrimanic way. Through aptitude tests, they want to find out whether a child has intellectual potential. Nothing but Ahrimanic forces are revealed by these tests, nothing of the soul itself. It would be terrible from a social point of view if the aptitude tests were to continue. The child is a mystery. Belief in the meaning of life could also have a positive effect on pedagogy, not what is achieved through aptitude tests and so on.

I wanted to make sure that what has happened in these four years would not be forgotten.

My dear Theosophical friends!

During the years in which this catastrophe that has befallen humanity has called so many of our human brothers to difficult, responsible posts, we have always turned to the protecting spirits of those fighting in the field at our meetings:

Spirits of your souls, watchers ever active,
Your wings may bear
Our souls' imploring love
To earthlings trusting in your keeping,
That, joined with your might,
Our plea may helpfully shine
On the souls it seeks in love!

My dear friends!

We have not seen each other for a long time here in Vienna, but this difficult present, this present, which makes so much of what we now have to remember so necessary, so much of the past gathering of strength for the present and the future, this present necessitates so much. And we have to accept – as so much has to be accepted today – that we will see each other less on the physical plane. On the other hand, however, at such a meeting it will be particularly important to remember those souls who have been holding us together in our spiritual movement for years. One of the main thoughts, one of the main impulses that hold us together, is that through spiritual science we must increasingly come to the conviction that whatever is to help all of humanity, to help it on , must be spiritually motivated. The more we can truly feel, sense, and understand this in our souls, that humanity needs spiritual insights to warm and illuminate our souls, the more we will

we will find the opportunity to fruitfully engage with the difficult tasks that are actually posed today to every person who does not dreamily, sleepily pass by the events of the present. And so, after such a long time of not being together, it may be good today, when we tie in with this reflection, to think about ideas that, on the one hand, are connected with the present-day insights that are necessary, but which, despite being necessary, are not present in general humanity, and which, on the other hand, are again suitable to penetrate us soulfully, to strengthen us, to permeate us with strength precisely for the task we have in the present for this present.

In particular, my dear friends, if we turn our attention to what we have been doing for years in spiritual science, one main thought, above all, will remain before our soul. The thought is that if we want to gain spiritual-scientific knowledge, we must shape many a concept, many a feeling, and many a volitional impulse differently than we have done so far. We must think differently about many things, and perhaps the time is not far distant when many more people than today will see that something else also teaches us to think differently about time, about human development, and about human tasks. And this other thing is the catastrophe itself that has befallen humanity, the whole of humanity on earth, and the goal of which can hardly be grasped at all by anything other than an understanding of the spiritual path of human development.

But let us start with seemingly very distant thoughts. We can ask: Why is it that, as soon as they are present, the majority of people actually show either irony, mockery, annoyance, or some other kind of dislike or opposition to what we call spiritual science? It can be said that this is often because this spiritual science makes demands on people that have to be met, but first a firm decision of the heart must be made. The spiritual world, as everyone says, as we gradually learn to understand it through spiritual science, looks quite different from the world that our senses must actually be the spiritual world. We only learn when real spiritual research brings us close to how fundamentally different the ideas about it are; only then do we learn to understand why people are so dismissive of spiritual science.

Let us then start from an obvious thought, or I could just as easily say: from a remote thought, to show you why humanity has so much to say against spiritual science. To help us understand this idea, let us first take those spiritual beings that are closest to most people, towards which most people long most intensely, let us take the human souls that have passed through the gate of death itself. The one who enters the spiritual world with clear vision gradually comes to an understanding, although this understanding is one of the most difficult in the realm of spiritual vision. There is also a certain correlation that draws him to the so-called deceased human souls. But it is precisely then that it becomes apparent that when one enters into this spiritual communication with the departed human souls, one must become accustomed to different concepts than those to which one is accustomed from the sense world. When we stand here in the sense world and speak to another person, it is the case that when we say something to him, we know that what we speak to him as sound comes from our own soul. We hear ourselves speak; and when he answers us, we hear him speak. We know that what he has to communicate to us is coming from him to us.

We become accustomed to such communication with the outside world as a matter of course, and therefore it can only seem quite strange, quite paradoxical to us when the spiritual researcher claims the absolute opposite about communication with the dead. When he has to say that he has struggled to make contact with the deceased, when he can tie the karmic threads that connect people even beyond death, then one has to get used to perceiving what the dead person has to communicate as coming from one's own soul. What comes from the dead person resounds from one's own soul, and what we have to communicate to him, what we have to say to him, is clothed

so that it is as if we heard it spoken to us by him. So you have to completely change your habits when you are confronted with a spiritual being, when you compare the external experience you have with it to the experiences of the sensory world, when someone who has become a spirit speaks to us in that wordless language that is spoken on the spiritual plane, that when he communicates or seems to communicate something to us, then we have to say to ourselves: that is what you yourself say to him. On the other hand, when he really communicates something to us, when something really comes from him, then it rises up from the depths of our own soul.

It is easy to say such things, but to develop this habit of our soul life, to truly change our habits, that is somewhat more difficult. Now you will understand that it is not easy for a person to cross this bridge to a completely different kind of experience, to a completely different way of experiencing. [You will understand] that he instinctively, unconsciously, withholds his soul life, which, if he did not withhold it, would lead to communication with the so-called dead. But then one would have to communicate in the way I told you. On the other hand, it cannot be said that people who live here on earth in the physical body do not do so; they actually do it all the time, only they misunderstand the whole nature of this communication. The simplest thing that happens in this area for most people is that they dream about people with whom they have been in contact. But these dreams, even if they are partly subjective experiences, can also arise from a real interaction with the dead.

If one really wants to establish a right relationship with the spiritual world, then it is necessary to see two experiences in the right light. Two experiences that man actually pays no attention to in ordinary life. And these two experiences are falling asleep and waking up. The other two states of the four states of consciousness, sleeping and waking, last, and man is generally inclined to follow attentively what lasts a long time, but what passes quickly, like waking and falling asleep, man is not accustomed to follow with the same attention. And in the times when we are awake, we do experience important things for our physical life, but in the time of actual sleep, we experience, with the exception of dreaming, which we find very difficult to interpret, not much consciousness. On the other hand, we actually experience a lot in the moments of falling asleep and waking up, but we do not pay attention to it because at the moment we wake up and fall asleep, we are at our most inattentive. The moment of waking up and falling asleep has already passed by the time we want to look at it and take notice of it; that is why we are so unaware of how infinitely important and significant these two points of falling asleep and waking up are.

We know from spiritual science, at least in theory, what falling asleep is: a stepping out of the physical body. In the present state of development of humanity, we are too weak to be conscious in the time between falling asleep and waking up, and so it happens that when we fall asleep, we pass from our conscious state to the unconscious one; we do not develop enough attention to observe the falling asleep itself; and it is the same when we wake up from the spiritual world. The physical world with its impressions of light, colors and sounds overwhelms us immediately, physical sensations overwhelm us immediately as well, and we do not have time to grasp the moment of waking up in a spiritual way; our attention cannot develop that fast, and when it does develop, we are already overwhelmed by the external influences, then our consciousness is no longer attuned to grasp the more subtle things. The spiritual researcher must learn to develop attention for these two moments, for falling asleep and waking up.

Now, for us, falling asleep is a stepping into the spiritual world. By stepping into the spiritual world, we are in the realm of existence where the so-called dead are. We are with the dead. In the world in which we then are, they live and weave. But as I said, our consciousness is too weak in the present cycle of humanity to perceive our surroundings in this state. But just because we do not perceive something, it does not mean that it is not there! It is all around us, we just cannot perceive it. So we are together with the so-called dead, but at first we are not aware of this togetherness. But sometimes it does emerge from dreams, and, as I said, these dreams can only be completely subjective experiences, reminiscences. So there are dreams that, by showing us that the dead person is saying this or that to us, bring us into a real interrelationship, into a real communication with the dead. But as a rule one interprets the communication wrongly. One has the image of the dead person before one, the dead person says this to one, one takes this for an order. It is not that. Perhaps we have thought and felt about the dead, and if we are in spiritual science, we also know that we can become more and more aware of these thoughts about the dead. We can almost reshape our thoughts about the dead in such a way that they offer a certain guarantee of the reality of our contact. We can vividly remember this or that occasion when we were together, but we do not think in general, abstract terms in such a case; rather, we think of something that we really experienced with him, we think of it with the vividness with which we experienced it, and then we make the decision to to behave in our thoughts with the dead person as we would like to behave with him if he were standing in front of us. When we do this, we address a question to him, or we communicate something to him that we believe he or we might need to tell him. What we do consciously and more and more consciously – but in a sense it is what I say, what we want to send into it during our waking life – we take that into our sleep consciousness. We will then have not a subjective but an objective, real dream. But we must interpret this dream in the right way. People do not interpret it correctly, because this “dream means the echoes of what we ourselves have addressed to the dead; even if it seems to us in the dream image that the dead person is speaking to us, it does not mean that he is speaking to us in the words he is saying to us, but only that he is hearing us, that what we are saying to him is reaching him. There you have a living application of what I have told you.

I said that when we turn to the dead, we have to get used to the fact that it seems as if it comes from him. This also occurs in dreams. The dream seems as if it brings us something from the dead. But in reality it is only proof that it has been transformed in a certain way, that it has reached him; he has heard us. When we dream of the dead, that is no more than proof that they hear us, that what we have sent to them in loyal love really reaches them.

These facts of spiritual life are often misinterpreted. When someone dreams of the dead, they believe that what the dead person tells them is directed to them. But this is only proof that what they have said to the dead has been understood by the dead. I have to say to myself: Yes, I really spoke to the dead, since he tells me so in my dream. This is proof that what I said to him has reached him. For it is only the reflection of what has reached him from me.

Through the moment of falling asleep, we carry into the spiritual world what we say to the dead. By waking up, we carry into the physical world, conversely, what the dead person says to us. And what the dead person speaks to us must resound from the depths of our soul in the state between waking up and falling asleep in the everyday state of consciousness. As in the “dream, what we speak to the dead lingers, so what the dead speak to us lingers in the waking state.

But here again, people are unaccustomed to interpreting it correctly – unaccustomed for a different reason than we stated in the previous case. People, as they are predisposed for physical life, are, firstly, not very inclined to really listen to the inspirations that come from the depths of the soul. Most people, who do not consider anything that arises from the depths of the soul to be anything other than subjective ideas, think: Yes, that just occurred to us, it comes from ourselves. But one must learn to distinguish, just as there are dreams that are subjective and others that are objectively true, there are so-called ideas that are purely subjective and others that are inspirations from the depths of our soul. We must learn – and we can learn – to listen attentively to our waking daily life, so that we become aware of how thoughts penetrate from the depths of our soul, and even when we are in conversation with others, how this or that thought, which we are not inclined to pay attention to, emerges from the depths of our soul, and then we will recognize the objective character of these inspirations, which softly sound in the midst of our daily life from the soul. Then we will experience that in such inspirations the dear, so-called dead speak to us from their realm. For what the dead person tells us must come from within ourselves.

For the spiritual researcher, it is the case that he directly experiences what he has told you: What the dead person says comes from the soul, and he has to reorganize himself. For those who have not acquired this state of mind, it takes place in such a way that what we experience in our thoughts when we address a message and question to a dead person in the time between falling asleep and waking up, and what the dead person tells us, sounds from the depths of the soul.

Human life is much more connected with the spiritual world than we usually believe. Today, we have not only become [materialistic] in our views, we have also become vain and proud, dismissive of the spiritual world, presuming to say that everything that resonates within us is our own inspiration. Materialism also makes the human soul selfish and vain, leading to a certain conceit, in which we ascribe everything to ourselves. What we consider our own ideas are actually the thoughts of those who have already passed through the gate of death, who, by addressing our souls, are working together with us in this shared human life.

It is not enough for us to develop the thought: We will not perish when we die. It is certainly true, but it has something selfish about it. Rather, it is more important to grasp it practically, vigorously for life, to grasp it in such a way that we know: Not only our life does not perish, but the dead do not perish for life either. They influence our soul, and we will only understand our dreams correctly if we see them as inspired by the realm of the dead.

This is the first thought from which I started today. It should show you that the real contemplation of the spiritual world makes demands on people, in the face of which people see, consciously see: after all, all this contradicts the world in which I have become accustomed. Man does not say to himself in his conscious mind: I do not enter the spiritual world because those who fantasize about the spiritual world describe it to me in such a way that it contradicts the physical world. But instinctively man would rather say: There are limits to human knowledge, one cannot enter it - than to admit to himself: I must grasp the strong, courageous thought [and imagine] the spiritual world quite differently. If this healthy courage to think about the spiritual world replaces much of the morbid thinking that still prevails today, our earthly life can be fertilized by spiritual thoughts in a completely different way than it is fertilized when these spiritual thoughts are merely conceived in the abstract.

Let us now take up another thought. The thought that is linked to a question: What does an understanding of the spiritual world offer people with regard to ordinary physical life on earth?

There, you see, we can already penetrate a little more into the practice of contemporary life. For how could one not admit to oneself that - after humanity was so proud of its great cultural and human progress until 1914 - that what has been happening since 1914 could befall it? How could one not admit to oneself that this must pose a difficult question? And how can we not admit to ourselves in the face of this question that perhaps something in the overall state of humanity was not quite right after all? Of course this is not meant as a criticism. But we can understand this life. So when I say that something must have been wrong, I do not want to say that I condemn what happened. For spiritual science has nothing at all to do with such thoughts about the past. These are critical thoughts from which one learns and should learn. When I say that something is not right, I mean that it could not have been otherwise in the development that has now passed, but on the other hand, the human being must pull himself together, then many things will be different. Criticism is unfruitful. Only recognition of what should be from what was is fruitful.

In humanity, from old states of consciousness, it has now become so that since the middle of the fifteenth century, mainly with regard to the consciousness soul, that on the one hand man - although he does not believe it - that man preferably hangs on to abstract concepts; and [although] precisely those who believe they are very practical. So people are theorists, often completely steeped and infected by all kinds of theories. But theories are quite barren. Theories only have value when what they contain bubbles up directly, welling up from living together with the spiritual world. But in his present cycle of development, this is precisely how the human being acts. On the other hand, there is justification: the consciousness soul must be developed. But on the other hand, countervailing forces must be developed so that it does not become one-sided. The sensing, feeling, and willing that one develops primarily through the consciousness soul is tied to the human brain. One should not ignore the fact that today man develops a consciousness that is tied to the brain. And so he believes that all consciousness is bound only to the brain. But this has a very specific consequence for the coexistence of people and for practical life, that man preferably develops a thinking that is bound to the brain. This forces him to develop thoughts that come from his interaction of the ordinary brain with the external, sensual world. He cannot free himself from what the brain can experience. The consequence of this is that a general cultural trait takes hold in the human soul. This is narrow-mindedness, narrow-mindedness. This is not to be criticized. On the other hand, I would like to point out that it is necessary. But it is the case that present-day humanity is most inclined to hold only to that which arises in the brain with the outside world; only when we reach out to the spiritual world do we expand it. This is something that today's development of humanity brings with it. Spiritual science is called upon to counteract the narrow-mindedness in the intellectual field. It has this cultural task of broadening the horizon again, of raising the horizon.

Yes, my dear friends, the matter at hand is much more serious than one might think. I think most of you have known me too long to know that I don't say this or that out of some personal sympathy or antipathy. When I observe how one of the most outstanding character traits is narrow-mindedness, I must at the same time see it in important things that go beyond the world. I may mention it, one must always remind, I may mention it because I am not saying it only now, but because I have said what I am saying before this catastrophic event befell our humanity. [In Helsingfors, that is, at a time before the war began, I have already pointed out] the fact that at such an outstanding position there is a person like Wilson, who today is associated with many catastrophic events that have befallen humanity. At the time, I drew attention to the most salient trait of Wilson's character, to the narrow-mindedness and bigotry that is encroaching on the social structure of humanity.

But what [humanity] does depends on what people think. That thoughts are realities and that realities flow out of thoughts is something that humanity must come to understand: to understand life precisely on the basis of genuine spiritual science, to come to an understanding of the spiritual world from an understanding of what underlies life. We must not only recognize that spiritual science can give us those experiences that can make us whole in our entire soul life, because they prove to us that we belong to a spiritual world, but also the thought: When what lies in the spiritual world flows into our moral and social will, then thinking does not remain limited and expands. Then it will also get better, otherwise not.

If only we could grasp this thought in all its depth! Then we would become aware of much of what is going on in the present. With regard to our feeling, with regard to our thinking, the present age makes us limited. With regard to our feeling: what does it do to us? That which arises from the consciousness soul. Feeling is that these abstract thoughts, which are at the same time the most materialistic thoughts, that these actually no longer grasp our feeling and sensing in reality.

How often do we hear people say: Oh, it's just a thought, you have to feel! That is as true as it is false. You cannot have a truly fruitful influence on life, you cannot truly lead life fruitfully if you do not want to think, but instead you let everything be absorbed into the mush of feeling. You turn life into a mess. What matters is to bring the light of thought into feeling and to elevate feeling. Thinking feeling, feeling thinking, that is what is needed. What the consciousness soul wreaks, because the abstract brain cannot grasp our /gap in transcript]

Therefore, the spiritual state of present-day people in relation to feeling, the present spiritual state will tend more and more towards narrow-mindedness the more materialistic it becomes. Narrow-minded, philistine – that is what the spiritual state is currently leaning towards.

If the light of thought, the realm of light of thought, does not penetrate feeling, it makes people narrow-minded, their interests are limited to the very immediate. Thoughts must be wide-ranging, but they can only do that if we carry the sense that the world that surrounds us sensually is something quite different [from what] expresses itself spiritually, that the dead express themselves; [then our interests, then spiritual science - just as narrow-mindedness and limitation in the field of the intellect - will have to work against narrow-mindedness in the field of feeling. It needs a view of a social structure that is imbued with broad interests, namely, interests that will arise in us when we look at the wonderful, mysterious human being himself. For today's anatomist and philosopher, this human being is only a kind of physical organism, not mysterious and wonderful enough. Such ideas must kill our ethics in particular, but also our social conception of life. We must be clear that the spiritual is reality, that thoughts are what the reality of life flows from. In theory, most people agree with what I am saying on this point. In terms of their life practice, however, they do not agree. They act contrary to it. From what people say, we can see which thoughts are unfruitful for life due to the narrow-mindedness of their emotional life.

My dear friends! To have thoughts in such a way that the thought stands vividly before us, as something we see directly, that is something that people have gradually lost in the materialistic age. In the 1980s, I attended a lecture by a professor who was extraordinarily impressive for people at the time. He kept asking the question, “What should one ask?” [gap in the transcript] And finally he said: I think I have led you into a forest of question marks. Who not only expresses the thought in the abstract, but develops views on these thoughts: It is neither beautiful nor meaningful, [so] a forest of question marks. Who is not satisfied with expressing thoughts – thoughts must be immersed in reality – does not speak of the truth.

A statesman has expressed a remarkable thought. He says: Our relationship with Austria is the point that indicates the direction of our future policy. Anyone who is out of touch with reality must say to themselves: A relationship is a point and a point is a direction.

Those who think like this are not rooted in reality with their thoughts. He separates thought from feeling. But realities can only be real thoughts. He who works with such thoughts can accomplish nothing healing. He who has a feeling for such things can hear a great deal of this kind today. Recently, for example, someone said in regard to the peace treaty with Romania: [gap in the transcript] that Romania is putting itself on an open, honest footing with us. We would like it not to be on just an “open” foot, but to be on a foot at all. In the future, the Romanians should have an “open” foot in order to enter into a proper relationship with us. Is such a thought present in reality as a thought? It is not! Speech is used because the brain is in motion.

But something beneficial for humanity can only arise for the social structure when it flows from the real. It is precisely for this reason that one must respect reality and also the spiritual life. Mere criticism does not make it. You can study the life of humanity today. It would certainly be necessary to study the life of humanity in order to develop thoughts that are in line with reality. And one should not study it in such a way that every thought becomes a matter of sympathy or antipathy, of praise or blame.

You know from my lecture cycle 191[0] in Kristiania, also with regard to the present time, that I have ascribed to the British nation that it is preferably called upon to develop the consciousness soul. On the one hand narrow-mindedness, on the other hand small-mindedness. It does not apply to the individual Englishman, but to the whole English national soul. One has only to study the language. We must really, I might say, for the sake of the spirit, hold on to the idea that language is inwardly effective; it forms feelings that are effective in language. The British language simply drops whole broad sections of the word into nothingness; it is the most abstract language.

That is it, my dear friends. What matters in the present is not to create theoretical concepts, but to draw these concepts from the depths of the soul. We need such concepts. You can be a traveler, a scientist, a political scientist, you can travel to entire countries, but if you have no sense of what lives inside people, the descriptions for practical life will not be of much use. People in the materialistic age have said many a witty and apt thing about the various European and non-European national souls. When it comes to expressing the true essence of the national soul, they fail. If one wants to be effective in practical life, because people are so reluctant to get to know each other in terms of their soul qualities, they are bound to end up in a catastrophe that is only the result of incorrect thoughts.

There are two aspects to the human soul: materialism strives towards one, and spiritual science must counteract the other. The area of will: thoughts that do not want to unite with our will, they do not attack it, they do not intervene in the whole person, they arise from the brain. The result of this is that in our lives, materialistic thoughts make people clumsy, narrow-minded, philistine. This must necessarily result. Those who observe life notice the clumsiness. What can a person do today? What he has been taught and learned with difficulty. Today you can be an excellent professor of Chinese, you can be an excellent civil servant, carpenter, and yet it can happen that you cannot sew on a trouser button, but that someone else has to sew it on for you. We are highly inept at everything we have not learned, because what we absorb in our education in feeling and thinking is suited to our body and blood and muscles.

The spirit, when it takes effect on a person and has a living effect, takes hold of the whole person, makes him skillful out of the spirit. [This is] a test for the reality [of spiritual science] that it forms people out of us who are more and more able to cope with life, that what it lets flow in out of the spirit, [people] can also carry into life.

But that is what triggers another thought. What we need, out of an understanding of the spiritual world, is to come to life at all.

Let us take a truth of spiritual science: I will list it briefly today. Today I want to elaborate on the idea that When a person passes through the portal of death, he should immerse the first third between death and rebirth mainly in the imaginative, the second third between death and rebirth mainly in the inspirational, and the third third between death and rebirth mainly in the intuitive; in the last third of our life between death and rebirth – the Viennese cycle – the person immerses himself in the life he has to live here on earth. In the continuation of this, we would have to lead an imitative life between birth and the seventh year, an immersion in childlikeness. Thus, in the imitative immersion of the child, in every action, is the continuation of the life of the last third between death and new birth. We just have to grasp life in the right way. We see the human being growing into life and we can tell from his faculty of perception that he is continuing a spiritual life in the physical one, that he is continuing an imitation of the intuition from the last third. We see the human being growing into life. — What a thought!

Imagine, my dear friends, if it becomes socially fruitful for the human being to be together: this is the continuation of spiritual life, we see it in him! Life is the proof of the immortality of man. As it is, it is the continuation. To grasp the thought of immortality, the departure from the spiritual world through birth into physical life on earth! Imagine what that must be like for life! Imagine this thought! That is also why we recognize the value of thoughts. Imagine this even more in a concrete sense. Imagine: I look at this body, which comes from spiritual life, then you will believe in the whole of human life. Do we believe in the whole of human life today? No, we do not believe in the whole of human life, we only believe up to the age of 25 or 26 at the most. Most young people no longer believe that we can be educated, that life gives us something new. We still believe that we can acquire something new well into our 20s, but after that we only believe that life goes on. That what is brought in through birth is to be developed through the whole of life must, may not be a theoretical truth, it must become a concrete truth of life. Ask how many people there are today who, when they turn 30, say: When I turn 40, life will have revealed more to me. I am waiting for what life will bring me. I have not lived in vain. I live in anticipation of life, waiting for each year to reveal new secrets.

Do we believe in life like that? No, we don't expect anything more when we turn 27. Today, when we turn 20, we consider ourselves mature enough to make decisions about the whole of human life, if we are not [even] elected to parliament, where we already decide everything. [Gap in the transcript] Greeks atavistically.

We will once again look into the developing, the expectant. We should not express such a thought, nor think it, we should feel it through and through. Imagine what would have to be different in social life if people faced each other like this. Today, one person may be 60 years old and another 17. The 17-year-old has his point of view. Today everyone has their point of view. Life experiences develop and become ever richer. How different our interactions will be if we lead a life of hope and expectation. And every new

year brings me something new, and when I am ten years older, I will be completely different. [A] different view of life then arises from the view of the world, that we grasp the concrete thought of reality from the meaning of the world and the meaning of human life, that the whole of human life, the whole of the human being has a meaning [gap in the transcript]

Historical science must change completely!

Today, anyone who looks at the life of humanity at most says to themselves: the life of humanity is developing, and the individual human being is also developing. That is only an external comparison. Spiritual observation yields something quite different. Humanity is becoming ever younger.

People who are capable of development through their natural powers alone – if I may put it this way – in body and soul until their 50s [Unclear transcript; gap in transcript].

The ancient Persians 40 years to 30 years.

Today, the human being remains [only] capable of development for 27 years. Today, people believe only in youth, not in the whole of humanity. It is an important truth that man can experience through his natural powers, without intervention, [that he] can actually only develop for 27 years. He does not become more perfect through the outer world.

If we ask the question: Who is a particularly characteristic person for the present day? - A person who grew up without the advantages that one has through the past, without inheritance; [a person] who did not go to many high schools, but is open and receptive to everything in his environment, who had to grow into and only take in what today's world offers into his education. A self-made man. [He] absorbs his environment in an elementary way. Up to the age of 27 – then he enters public life, gets himself elected to parliament, becomes a minister. Now he is engaged, he has no need to develop further. A person born of poor parents, growing up wild, but receptive to his environment /gap in the transcript]: Lloyd George. — Ministry wonders what to do with the man – just take him on. What do you give him? What he understands least: transportation.

A few aphoristic remarks about the relationship between anthroposophy and science, which are to be made because the present situation suggests that we direct our consideration in this direction. People today are extremely proud of the fact that they do not believe in authority; but they only claim this. Of course, people talk about old authorities in such a way that they are criticized externally, often in a phrase-like way.

But the newer authorities, on which one depends in the most eminent sense, are not noticed at all. One of them is what we call science today. Ask yourselves, my dear friends, how much of what people hear today as something scientifically established they are able to absorb, and in how few cases they feel that it still needs to be examined in terms of its scope, its basis and its sources.

One could talk for hours about the unrecognized yet intensely present modern belief in authority. The purpose of spiritual science is to free people from this belief in authority. Spiritual science should enable people to penetrate to such foundations of knowledge that can be grasped in a certain sense and that offer the possibility - certainly not of everything, but of much of what so-called science offers - of forming one's own independent judgment. One will not be able to study the individual specialized sciences. But one can ask oneself whether there are not comprehensive points of view that are accessible to the human being and yet allow one to form an opinion about what the sciences present. Today's reflection is based on this. A direction is to be indicated, characterized by the fact that importance is attached to showing that there are uncertainties in today's sciences, unexamined things that are not considered and escape scientific attention.

First of all, I would like to draw attention to something that applies to many exact sciences: the old opinion that in the sciences, especially those related to physics, there is as much true science as there is mathematics in them; that what can be expressed mathematically is believed to form a secure foundation.

On the other hand, however, there is the way in which mathematics develops its theories. Mathematics actually has nothing to do with external reality; for many, it is precisely this that makes it safe and necessary, that you do not need experience to do it. This results in a discrepancy: how does mathematical thinking, which is alien to reality, relate to the configuration of nature to which it is applied?

So far, nothing has been done that could lead to a solution of this question, for example with the concept of space. It is important to me to point out that a correct analysis of space leads us to the conclusion that we humans are not dealing with one space when observing the world, but with two spaces. And by imagining spatially, we always identify one space with another. Every judgment of space consists in this. It is not true that one is subjective and the other objective space.

This will only be understood when we have a proper science of the senses. In the philosophical debates about sensory activity, one sense is always referred to in the singular. In general, this is not even present in reality. We cannot summarize the eye and the ear according to today's pattern by saying that these are two senses in which the external world is given and so on. The two [senses] are too radically different to be summarized as sensory perceptions. The scope of what must be understood as abstract sensory activity is divided into twelve senses: sense of I, sense of thinking, and so on. Each one must be studied.

And what about the concept of space that intrudes on everything? Here we do not get subjective and objective space, but the result that space is conveyed to us through one half of these senses, and through the other half of these senses. We never perceive with just one sense; another sense is always involved, for example, the eye and the sense of movement. Both are brought into spatial alignment.

One must be very precise in the investigation. In today's abstract way of looking at things, everything is mixed up. Concepts are applied without realizing whether one is entitled to such application. For example, something that, although not unexamined, is always forgotten: the concept of division or division. This is only possible from two points of view. You can only divide a named number by an unnamed number; say \(12\) apples by \(3\). This distinction is not made in kinematics. Velocity \(v: s = v \times t\). Physics uses this formula in a way that is not allowed in reality: \(s/t = v\), \(s/v = t\). According to physics, this would also apply. This approach can only be one of the two possible types of division; in \(s/t\) you can only divide \(s\) by an unnamed number, time can only have the value of an unnamed number. One can ask the question: Which is more essential, \(s\) or \(v\)? Which adheres to reality? Not the path, but the speed. The path is only the result of the speed. We must consider its reality to be the primary one; it is the inner essence of the movement process.

Today, investigations are carried out by only looking at the result. These are often not decisive. Consider the comparison of the two people who stand next to each other at nine o'clock and then at three o'clock, and yet have experienced very different things in the meantime. Through these simple considerations regarding \(s\) and \(t\), the whole theory of relativity is reduced to absurdity because it only considers entities such as \(s\) and \(t.

Those who study physics today will, on the one hand, rightly encounter the law of the conservation of energy, but on the other hand they will not. This has become a dogma that has been extended far beyond physics, even to physiology. When it comes to metabolic experiments, the matter is shaky. Those who go back purely historically will have an uncomfortable feeling. Julius Robert Mayer was far removed from the modern interpretation of his theory. In “Überweg” a summary is given of Julius Robert Mayer's works, which is a lie. As a law, the law of conservation of energy must be limited to the limits of its application. It is just like a bank. A certain amount of money goes in and a certain amount comes out, just as a certain amount of energy goes in and out of an animal. But what happens to the capital in the bank, how it participates in the general circulation of capital during this passage, nothing can be said about that, of course. You can, of course, make such a law, but you have to realize that reality is not affected by such a law. One has to wonder how such laws have any effect on reality! Do they serve at all to say anything about the particular? There are laws that have a stronger reality effect in one area and none at all in another. The laws here are as applicable as a mortality table at an insurance company. On average, they are correct. But someone who insures a death in the 47th year on this basis does not act on it, does not feel obliged to die.

These things can be applied to many natural laws that are made today. However, one should never draw conclusions without being aware of the limits of validity. These laws must stop where, at some point in reality, something enters from a completely different sphere than what the application of the laws in question refers to, for example in the case of humans. In his inner activity, something comes in from a completely different sphere, which is just as little taken into account if I take the law of the conservation of energy as a basis as what the bank officials do when they put the money into circulation. The naturalists have real laws, the monists draw conclusions: that is just nonsense. The more one comes across this, the more it shows how necessary it is to respond to such an analysis of the nonsense that is made because there is no connection with reality. One must not separate oneself from reality and reason further; then one has no sense at all for the concise.

In the field of genetics, something is always disregarded that is of the greatest importance. A simple consideration says: If any being is sexually mature, then it must have all the force impulses that enable it to pass on some property to the next generation. Not the whole human or animal development may be considered, but only the time until the sexual maturity of the individual. All impulses that may have an influence after sexual maturity must be treated radically differently from the former.

The science of development achieved a great deal in the nineteenth century, but it proceeded in a much too straightforward manner. A major stumbling block for the unbiased conception of a realistic science of development is that one does not distinguish between what lies in the direct line of development and what are appendages. The main organs arise in a straight line, and only then do other organs attach themselves. If you look at the human being from the point of view of linear development, you cannot get beyond the head. Only the head can be derived in a straight line from the animal kingdom; the other organs cannot. In this case, the other organs must be developed from the head as appendages. One must come to realize this difference between the head and the other organs. The head is fully developed by the age of 28; one can only continue to live because the head is refreshed by the rest of the organism. This is related to the pedagogical question. We educate only the head; as a result, the person grows old prematurely. The development of the head is three times faster than that of the other organs. The rest of the organism is only a metamorphosis of the head. This is a physical truth that can be seen. In the case of inner qualities, speed is of the essence, even in the organic sciences. You get to the core of a person by examining the different speeds at which the structures of the organs develop. This also applies to psychology.

In the 1980s, I had a scientific dispute with Eduard von Hartmann, who at the time was drawing up his life account and wanted to prove the predominance of feelings of displeasure over feelings of pleasure. I tried to show that this calculation is not done by people themselves, but only afterwards by philosophers. It doesn't correspond to life at all. If someone were to keep a toy store's account of his own appreciation of toys, it would mean nothing for the store itself. Life itself is not based on it either, not on the difference between pleasure and displeasure. How did anyone come up with the idea of doing the math and judging the value of life by it?

This is related to the question that Kant already posed, the question of synthetic judgments. When adding \(7 + 5 = 12\), is \(12\) already included in \(7\) and \(5\) or not? This is not the right way to ask the question at all. It is not possible to ask the question at all in this way. You have to ask yourself: What is the first thing? When calculating, the result is always present first, and only to have a certain overview, one splits the result. I have \(12\) apples; the countrywoman brought me \(7\) and another brought me \(5\). All operations are based on the result being split somehow. The subject is the sum, the addends are the predicate, and so on. This is of great importance because it also appears where calculation occurs in a more complicated way: in life. Eduard von Hartmann's calculation “\(w = I - u\)” is wrong. Life attaches a value to it emotionally: most people don't care about \(w = I - u\); \(u\) can be taken as large as one wants, \(w\) remains finite and becomes only \(0\) if /=0 or \(u = \infty\).

In the recently published book “Vitalism and Mechanism”, the consequences of a purely mechanistic worldview are drawn and the connections between certain social affectations are pointed out. Why do people talk such nonsense in the social field in particular? Because they are accustomed to transferring such scientific ideas, which are unrealistic, to this field? It is different than when one starts from such concepts in natural science. In natural science, reality gives one the lie when one applies incorrect concepts. For example, a bridge built according to incorrect ideas collapses, and so on. In medicine, it is more difficult to keep track of things: patients die, but one can put that down to other reasons. In social policy, it cannot be proven at all. If you carry such incorrect concepts into politics, ethics and so on, then you create incorrect realities by embodying incorrect concepts. Today, this can be seen particularly in addiction, in the transfer of scientific concepts into social considerations.

This started back in Schäffle's time. He was the mayor of Mödling and an Austrian member of parliament in the 1880s. He wrote a book in which he dismissed socialism in an amateurish way: “The Futility of Socialism.” At the time, Herman Bahr responded with “Mr. Schäffle's Lack of Insight,” a book that Bahr now, however, disowns.

Kjellén, a very ingenious historian, compares the state to an organism. That is not correct. First of all, it is only an analogy. But quite apart from that, an analogy can lead in the right direction. You can compare social life with an organism, but not the European states. Many organisms live side by side, but in a living organism there is a medium between them, which is not the case with neighboring states. At most, the individual states can be compared to cells, and life over the whole earth to a single organism. Then we would have a fruitful theory of the state or fruitful politics. But I do not want to talk about such non-existent things. But such areas should be examined to see how important realistic thinking is. If we had remained mindful of this, humanity would have been spared the horrific social theories of the last four years.

With regard to Wilson, I pointed out at the time that in his work he characterized the application of Newton's theory of gravitation to the theory of the state in the seventeenth century as an outdated point of view and that today Darwinism should be used instead. In doing so, Wilson overlooks the fact that he is making the same mistake he criticizes: extending a current scientific theory to other areas. Similar unreality is displayed by Lujo Brentano, Schmoller in Munich and others.

A realistic social science only considers wages, capitalism and rent as factors of reality; these three must be considered. Each of these three has a different economic effect and is a different powerful factor. If these three are treated correctly, twelve new relationships will be found for economics through the correct combination of these three, not just the ones that are currently valid. Only then will a fruitful economics arise.

In particular, there is a lack of interest in our time in seeking a secure foundation for the individual sciences. If there are people who try to go through the individual sciences from the point of view that spiritual science will provide, it will be extremely fruitful. The working method must be directed in such a way that one takes a critical view of the concepts used. The above is also to be applied, for example, to the concept of force. One must start from \([v] = p/m\). The mass can be an unnamed number, \(p\) must be equivalent to the mass. This point of view alone, that mass, even in the smallest mass point, is equivalent to gravity, is something tremendously fruitful. Even in mass there is something gravity-like.

The question is never put at the forefront: What happens inside things? No unrealities may be introduced into the scientific consideration, for example a clock that moves at the speed of light. You must not necessarily draw conclusions about a property if another property is altered.

The subject of the final discussion was: The earth follows the sun in a spiral.

The correction factor, which is empirically applied in Bessel's tables, would disappear if Copernicus' third theorem were also applied.

As you may have seen in the last few days, and as can also be gathered from the public lectures, it must be clear from my current thinking that important necessities must be pointed out with regard to the transformation of certain perceptions, concepts and ideas. We are still living through a catastrophic time, a time that has been so often and repeatedly pointed out as being incomparable to anything that has happened in the past, usually in the conventional, world-historical version.

It is true that even when the significance and uniqueness of this time is discussed, unfortunately the phrase has become quite prevalent, and that what is said does not always come from the depth of the heart, but rather from the depth of understanding; but much of what comes from this direction is true. But not much is said about another thing. About how much this time should urge us to change our perceptions and concepts, our ideas and feelings.

For those of us who have been involved in this movement for years, this necessity will not be completely foreign, because I would like to remind you, my dear friends in Vienna, that I pointed out in a lecture cycle held here before the war that a kind of carcinoma – a cancerous disease – is spreading in social life and weaving across the earth. That was in view of the serious events that were imminent. One could not point out what was coming with cudgels, and when considering the times, it depends not on being a true prophet, but rather on bringing forth those things that can be used to impel the will and intentions of people. When we look back today on some of the things we have experienced in recent years, the most important impression in a certain direction is probably that we have to say to ourselves that some of the things that were very close to our souls before 1914 have become so far from our souls in many respects, like circumstances that may have occurred centuries ago. I keep thinking of one thing in this regard. In my lectures, I have often referred to a spirit with a very significant world view, Herman Grimm. When I referred to him in the years preceding 1914, it was as if he were standing beside me. At that time, his views were something present, something that could be treated as present; yes, my dear friends, that is no longer the case. Now, what seemed quite modern to us back then seems so, not if it were separated from us by decades, but by centuries. One would like to understand it as history. I don't think that anyone can say that, who has felt with all their intensity what has emerged over the years for the development of humanity. Not everything that has happened is there yet; /gap in transcription] This is a general sign that seems so sad to us, especially in these years, that the materialistic age has so dulled people's minds that even the most insistent speakers of world-historical development are asleep. By sleeping I do not just mean a dull existence, which is also the case with many people in the present, who let everything that happens come close to them – by sleeping I also mean the lack of incentive to evaluate the events of the present, to properly consider these events of the present. I could give many, many examples of this kind of sleeping. I will content myself with one, because you will see from the one what I actually want to illustrate.

You see, last fall, strange news was reported in the newspapers of all the neutral countries vis-à-vis the Central Powers, including a very strange interview that someone had - and that actually spread all over the world - that someone had in St. Petersburg with Rasputin. In this interview, not only was everything described that shed a clear light on the entire position that Rasputin had taken in the current events of the present, I would not even consider that to be the most important thing, but in this interview it was clearly predicted that it would not last long last long – of course, in the way one predicts something in an interview – it was clearly predicted that it would not last long, that Rasputin would no longer be around, and the assassination of Rasputin would be followed by events concerning much higher-ranking personalities. This news spread throughout the world, that is, from the fall onwards, a fairly large number of people throughout the world were actually quite well informed about what happened the following spring. Later on, I had the opportunity to talk to a person who, well, let's just say, is considered an authority on Russian affairs; people listen to him when it comes to finding out about Russian affairs. I tried in every possible way to tie in with this interview. The person in question didn't understand anything, didn't see through anything that was actually important.

Of course, something like this is only a symptom, but you will recognize from the lecture given yesterday that our view of history needs to adopt a symptomatic way of thinking in general. We cannot arrive at a healing development if we do not learn to consider this or that event as more or less important, in order to view the individual event in such a way that we see important developmental impulses. Symptomatology will essentially have to become a consideration of history. But to practise symptomatology, a person must have sharpened their inner soul powers, their power of knowledge, through what spiritual science can give them, because this spiritual science does not want to be taken only for what it is in terms of content, for then it would again be mere theory. It should not be that way under any circumstances. What is communicated from spiritual science in terms of content, of wording, what is written in the books, may be verified - much of it may have to be said in a completely different way. Although we already have a certain basic foundation for truth that will remain for a long time, I do believe that the examination will reveal that some things will have to be different in wording than how they are said today. But the content, the theoretical outlook, is not what matters. Man must acquire a certain way of thinking, he must free his thinking from all narrow-mindedness, limited to the immediate interests, so that he is compelled to broaden his horizons, to orient himself within a broad perspective, that he must immerse himself in reality. Today, not wanting to immerse oneself in reality has become a truly world-historical phenomenon. Today, people talk about all kinds of things that they present as ideals. Of course, one can understand that people feel a certain intellectual pleasure when they can talk about this or that ideal. But when it comes to ideals, it depends on whether one is in the real truth with the formation of these ideals. For example, someone who thinks realistically reads a message from Wilson and says to himself: What is in there and so many people admire is, after all, ancient, it can almost be called historical. These are things that go through all centuries as a phrase, that can be said and applied everywhere. What is important is not introducing such things into people's minds, but striking the right note in terms of ideas that are realistic in a particular age.

Indeed, in order to live realistically in the highest life - in this life that follows the present one - people will have to acquire many things of which they have not yet acquired much today.

Last Sunday we spoke about the fact that a world view must come to establish spiritual science, which, so to speak, enables people to grow old, to lead an expectant life. We should not take such a matter lightly; because precisely such a matter is extraordinarily important. We have — as we saw last Sunday — today really only the gift to believe in the growing, sprouting life into our twenties, then we want to be ready to continue living life in the same breath, as it were; then we have — one has gone through university, the other has learned a trade, the third has not learned anything either, but all consider themselves to be finished with everything that they have incorporated into themselves up to their twenties. We must relearn to wait for what is to come throughout our lives, we must learn to say: When I am 25 years old, then simply by the fact that I am 25 years old, I say: The 35th [year of life] will be able to reveal new secrets to me, the 45th again new ones. We must learn to live in expectation. This is not only important for the individual, it also has a social significance. These things, the establishment, the regulation of the mutual relationship of people can be turned, socialism does it and other associations – for what do you not found all kinds of associations – have done it, but my dear friends, we have to keep reminding ourselves that talking about certain things is one thing, which, as I said, can give an intellectual, voluptuous pleasure that can be proven as something necessary, but it leads to nothing. No matter how many ethical and social demands arise, that the relationship between people - whether for ethical or economic reasons - should be arranged in such or such a way, that this or that position is ideal, no matter how much is preached, it is of no more use than telling the stove: You are a stove, and as a stove you have the duty to warm the room, so warm the room! But it does not warm the room; only if they put wood in and light a fire, then it warms the room. It is often the greatest pulpit orators who are motivated by such an attitude. What matters is that we draw real strength from our world view, which gives life to our soul, emotional life, will life.

Among the many aspects of creative, real power is the fact that we learn to believe in the whole of human life through it, and learn to live in expectation. But if that is not a theory, not a teaching, if that is an inner life force, if that lives in the soul, then it is quite natural that it also means that people do not enter into an abstract relationship with one another, but see that it also plays a role here, that a variety of concrete circumstances play a role when it is important, that they play a role. What social culture is cannot be regulated; it can only be established by giving in the establishment that which gives strength and life to our soul. And take some of what I said last Sunday: We can directly follow up on an idea from last Sunday that related to the coexistence of people here in physical life with the souls of those who have passed through the gateway of death. What the idea of immortality is, has also, over time, taken on a rather selfish character to a greater or lesser extent. Actually, people are hardly more interested in immortality than in what will become of their own soul when they have passed through the gate of death. Yes, that is certainly an important and essential thing, which continues to have an effect if we see it correctly; but something else comes when we really grasp the idea that we have to recognize the meaning of this life throughout our entire life, that our development is not complete at the age of twenty, but that every year of life can reveal something new to us and that it becomes real experience for us, which it can become; then the other thought will not be far from us either, truly not far from us, that life, the event of life, which outwardly presents itself as an event of death, basically does not stop the development of our earth either. For] those who can do spiritual research, this is particularly clear for the present development cycle of humanity. When people will understand that actually spiritual is revealed through all decades, when they do not believe that life has lost its meaning when a person has passed through the gate of death. Not only that a person carries a certain content, a certain essence into the other world, but in a way he is endowed with the richest life experience when he closes his life here. Even if you are no longer able to live life to the full as you age due to memory loss, the wisdom you have gained is still there in your soul, and this is not only important for the people who have passed through the gateway of death in themselves, but also for their future lives on Earth. A person who passes through the gate of death in this present cycle of humanity has not yet lived out everything that is in him. His worldly wisdom can still come in handy, if only people look for such a way of life.

I don't like to do it, but I always like to cite a personal experience when it comes to this matter. Those who have known me longer know that in my first decades as a writer, I spent a lot of time trying to make Goethe's ideas fruitful for our age. I didn't do this in the same way as Goethe researchers; I tried to develop them further. What I have done in my field in this direction has emerged only from the impulse to confront not the dead Goethe but what Goethe had acquired in worldly wisdom in 1832 and what could continue to develop, what could become fruitful for the earth. In this real sense, I tried to write about one thing or another that Goethe would speak about in a later period. One can only take such a stand on such a matter if one is clear about the fact that what a person has worked for until his death continues to be important for the earth. In saying this, I am expressing a thought that still seems quite paradoxical to people today, but which is becoming more and more important; and I am convinced that the time must come when, for example, the following will be done, when people will say to themselves: In our time, this or that question has become important for social coexistence or something else. Let us not only ask our contemporaries about such a question, let us also ask the spirits of the past, but let us ask them in such a way that they would speak to us today, when the wisdom they have gained has been expanded.

I know that many people would not consider this a truly useful thought for humanity. If not only Mr. So-and-so were heard in the parliament of the present, but if Goethe or Schiller were also heard in the parliament, but really heard. In short, I believe that the idea of immortality can be grasped in a completely different way than in the selfish sense. It can be grasped in such a way that we not only believe in the existence of what a person has processed in his soul after death, but also in the fertility, in the effective influx of what has now been processed by him into life. Sometimes it is difficult to express such a thing in general terms, because among the thoughts that I mentioned last Sunday as emerging from the depths of the soul like our ideas, some are the thoughts of the dead. We have to realize that while we think we are having an idea, a dead person is speaking to us. Those who familiarize themselves with this idea know very well that many a dead person speaks through the heart of a living person after his death, saying things that he can only express after his “death. Until his physical death, a person may have had an obstacle in his physical organization that prevented him from seeing clearly. When his life organism has fallen away, he expresses himself about this matter in a way that corresponds to his life experience. Then one must only meet him halfway, then one must be able to free oneself from vanity, not to take some things as one's own idea, but as the saying of a dead person, which he may say after three to four years.

Believing in the effectiveness of those who have passed through the gate of death must become part of the future idea of immortality. My dear friends, it will be of no use to future humanity if it is merely convinced that there is a spiritual life. It will be of use to future humanity, of course not in a trivial sense, it will be of use to humanity only if it knows how to make fruitful for the living what the dead still achieve after their death, if it can be established that the living and the dead can live together. This will be possible if spiritual science is not treated as a theory, but is accepted as something that fertilizes our feelings and permeates our entire soul life. We will certainly have to get used to communicating with the dead!

We have already mentioned a number of things in our reflections on the relationship between the living and the dead, but I must always point out one thing. We must hold on to the fact that we remain connected to those who leave the earth and with whom we have somehow been karmically connected. The connection must not be an abstract one. The connection should become a concrete one, because the most striking thing in the life of the soul after death is that the life of the soul after death is pictorial, that what is to be established as a community between the soul of a living person here and the soul of a dead person must be clothed in imagery. Remembering does not build a bridge. Only when we remember in a concrete way, remembering life situations in which we were with the dead person, remembering them so clearly as if we had them in front of us, seeing each other, hearing the sound of his words, but the words he really spoke – what we have shaped from him in this way is an image that once existed, that once really lived on earth. We then proceed to behave within this image as we would have behaved if the “dead man were still alive; we ask him a question, we tell him this or that; he will not answer us at first, but in the way we indicated on Sunday, we may receive an answer under certain circumstances. It all depends on the image and on the fact that you really develop the images, complete them in your mind and present them to your soul. You cannot remain cold in the process; our whole soul is involved. Those who develop an image in this way will live out exactly the same love that they lived out here when the dead person was still around. If this love is not lived out, it is only because we do not make the effort to bring the image to life. If we stimulate our minds in this way to turn to the dead in a concrete way, in a pictorial way, in a way that is imbued with the soul, we gain the opportunity to build a bridge from us to that realm where the dead live and weave, then we gradually gain the opportunity to be able to bring in a living way the impulses that emanate from the dead. Our social and ethical life must become such that the dead live among us as souls, that they continue to work, but they cannot work in a ghostly way. Only by opening our souls to them can they enter into a real exchange. It is of infinite importance to acquire a sound judgment in this area, because it is precisely in this area that what I have said in general must be observed in each individual case.

People today already have the longing, the instinctive need, to come into contact with the spiritual world, they just reject the only possible ways of doing so at present. In this respect, even the most enlightened people prove to be very stubborn. I will give you an example that you may already know, but which I still want to present.

You see, a very important English naturalist is Sir Oliver Lodge. He has devoted much thought to the connection between man and the spiritual world, especially to the part where the so-called dead are. Now the war in particular led him to devote a great deal of attention to this matter. Mr. Lodge's son was called up to serve at the Franco-German front. And while Mr. Lodge's son was serving there, the father received a letter from America informing him that his son would be in a difficult situation in the near future, that is, in the west in the fall of 1915, but that after the disaster had occurred, old friend Myers, who had long since died, would protect his son.

Those who are familiar with the machinations in this area will not be surprised. This letter could be correct in two cases, among others. One could be: Mr. Lodge's son was almost killed at the front, but escaped with his life. In America, whoever made this announcement would have said that Myers had held his protective hand from beyond the grave to keep him from being shot. But if he had been shot, which is what happened, people believed that Mr. Myers would have held his hand protectively over it. But most people are very satisfied with such general things. Well. Mr. Lodge's son fell, and the waves from America followed up the matter. He received more letters that Myers held his hand over the soul and that the son's soul longed to connect with Lodge and his family. As is done in such a case, it all happens by itself, but the strings are pulled behind the scenes. Several mediums came to the Lodge home and behaved as mediums. All kinds of things were communicated that the soul of Mr. Lodge's son wanted to share with the family. Lodge wrote a thick book about it. It is exemplary in a sense because Lodge is a skilled naturalist and has mastered the scientific method. So everything is conscientiously carried out that you really have the opportunity everywhere in this book to see what was available. The book caused a tremendous stir. It was like a testimony to the existence of a world that connects to ours, in which the dead live, and that people long to know something about. But for those who read the book with the appropriate critical spirit, these things are not convincing.

The following passage caused the most sensation. The one medium reported from the son of Mr. Lodge that he had himself photographed with a group of comrades 14 days before he was killed at the front, and the medium described exactly: He sat with his comrades, the photographer took two pictures, and [in the first] picture, the son of the gentleman was holding his neighbor's hand like this, then the change that was made with the hand, with the whole gesture of the son of the gentleman Lodge - [all of that] was indicated exactly. [It] briefly [said] described the photograph in its various shots. The strange thing was that this photograph had not yet arrived in England, no one in the family could know anything about the photograph, so there could be no question of thought transfer. It was striking. It was, so to speak, an experimentum crucis. Because the photographs only arrived 14 to three weeks later, exactly as the medium had described them. This is, so to speak, the crowning glory of this thick book, which caused a tremendous stir in England and America. A conscientious naturalist, my dear friends, all kinds of things are presented to us, and one can understand that laypeople really have a hard time when a conscientious naturalist describes how to get out of the web that is spun there. However, I was a little surprised that Lodge did not know anything specific. For what was actually going on here? It was a very characteristic, beautiful school case of remote viewing. Everyone who is familiar with the spiritual scientific literature knows the cases where not only [spatial] but also [temporal] remote viewing occurs, where someone sees something today that will happen in a fortnight. The medium has done nothing more than describe the photographs that will be in front of the people 14 days or three weeks later. The whole manifestation is not the slightest proof that the soul of the son of Lord Lodge has manifested itself. A remote vision that was seen in Lodge's house in London three weeks ago, which was to happen. The vision did not go beyond the physical plane. It was a vision, but it did not go beyond the physical plane. Just such a distinction must be learned if one is to be truly spiritual. External events can deceive even those who are great practitioners in the mediumistic field.

Knowledge of nature must be experienced in such a way that one can say of these experiences: they cannot lead one into the spiritual world, even if they bring to light such facts that require forces other than those usually possessed by man. Only then will spiritual science be imbued with the right meaning it is intended to have. It must not be less critical and less exact than science. One must beware of what even a learned naturalist experiences through deception; but one will gradually become knowledgeable in such things. This will lead to the fact that spiritual-scientific methods, which are meant here, really lead to making the ideas of immortality fruitful. We must familiarize ourselves with the thought that the dead walk among us, that human social and ethical structures are pieced together with us.

Yesterday, because such thoughts must be said at most to those who are open to suggestions, I pointed to a certain basic law. While we must strive to seek the impulses in the soul itself that allow us to lead an awakening life even after the twenties, in the older times of human development after the Atlantic catastrophe, this was a natural, elementary fact of life in the older times of human development after the Atlantic catastrophe, that man lives to be old. In the first post-Atlantean period, it was really the case that he experienced his second dentition, his sexual maturity, in such a way that his spiritual life was dependent on the physical until the fifties, in the Persian period until the forties years, in the Egyptian-Chaldean time until the 25th to 32nd year; in a sense, humanity is getting younger and younger; it must be able to make itself older through inner spiritual schooling. We also spoke about this here on Sunday, insofar as [...] can be spoken in a public lecture. If you do not rely on the external historical documents, which are by no means correct, you will find in the seventh to eighth century before the Mystery of Golgotha that before the period, due to the special state of mind of the soul that was present, people actually knew about repeated earthly lives because living with the physical body beyond the age of 35 gave them that knowledge naturally. In ancient times, it was a matter of course for those who were not asleep to speak of repeated lives on earth. It was only after the seventh or eighth century BC that humanity lost the ability to speak of repeated lives on earth through atavistic contemplation.

What is this based on? You see, this human life, even as we find it here on earth between birth and death, is actually a very complicated thing. We are a microcosm and the macrocosm plays into this microcosm. Anyone who believes that human life is something simple only wants to follow his or her own convenience. When we have passed the age of 35, our physical organism enters into a certain organic stage, which can be described as such. Before that, however, only in the fine structures, which anatomists do not come across, life really goes downhill, and there were previously sprouting, sprouting forces. We no longer experience this today, because we only experience up to the 27th year. But because we do not experience this, we do not actually experience in a conscious sense today what can give us certainty of repeated earthly lives. Until the seventh or eighth century, all people had this certainty beyond the age of 35. From this 35th year onwards, the forces of Ahriman begin to play a strong role in our physical life. These Ahrimanic forces have the task of bringing about the other phenomenon of decline. If we live with them and transform them into knowledge, we have pointed Ahriman in the right direction. The Egyptians experienced the phenomenon of decline, experienced Ahriman. They experienced the knowledge of repeated earthly lives through what Ahriman causes in the phenomenon of decline of life. Then Ahriman became, so to speak, untraceable, insensible; one could no longer know through inner experience the repeated lives on earth. But another time will come, approximately in the year 4000 of the Christian era, so still a fairly long span of time from now on. Around 3500, as humanity continues to move downwards – today to 27 /gap in transcription] to 15. [gap in transcription] 28. [gap in transcription] 29. [gap in transcription] 30. [gap in transcription] 31. [gap in transcription] 32. [gap in transcription] 33. [gap in transcription] 34. [gap in transcription] 35. [gap in transcription] 36. [gap in transcription] 37. [gap in transcription] 38. [gap in transcription] 39. [gap in transcription] 40. [gap in transcription] 41. [gap in transcription] 42. [gap in transcription] 43. [gap in transcription] 44. [gap in transcription] 45. [gap in transcription] 46. [gap in transcription] 47. [gap in transcription]

In the year 4000, there will be a different influence. Then people will become aware of what is strongest in this respect at the beginning of their lives, because the ability to develop will end so early.

Another real result, which, you may find [gap in the transcript], although it is an enormous and disturbing event for the spiritual researcher to learn about, when it goes further down into the seven thousandth year, where the physical body will give even less. Women will be infertile in the seven thousandth year. The kind of human reproduction that is now, will no longer be possible. Another kind of reproduction will occur. The transformations that will occur to the earth will be great. These things sound crazy to today's people who have today's ways of thinking.

A professor in London gave a very witty lecture. Dewar described the final state of the earth, which will occur after millions of years. He used completely correct physical methods, of course, from the point of view of a physicist – absolutely nothing – to show that because the earth will cool down so much, the air we breathe today will be liquefied. What is now sea will be liquid air, and it will cover the earth as a liquid. Other gases will have become denser. And now he describes very ingeniously how the other substances will have changed. Certain wires, because they are thin, can only withstand a few kilograms today, but will then support tons because of the different state of the gases. All materials will have different properties. Other materials will become luminescent, the protein, it will be able to glow at night. And now, as he says very ingeniously, one will be able to read newspapers by the light that is then created by the walls coated with protein.

Anyone who is capable of thinking will wonder how it will happen that the milk that has been solidified will be milked by the newspapers, how the newspapers will be printed – in short, you can't get to the end of it. But the calculation is correct, the method is scientific. There is nothing to be said against the physical. But how is it done? You can follow the finer anatomical and physiological structure of the stomach or another human organ as it is in its 21st, 22nd year and so on. You can calculate further and work out what the organ will be like in 300 years. You can say: After 300 years the stomach will have this structure – only after 300 years the person will no longer have the stomach. So it is with calculations based on science; they are scientific, but not realistic. It will be possible to coat the walls, it will be possible to read newspapers with luminescent protein, it will be possible for milk to solidify - but the earth will have perished.

People will have to learn to think not only scientifically but also realistically. Because only in direct spiritual vision can one grasp what is happening. But there are such laws as I have described to you now. Humanity must learn not to shrink from what seems paradoxical to it today. Even the way of thinking. The healthy-sensing human being has always revolted against something like Laplace's theory. Grimm says: Long before Goethe's youth, it was known what was later called Laplace's theory; the sun is said to have formed with the planets in a certain time, then man, the animals; nothing else has to happen but that the sun is maintained at the appropriate temperature. Grimm adds: A piece of carrion circled by a hungry dog is a more appetizing piece than this theory of Laplace.

Just the most fundamental things of the present, that in the place of the today safely believed, but just fanatical /gap in the transcript] truth. But there people will often have to learn to stick to the truth, to really take in the truth in their soul, so that it becomes the basic character of the being, no longer to stick to the excuse: I heard it this way, I couldn't have known it any other way. The obligation to tell the truth.

Perhaps one would believe that in no other field is the obligation to tell the truth more far-fetched than in the field of present-day science. There one experiences quite distressing things. I will not speak of such things, which, as it were, are close to us personally. You will find a nice example in the second chapter of “Seelenrätsel,” where I showed how a contemporary researcher reads; another example of the same kind in the second edition of the same writing by the writer in question. There the person in question says that my “Philosophy of Freedom” is my first work. No one can take it any other way than as my first work. He looked it up and tried to talk his way out of it. He did not mean that it could be easily seen that this was my first book, but that it was my first theosophical book. Those who know the facts can only laugh at that.

Perhaps I can illustrate this point with another example. I gave a public lecture in which I was obliged to illustrate something that I drew, how the human physical organism is nothing short of a miracle. How it works in such a way that you can really see: what happens inside a person, even in just one part of the organism, is infinitely more wonderful than what happens externally on a musical instrument when the most wonderful piece is played. If you observe how the cerebrospinal fluid, in which the brain is embedded, is driven up and down through the spinal canal with each breath, through places that can more or less narrow or widen, will experience something like an interaction with the meninges of the spinal canal – sometimes one meninx widens more, sometimes less – and will really come to understand [that the human organism can be seen as an image of the macrocosm]. I was obliged to speak of cerebral fluid, and in the same lecture I was obliged to refute the merely symbolic view. The reporter wrote, among other things, the following: I had indeed rejected the symbolic, but I would use the most impossible terms in the most impossible places, for example, “cerebral fluid”.

My dear friends! Brain water is something very real, otherwise the brain would crush the blood vessels that lie beneath it. Brain water makes it possible for the brain to lose so much of its weight that it does not crush the veins. But the man who writes this has no idea that brain water is something real and not something symbolic to describe something that is not true.

There are thousands, millions of examples like this. I just want to point out that it is so necessary, that we feel obliged to say what we say, to give the prerequisite [gap in the transcript]

We will truly have to become clearer about some things than we are inclined to be today. We all know, of course, the development of Christianity, but you see, my dear friends, this is also necessarily connected with the fact that we are now also pursuing the outer side of the church in its truth, that we are looking into everything that must change if it is not to turn out even more disastrously. But the connection that exists is not known to some people at all. It lives between the lines of popular literature and creeps into the human soul. Not only do people who live on the outside not know, but neither do those whose profession it is. Very strange things are happening, and we must consider it our task in the present to look into such things. You know that you will get nowhere if you divide people into body and soul. Philosophy claims that it is an unconditional science. If you examine the individual links, you come to strange things. Wundt: “Body and soul” - he has no idea how little prejudice this division is. Where does it come from? It was elevated to a dogma after the Council of Constantinople in 869: “Man consists not of three, but of two members.” From this it became the case that in the Middle Ages the Trinity was frowned upon, was hereticized, and the philosophers live off that.

Recently, a wonderful piece occurred. A professor who is actually quite average and does nothing writes a little book in the collection of “nature and the spiritual world”, in which he speaks as befits a doctor [of classical philology, astrology and astronomy]. In the final chapter, he commented on Goethe's horoscope. He talked about what it is as a whole, he just wants to show that in the course of Goethe's life these things have turned out in such a way that the matter corresponds to the horoscope. He does not say: anyone who believes in a [gap in the transcript] is a rhinoceros; but he does say quite clearly that this is his opinion. Mauthner was furious that the professor was writing about a horoscope at all, and because he was angry, he didn't notice that the professor was writing from the same point of view, and wrote an angry feature article against this book. Those who know this book and the feature article couldn't imagine why Mauthner was so terribly angry. He means exactly the same thing.

Then the professor sent in his justification, explaining that he fully agreed with Mauthner, that it was based on a misunderstanding. The relevant journal wrote: They had nothing to add; they had not been able to convince themselves that a misunderstanding had occurred. They had sent the essay to Mauthner and he had not found that he had anything to say about it either. The people agree, but then they jump each other.

But that is significant of what is happening today in all possible fields. People wage war against each other, people feud with each other, and sometimes things are like between this gentleman and Mauthner. In their hearts of hearts they don't know why, because one is far removed from having such ideas, such conceptions, that are immersed in life, that are realistic. A thing can be very logical, but not realistic.

[This includes, my dear friends, a certain inner courage that must glow in the soul, a courage that people today know nothing about. When we point out in the present how spiritual science, in contrast to a world view that believes it offers reality but is far from it, how spiritual science has to bring the soul to immerse itself in reality, to live with the real. If we teach [gap in transcript] to live with the [gap in transcript], to grasp it, then some of what humanity needs so much to get out of the [gap in transcript] can be achieved, and the sense of unreality, the unreal thinking, is not to blame for the least part. If we try to make our relationship to time our guiding principle in this way, then we will understand spiritual science not only in theory, but [...] Again, it is particularly important here that not only what is among you lives, but that the intention lives on and is realized. The most important thing about spiritual science is that it works in our souls as a living impulse, in our soul continues [...]

The crisis in human development that has occurred since the middle of the 15th century can be observed in spiritual science, even if not anatomically, in the physical body. The transition from the mind or feeling soul to the consciousness soul is a very significant one. In the present period: consciousness soul, and so on.

The Greeks felt the etheric body, but modern man does not. The Greeks felt the etheric body within the physical body, the form of the arm, the hand and so on. This was gradually lost, around the eighth or ninth century, and was completely lost by the fifteenth century. Not only did people no longer feel their etheric body, but the physical body began to decrease in size. It dried up more and more, became less and less, and hardened more and more. In the past, human bodies were softer – roughly speaking.

The sixth or seventh millennium BC marks the beginning of the ancient Indian period. Life was very different back then. Children, and even people of thirty, looked up to the elderly with great reverence and trust. Now, at seven years of age, the teeth change; at fourteen years of age, sexual maturity sets in; at 21 years of age, ideals are established. This last change is hardly noticed anymore. In the primeval Indian period, this development continued. The spiritual and soul-like is increasingly being replaced. With each seven-year cycle, something new came into life that man had not experienced before. The youthful human being was then happy to become older and older. However, this developmental opportunity decreased more and more.

From the middle of the fifteenth century onwards, this development stopped at the age of 28, and now it is the case that we actually only receive something through the body up to the age of 27, and that is becoming less and less, so that people no longer receive anything through the body, so that they have to see to receive something through the spirit. Such observations have to be made in order to understand the meaning of historical development.

Lloyd George and Erzberger are examples of such self-made men who have only received what the world around us can give, and have received nothing more from the spiritual, from their own efforts and so on.

We would face terrible times if social conditions did not return to the patriarchal conditions of the primeval Indian times. In our sixties, we have certain qualities, depending on our childhood education experiences. If a child has learned at the appropriate age to fold his hands in prayer, then this person gains the ability to bless with his hand in his old age. These are the connections. From this you will see the importance of a living education. It depends on bringing what corresponds to the forces at work each year to the child. When teaching children of seven, one must not appeal to the intellect. But reading and writing do appeal to the intellect. In the Waldorf school, we want to start with painting, drawing, and music. Art engages the human will. Drawing and form drawing affects the whole person. From these forms and lines, writing should gradually develop and from writing, reading. Because this is even more intellectual than writing.

In fables and legends – from the age of nine – where the self is already becoming stronger, plants and animals will gradually be introduced into the curriculum. Each year must be approached in this way. Then what is taught remains for life. What the teacher transfers to the pupils with fire and zeal is based purely on authority. At a later age, this comes up again through the revival of what rests in the soul. As a result, one then knows and understands what one has previously absorbed. More and more, education must be such that one can look back on one's childhood as on a paradise. This is necessary if only because the bodies no longer give us anything.

We now have to bring a lot with us through the gateway of death that we have not processed, that we have not been able to live out. Therefore, we have the following: that the dead develop the urge to have an effect on the physical world. This should be investigated in the normal way, not mediumistically. The forces that can work from the dead into the physical world can do so in such a way that we do not ignore the forces. When we wake up, we slip into our physical and etheric bodies so quickly that we don't bring anything with us. We can change this by vividly imagining a dead person in the evening. Vividly: this is how the dead person was, this is how he lived, this is how I was with him; now ask the dead person a question and then fall asleep with it. Then you have, as it were, directed your nightly life to this dead person. Now the dead person can approach this question. If he is able to answer this question, then he will answer. But not immediately, but over time, and then the answer will come during the course of the day. And then the dead who want to have an effect on the physical world can carry this into the physical world.

I would not say this if I did not know it for a fact. I could not have written anything about Goethe if I had not first tried to see what Goethe would have said or would say now or in the 1860s. If I had not had the opportunity to do such serious research into the influence of the dead, I would not say this with such certainty. In brief: we are able to let the dead be our fellow citizens.

Then life becomes richer, but we also need this. Bridges must be built to the spiritual world. Especially young people bring a lot of undeveloped things into the spiritual world.

Christianity came from east to west – horizontally. Now spiritual entities are coming down – vertically. The fresh brains of the proletariat are coming to meet them – from bottom to top. There is only one salvation for the bourgeoisie today: to turn to spiritual thinking. It is a fact of world history that the spiritual must enter into people, into spiritual life. But many people today do not want to understand this. This realization makes us ripe to understand many things, for example, the egoism of religious denominations. Life after death is what the denominations must spread. But they should also teach life before birth or before conception. The present life is a continuation of the life before birth.

One more thing: the God of whom the religious denominations speak corresponds only to the angel within us.

In the West, people have tried to come together with the dead. They have directed mediums to them and given them special questions, for example: “How will the Balkan situation develop?” The people asked went into the mediumistic state with such questions. They then acted on the answers that came out, because in the West. They knew very well that they should turn to those people who knew how to give the right answers. For example, they turned to the Thugs in India because they knew very well that they could provide information about such things. These associations existed in India until they were dissolved by the police. In Germany, people didn't believe that because they are much too clever to believe what comes from the spiritual. It is different in the East. Tagore's speeches. The spiritual that still lives in him resonates through them. We tend more to the West than to the East. The bridge must be built from West to East.

The best translation of “Maya” today is “ideology.” Only in essence is the exact opposite regarded as Maya in the East and West.

In our spiritual life, we are steeped in Greek life; in our state life, we are attuned to the Romans; only in economic life have we had to tune ourselves to modern times. You cannot eat what the Greeks ate, but what is available now.

Then we come up to the archangeloi, the spirits of the people, and get to know them. Zeitgeister - Archai; Urgeister; Zeitempfindung.

In the West: mechanization of the spiritual. In the East: animalization of the bodies. In the middle: oversleeping, not understanding what is going on.

The animalization of the body in Russia as one path – the other: spiritual realization. This path must be chosen. Draw strength from spiritual impulses for one's social conscience. That is what I would like to have expressed from the deepest feeling, so that a sense of responsibility remains to take account of the times.

The Earthly, the Cosmic and the Present Christ

My dear friends!

Before I say anything else, please allow me to give you a brief report on the last few weeks. I will mention only a few things so that you here at the Goetheanum may be informed about what is going on in our movement.

After I had left Dornach and had dealt with other, internal matters in Stuttgart, the beginning of my public activity was on November 19 in Berlin, where I had to give the second lecture — the first is known to you - in the great hall of the Philharmonie, which was again filled to capacity. Then, after a eurythmy performance in Berlin, the Kristiania tour began. The first lectures in Copenhagen were on November 23 and 24. These two lectures were held at the request of the Pedagogical Association in Copenhagen. In them I had to discuss the principles and methods of anthroposophical education and didactics and to say something about the way the Waldorf School is run in Stuttgart. These lectures took place at the “Nobel Institute” and were very well attended. They were mainly attended by teachers; only a small number of seats had been allocated to members of our society. The second lecture — that was on Thursday, November 24th — was preceded by a lecture on the Vidar branch in Kristiania.

On the 25th, I then had to give a public lecture in Kristiania, organized by the student body, on “The Paths to Supernatural Knowledge”. It is worth mentioning that the lecture was able to be held in the largest hall in Kristiania, which holds over 2000 people, and that this hall was full to the last seat. Considering that there may not be many people in Kristiania who understand German to any great extent, one must nevertheless come to the conclusion that the anthroposophical movement is currently expanding to some extent.

On Saturday, November 26, I had to give a lecture at the student body of Kristiania itself, as part of the weekly student gatherings held on Saturdays. The public lecture on the previous Friday was arranged by the student body, but was open to the public. This lecture on Saturday had the same topic, but was of course then treated for the student body and within the framework of student associations.

On Sunday we had a eurythmy performance at 1 p.m. in the Kristiania National Theatre. Our friends were a little anxious, because it was a risk to give a eurythmy performance in the National Theatre, and besides, the house holds 2400 people when it is fully occupied, I believe. But on this day, it was filled to capacity. Taking all the circumstances into account, the audience received this eurythmy performance with great friendliness.

At 6 p.m. the second event for the “Vidar branch” took place. That was on Sunday, November 27th. And on Monday morning we were inundated with a veritable flood of sewage from all possible newspapers in Kristiania. It presented the absolute opposite of the picture that could actually be gained from the previous day. I have already experienced very bad things from these pages, but what has been done here is pretty much one of the very worst newspaper diatribes that can be mustered.

I had to remind them that a long time ago, when the intention of presenting eurythmy to the public was expressed, I gave a lecture to our eurythmists in which I pointed out that if eurythmy was brought into the public eye, it would experience the very worst of abuse. And this prophecy has rarely been fulfilled in such a magnificent way as on that Monday and Tuesday. The things lasted for a long time, because some people ranted two or three times.

On Monday evening, the first public lecture on anthroposophy organized by our friends took place in the old university auditorium. It was well attended and very warmly received, and not the slightest hint of what had happened outside in journalism was to be noticed. Then, on Tuesday at noon, I was invited by the theological association in Kristiania to speak about the Christ problem in a university auditorium, and that same evening I gave the second anthroposophy lecture organized by our friends.

On Wednesday, the lecture on economic issues, “The Cardinal Question of Economic Life,” took place at the request of the State Economic Association, also in the university auditorium. This lecture was attended by both economic theorists and economic practitioners. This was followed, not in the hall, but at a supper that had been organized, by a lively discussion of the relevant economic issues. The topics of the previous days of anthroposophical lectures were on Monday: “The Foundations of Anthroposophy”, on Tuesday: “The Human Being in the Light of Anthroposophy”.

On Wednesday we also had a very special treat. There was a very excited debate about whether a second eurythmy performance should be organized after the way things had gone. I said: perhaps it would have been possible to discuss whether a second eurythmy performance should take place in a city that is not too big after all, considering that 2400 people had already seen it – if it hadn't been for the ranting. But as it was, it was self-evident that I, for one, could not do without the second performance, so that every effort had to be made to get the National Theater for the second time, and if it could not be obtained, then another theater would have to be taken. - Now the greatest efforts were really made.

In particular, our friend Ingerö has earned the greatest merit.

On Wednesday there was a meeting of the 'Theater Association'. Among others, the father of our friend Morgenstierne, who is a professor, belongs to it. When he came to the supper of the State Economic Association that evening, he declared, “I have been slaughtered.” It had been such an agitated meeting that he felt slaughtered, and rightly so. And now, of course, we were refused the theater.

I thought that we should now definitely take on a different theater. That happened, and rehearsals were to begin on Thursday. Then there was a fire at the power station. Kristiania was plunged into darkness, and of course the theater was in darkness all day, and we had to hold the rehearsals by candlelight, but of course we did not let that stop us. Of course, we couldn't do any light experiments, because it was dark. This darkness began on Friday. On Friday evening, my second public student lecture was to be held in the large university auditorium. It was very uncertain whether anyone would come at all, because it was simply impossible to illuminate the university auditorium. It didn't seem to me to be an obstacle either, and we boldly made the attempt. I arrived in the evening. It was difficult to pass through the corridors, one had to be guided by a candle light. Then the lecture was held in the packed University auditorium with three acetylene lights. The topic was: “On the Necessity of a Renewal of Culture”. The lecture was very well received. One could not notice anything of the newspaper ranting, because they had now smelled a rat and continued their ranting throughout the whole week. It was, however, typical that in the middle of the first week, for example, an article was published that was compiled from all the criticism of the “Kommende Tag” and the “Futurum” that had ever been published in German newspapers. It was a very select selection that was published. In response, our friend Morgenstierne sat down and wrote a reply. Another friend went to the editor and said: “It's all lies, how can you print such a thing?” He replied: “Yes, I don't know anything about the matter myself, I haven't read anything by Dr. Steiner, I don't know anything, but the article was sent to us from a proven source, and that's why I printed it.” — “Yes, but then you also have to print a reply.” — “Yes!”

Our friend Morgenstierne then sent the retort, the publication of which had been promised. The next day there was an even bigger rant, which took up almost the entire page, and the retort was printed in very small print at the back of the page in the classifieds section.

An employee of a more decent newspaper did, after all, report quite objectively, for example, about the pedagogical lectures and the public lecture. In general, the lectures were not even treated unobjectively.

Then Saturday came. A dress rehearsal had to be done with a specially compiled program for certain reasons that I don't want to discuss here. This dress rehearsal could only be carried out by candlelight, so there was no lighting test, and I said we would just have to wait until the electric light came back on. It came back on at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and then the theater declared: We have to have the first rehearsal ourselves, because we've been waiting for it all these days. So we couldn't do the light test at 4 p.m., but only at 7 p.m. The performance was scheduled for 8 p.m. At 7:45 p.m., the doors were opened and the audience was let in. The performance was received in an extraordinarily friendly manner. The hall was not full; but that is only due to the fact that very few people could have considered that a theater might be lit in that particular neighborhood. But relatively speaking, the performance was not even poorly attended and, as I said, was received extremely warmly. On the other hand, the next day a review appeared in which it was said that it had been a scandalous success.

On Sunday I held the branch meeting for our members and that was the end of the campaign in Kristiania. There was then another eurythmy performance and then a branch event on Wednesday in Berlin. So these are the events that have taken place recently.

When I arrived here about three hours ago, I opened one of many letters by chance that was very interesting. Namely, three or four weeks ago a paper was published in Germany by a publisher in Hanover by a Dr. Michel called: “Rudolf Steiner, the Anthroposoph, a Philosophical Execution”. I believe that this paper has even been reviewed in the Threefolding newspaper. The letter I received today has the following content:

Darmstadt, 14.11. 21, Saurbergstr. 66

Dear Mr. Steiner,

the publisher Paul Steegemann of Hanover announced in the latest issue of the German book trade journal, Börsenblatt, a pamphlet of mine with the title: “Rudolf Steiner, the Anthroposoph; a philosophical execution”. This pamphlet does not and will not exist; I have not written it and will not write it. It is true that I promised Steegemann Publishers a collection of essays, which would include my article “The Anthroposophists” that appeared in the Berliner Tageblatt. It is also true that I am opposed to what is referred to as anthroposophy and what was presented here as such a few months ago. But this brochure does not exist; I would not have chosen the crude title “Execution”, quite apart from the fact that I do not know those of your achievements that are most highly regarded by your followers. I would like to add with all due respect that I don't feel the need to get to know you, but I am so unhappy about the tasteless publicity that the publisher has done without my knowledge that I would like to distance myself from it in any case. The publisher also claims that I am from Keyserling's Wisdom School, which is also a blatant lie. I am sharing all this with you for the sake of truth and to get out of the false, distorted light that this kind of advertising casts on me.

Yours very sincerely

Wilhelm Michel

So you see, you can't even rely on the authors anymore, because the authors declare that they didn't write the books!

Now, another letter stated that one can still say with a clear conscience today that anthroposophy is nevertheless making its way; but the anger is also growing ever greater, precisely because it is making its way. These things are definitely connected. So another letter brought a larger number of signatures from professors at the [Copenhagen] University, inviting me to give anthroposophical lectures there. What will come of it all, I do not know at present.

It is indeed the case that the anthroposophical movement is making its way through the world, and above all, it can be seen everywhere that there is a lively interest in the various branches that have emerged from the anthroposophical movement. On the other hand, however, the opposition is growing monstrously. Just to mention one example of this opposition: when I arrived in Berlin before the trip to Kristiania, our friend Mr. Gantenbein came to me and said: “I have just received a telephone call from Stuttgart telephone conversation that on the 24th in Munich a lecture will be given by the director of the Haeckel Archive, Professor Schmidt, on the basis of documents and letters that are in the Haeckel Archive. Now Dr. Kolisko wanted to know – because he might want to intervene in the discussion in Munich – what kind of criminal act the letters I once wrote to Haeckel could represent. I said that, of course, I could not at that moment reconstruct every single sentence that I had written to Haeckel about 25 years ago, but he should go there and see for himself what was going on. Well, he went. I then received a report about the Munich meeting.

Professor Schmidt gave a lecture in which he did not dare to say much about anthroposophy itself, as I believe he said himself. Instead, he read out some passages from letters that I had written to Haeckel. I was then sent the copies of these letters, and it was an extraordinary interest to me to read them again, for one after another begins [something like this]: “Dear Professor! I must express my most sincere thanks for the latest of your works, which you have again sent me.

The letters contain essentially nothing but expressions of gratitude for the books Haeckel had sent me about himself. But two letters that were not from me were particularly serious. I still have not seen them; but they were written to Haeckel by a friend of mine in 1901, I believe, without my knowing anything about it. Haeckel had known me for quite some time, to the extent that he had given me almost all of his works, bit by bit. Now this friend wrote to him that I was doing very badly and had no money, and that he should use his influence to get me a lectureship. I knew nothing about it, otherwise I would have pointed out the folly to him. I only learned of this fact now. And on the side of one of the letters was written, “Steiner — Theosophist,” in Haeckel's own pencil, so I heard. That seemed to be the only point of complaint, because it was used to construct: Aha! He didn't have any money back then, so he became a Theosophist to make as much money as possible. - I don't know, though, whether it would have been possible to get out of this dilemma that way, because Theosophical leadership in Germany was entirely honorless.

So that was contrived. The meeting seems to have been extraordinarily instructive, because it was held in a monist alliance. The chairman seems to have been extraordinarily amazed at this outpouring of monistic wisdom and says that he certainly cannot comprehend how it came about that this was organized; he is in favor of hearing about anthroposophy first and foremost. Dr. Kolisko was invited to speak, I believe. But that is something that perhaps should not be pointed out, otherwise it will be rescinded.

As you can see, the whole affair seems to have been a terrible embarrassment, but at least it shows you the means that are being resorted to. You have probably been able to read in the Dreigliederungszeitung what the “Bund zur Abwehr der anthroposophischen Gefahr” (Federation for the Defence against the Anthroposophical Danger), which was founded in Darmstadt, has achieved. As I said, I just wanted to give you this one example of the particular way in which such things are now being done. I could tell you a great deal about the most diverse kinds of opposition. But it is already clearly visible today that things grow with the spread of the movement.

After my return from Kristiania, I received an article from the “Kölnische Zeitung”, in which a geologist speaks out in an extraordinarily dismissive manner against the way in which I arranged the geological writings for the Weimar Goethe Edition in the 1890s; he would have arranged them quite differently, and he finds it completely ungeological the way I arranged them.

I do have my particular opinion about this kind of execution by a university geologist, however; because in the first paragraph of this newspaper article, it says that it is indeed strange when a young man writes such writings about Goethe; but he admits – the person in question – that he does not understand them. Well, I think that it is not particularly valuable to pass judgment on the fundamentally rather secondary question of whether a Goethe essay will be included in the edition sooner or later; after all, one can have the most diverse views on this, because one bases one's judgment on the principles one has formed about Goethe.

And if someone cannot understand these principles, then their judgment is not to be trusted. But I would like to give such gentlemen a piece of advice: they should dispute most vehemently any judgment of mine about linguistics. Because after going back so far in the decades, one should just go back a little further and check my school notebooks in Wiener Neustadt. I can guarantee that these school notebooks always contained a large number of grammatical errors up to the age of 14, and that punctuation in particular was extremely poor. I therefore believe that one can draw the justified conclusion from this that it is completely impossible for me to make a valid judgment about anything linguistic today! It seems to me that the investigations will soon have to be driven into this quagmire.

It occurred to me, without me wanting to draw a comparison, that the poet Robert Hamerling published his high school teaching certificate in his memoirs. This certificate, which was issued by the enlightened high school teaching examination board when Robert Hamerling was to take his high school teaching qualification, contains the following passage: The candidate is eminently qualified to teach Greek and Latin, however, one cannot help but say that with regard to the German language and style, he can hardly meet the most basic requirements of a grammar school teacher of the lower classes. Such samples could indeed be collected in many ways. Those who have experience in this field know how these things actually come about, that is, how they arise from the mind, because that is the more important thing.

That, my dear friends, is what I wanted to tell you about the progress of our movement. I must repeatedly draw your attention to the fact that you must be fully aware that the opposition is growing ever greater and greater.

Today I would like to say a few words that could be a kind of continuation of the explanations I gave you before my trip. I would like to talk about how, in a sense, what I have said on various occasions about the Christ problem can be summarized. I would like to do this because a paper has recently been published that characterizes, as it were, “newer religious movements,” and among these also discusses anthroposophy. In this paper, one might say, the tone is actually quite benevolent. You see, I have given our friends in Kristiania some consolation for the terrible things that they too have had to endure in the newspapers. I said: If the newspaper reviews had been so one-sided as to bring them extraordinary praise, then I would have had to consider what is wrong with anthroposophy and what can be improved. But now, for some time, one can be encouraged again; because it would have been very bad if things had turned out differently.

So, a publication has appeared that expresses itself in an actually benevolent intention about the religious content of anthroposophy. It is said that it would be quite nice if the religious feeling of the present were to receive support from anthroposophy. But that cannot be the case, because then the religious movement would have to watch as anthroposophy points people to the higher worlds. The higher worlds would be pointed out from a different side than that of the appointed representatives of religion, and if that were to attract followers, they would not be followers of religion, but followers of anthroposophy, from which one must therefore conclude that the life of anthroposophy means the death of religion.

This sentence is included in the first part of these discussions as something special. And there it is, as with so much, referred to the Cosmic Christ. Of course, everything that can be said about gnosticism and the like is brought up again, and then it is said: To present the Christ as an extraterrestrial, cosmic being is an insult to anyone who feels religious.

Now, since this is actually being said from a benevolent side, benevolent in relation to anthroposophy, as well as in relation to religious renewal, I must confess that I found that the matter had to be considered: How is it that people who, after all, cannot change their minds but are nonetheless well-meaning, come to the conclusion that the Christology of Anthroposophy is even offensive to a Christian, as he should be according to the opinion of such public representatives - because the person in question who wrote the book is a professor of theology. So it is a matter of considering what is actually at the root of this.

My dear friends, first of all we must consider what we have always presented regarding the twofold experience, the Father-experience, that is, the experience of God permeating the world, and the Christ-experience as such, which, for example, is not separated by people like Harnack from the general experience of God, from the Father-experience. I have presented this to you. It can be shown, and this must actually be striven for in the present, that there must be two experiences in man: one that comes from a truly correct contemplation of nature and of the physical existence of man, and the other that comes from the soul to the experience of the Son. The two experiences must occur in man in a completely separate way, so that the Christ-experience is a special experience. But this is not the case with most of the present official representatives of the Christian denominations. In his book 'The Essence of Christianity', for example, Harnack says that Christ does not belong in the Gospels, only the Father; so it should not be about having Christ or an image of Christ in the Gospels. The Gospels are not meant by rights to speak about the Christ, but only about what the Christ says about the Father.

This is extremely characteristic, because for anyone who can think impartially, Harnack's concept of Christ is denied the ability to be a Christianity at all. For there is no difference between the old teaching of Yahweh and Christology when it is said: the Christ does not belong in the Gospels, only the Father. For then the Christ is merely the Father's teacher, and then we really have no difference between the Christ-Jesus of these theologians and the Jesus whom, for example, an ordinary secular historian, Ranke, describes. That is just “the simple man from Nazareth,” certainly a peak of historical human development, but just the simple man from Nazareth. Actually, there is nothing of the Mystery of Golgotha in

such a so-called Christian discussion. But the individual human being can have the separate Christ-experience in the present, especially if he feels the modern sense of self in the right way. But then, I would like to say, one has the Christ who is present and walking among us spiritually, and not yet the historical Christ-Jesus who went through the Mystery of Golgotha.

Now it is a matter of also understanding this Christ-Jesus historically. This can be done in the following way. One follows the historical development of humanity up to the time when the Mystery of Golgotha took place. You know that this is the fourth post-Atlantean period.

Now let us assume that I have to talk to you today about the historical development of humanity without the Mystery of Golgotha having taken place in the Pauline sense; then I would not be able to talk to you about anything other than the pale skull site of Golgotha. Because what happened at this pale skull site of Golgotha would not have a supersensible significance. The Christ could not be understood as a supermundane, cosmic being.

During this period, the preliminary experience of the I first occurred. This can also be proven philologically by examining the languages. However, the actual experience of the I for Western humanity in the various branches of the life of consciousness did not occur until the first third of the 15th century, but it spread from the fourth post-Atlantic period.

The peoples who lived before the mystery of Golgotha had, as you know, an ancient wisdom in the most ancient times. This primal wisdom has indeed taken on very different forms among different peoples. But, however it may have been differentiated in the most diverse ways, in religious terms it was a wisdom of the Father-God, and anyone today who, in complete impartiality, takes in what can be established about the primal wisdom of different peoples, what can be gleaned from the records and documents of the nations, even in the Vedas, which I have often discussed, one will find that one must have the deepest reverence for what appeared in the most ancient times as primordial wisdom in the development of mankind

and has always been directed by the mysteries to the appropriate heights. But now this ancient wisdom is gradually dying out, and it is diminishing to the same extent that the instinctive old way of consciousness is diminishing. But to the same extent, self-awareness is also emerging in humanity, and with it the claim to human freedom.

Why was it that ancient pre-Christian humanity could have a wisdom of God that still instills the deepest reverence in us today when we look at it impartially? Precisely because consciousness had not yet penetrated to egoity, to the I, because what man brought forth from his being, when he considered himself in connection with the environment, gave him the Father consciousness in the most diverse forms. I have said it before: one cannot become an atheist if one is completely healthy. Atheism can be traced back to some kind of physical deficiency. But because these ancient peoples had a certain divine inheritance, this father consciousness arose from their overall feeling as human beings, from their total feeling and from the intuitive wisdom that flowed from it. As I said, this faded towards the fourth post-Atlantic period.

Everything is individual when it is really considered impartially, not in the sense of today's inadequate scientific method. In the deepest sense, it points to what has just occurred as a break in human development in this fourth post-Atlantic period, for example between Greek and Latin-Roman development. I have already mentioned many things, and I could still characterize many more. I just want to draw attention to one thing: if you still learn Greek today, you have to give the letters names: Alpha, Beta and so on, while in Roman times the names for the letters have already been absorbed; it is now just an “alphabet”, A, B, C and so on.

This happened during the transition to the abstract nature of the Roman language, the Romance language, and as a result, the understanding that something was originally given with language that had an inner connection, and that with language, humans were given a gift from the genius of language at the same time, was actually lost. These things must be researched because, as I am only able to hint at today, we cannot arrive at a thorough didactics of language teaching, as it must be in a truly serious school, such as a Waldorf school, if we do not pursue serious language studies; today's studies are not serious if we do not understand what it means that we now take the Greek letters alpha, beta, gamma and so on for granted, and merely refer to the Latin letters as letters: A, B, C and so on. Something of the genius of language was given to humanity, which I have to describe to you - as you know - as a real, actual being. In all kinds of orders one speaks of the “lost word”, but nowhere does one know what it is. It was simply with what we call the alphabet, if one simply pronounced the letters in succession, a world proclamation was given. Take for example the Greek Alpha. For anyone studying languages today, this is of the utmost importance. I hope that these language studies in particular can now be pursued in detail by Waldorf teachers, whom I have encouraged to do so, because we need these things in order to be able to use them practically in our teaching. If you form the word Alpha - but you have to take it fully - you have something that means “man”; and in “Beta” you have “house”. So that the word pronounced in the first two letters means: Man in his house. And then it continues through gamma and the other letters. And when you complete the alphabet, you get a deep meaning from the simple enumeration of the respective words that the letters mean.

This was later lost, completely disappeared in humanity, when the word that consists of all the letters of the alphabet. And today one speaks in “Freemason orders” of the “lost word”, but actually does not speak of something that really exists, because hardly anything suspects this reality.

But analyze the Greek alphabet and you will trace it back to the Hebrew: Aleph, Beth and so on, the alphabet always begins with: Man in his house. And then it continues. So world wisdom is revealed with the alphabet. Now, in the fourth post-Atlantic period, that which leads more and more to self-awareness emerged. It happened in stages, and I have already hinted at the important events that took place in the fourth Christian century, for example. However, as the sense of self emerged, something else emerged to the same extent. The I, the sense of self, that which the human being experiences by coming to full self-awareness, comes only from the physical body. Study everything else today, and you will receive influences from a supersensible existence, an existence from outside of life between birth and death. The sense of self that the human being has is a creation of what is experienced in the physical body between birth and death. In the next reflection, I will explain the full significance of self-awareness to you, but for now I would just like to mention it. However, the fact that the self-awareness of earthly man initially only comes from the physical body made those who were initiated through the mysteries in the fourth post-Atlantean period feel ill. They felt the culture was mentally ill. And that was a mystery view of the fourth post-Atlantic period: culture is mentally ill and needs a healer. This was deeply ingrained, and it is interesting to see how the Greek people, who were striving for health through and through, perceived this cultural illness.

You see, long, learned treatises have been written about the word “catharsis” associated with the mysteries. This was used to describe something that lives in the development of a tragedy by Aeschylus or Sophocles for the Greek tragedy. As I said, great scholarly treatises have been written about it. You know that from Lessing to the present day, speculations have been made about it; half-truths and quarter-truths have been found, but the right one has not been found. Lessing said: Fear and compassion should be stimulated, which in turn should be overcome. The soul should, so to speak, be healed of these passions by evoking them in this way.

But the most important thing is that “catharsis” is actually a medical term, and that it indicates that in Greece there was still an essential connection, let us say, for example, between Hippocrates and Aeschylus. The healthy Greek feeling sensed the cultural disease, and in the Aeschylus drama one sensed something like a healing. Therefore, one spoke in favor of the course, for the construction of the drama of catharsis, of the crisis that is overcome. One really spoke in medical terms of this catharsis. And if you look at historical development from this point of view, you will look with a special eye at the Essenes, especially at the therapists. Why did they call themselves “therapists”? Because they wanted to work on the recovery of the culture that had become ill.

And all this was preparation for the great healer, for Christ Jesus, for the actual savior. And it is not some superficiality, but is deeply rooted in the mystery knowledge of human development that the entry of the Mystery of Golgotha signifies a therapy for the historical development of humanity, and that if one were to speak of human development today without the Mystery of Golgotha having been there, one would have to say: human development is going downhill. One could only point to the bleaching skull place of Golgotha.

With full consciousness, it must be pointed out that the Mystery of Golgotha occurred at the right time and that it could not have come from the earth, but from outside the earth. For everything that had happened on earth in the development of humanity was at the stage in which the Greeks and the people of the Near East saw it, the therapists, until the “great therapist” came.

This actually leads to a correct and inward view of history. And from such a view of history, one is simply led to the historical event of the Mystery of Golgotha, to the historical Christ-Jesus. That is the way. This will be further explained next time.

But why does theology in particular oppose this extraterrestrial, this cosmic Christ? Why does theology say: That is insulting, that the Christ should be a sun being? Well, my dear friends, the reason for this is that theology itself has become materialistic. If we go back to the ancient wisdom, which was still instinctive, we see that people did not look up into the cosmic order and say: up there is the sun, which is a glowing ball of gas, but they looked up to the spiritual beings that were in the starry heavens. Whoever speaks of the being of the sun as the Christ does not speak of the material sun, but of the spiritual essence of the cosmos. We know how it is spoken of in theology today; there, too, one sees nothing but something that is calculated like a machine. And because extraterrestrial space is merely material — according to the view of such materialistic theologians —, anthroposophy, of course, makes the Christ, by declaring him to be a solar being, a merely material being as well.

So, because contemporary theology is so deeply infected by the materialism of the present day that it is taken for granted that when one speaks of the solar being, one is only talking about something material, it says: It is insulting. Because, isn't it true that anyone who, infected by conventional science, imagines a sun being coming to earth, imagines – and I don't mean to make a slip here, but I say this out of a desire to be understood – that something flies out of the sun and onto the earth, at most thinks of a shooting star. And so the theologian, based on his materialism, basically has the opinion: yes, when anthroposophy speaks of the Christ as a being of the sun that comes from the sun to the earth, it speaks of the Christ as a shooting star, a meteor. This can only come from materialism; people can no longer think in any other way than in material terms.

You have to go back to the elements if you want to understand at all why theologians might say that it is offensive when anthroposophy associates the Christ with an extraterrestrial being. Here you can see how contemporary theology is caught up in materialism, so to speak.

Now, I have tried to make it clear to you that Christ as the savior must be understood in a real, higher, medical sense. Of course, this will offend many theologians, because the fact that I have associated the word savior with the Heliand of German poetry, “Heliand,” has, it seems, deeply hurt Pastor Kully, who finds it extremely offensive and believes that it is as hollow as his own arguments. But I would like

emphasize: the benevolent theological writing I spoke to you about is not by Pastor Kully – lest you fall into the error of thinking it is – but from a slightly different source. From this, my dear friends, you can see that the Christology of anthroposophy can and must always be further deepened, because the present time demands that the Christ be understood again, that we can again rise to a real understanding of the Christ in the Jesus.