THE
WAY OF INITIATION
I
THE
SUPERPHYSICAL WORLD AND ITS GNOSIS*
*Translated from
Lucifer-Gnosis (May to Dec. 1904), a theosophical magazine, published
by M. Altmann, Leipzig, and edited by Dr. Rudolf Steiner (17
Motzstrasse, Berlin, W.). This translation appeared first in the
Theosophist (October 1907–June 1908), a magazine of
Brotherhood, of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science, and of
Occultism. Edited by Annie Besant, President of the Theosophical
Society, Adyar, Madras.
It is
natural that most people, who hear of transcendental truths in our
time, should at once put the question: “How may we attain to
such knowledge for ourselves?” Indeed, it is often remarked as
a characteristic of people today, that they will accept nothing on
faith, on mere “authority,” but wish rather to rely
entirely upon their own judgment. And therefore it is that when
mystics and theosophists profess to know something of the
superphysical nature of man, and of the destiny of the human soul and
spirit before birth and after death, they are at once confronted with
this fundamental demand of our day. Such dogmas, they seem to say,
have only an importance for anyone when you have shown him the way by
which he may convince himself of their truth.
This
demand is quite justified; and never could any true mystic or
theosophist fail to recognise it. But it is equally certain that with
many who make it, there exists a feeling of scepticism or antagonism
toward the assertions of the mystic. This feeling becomes especially
marled when the mystic sets out by intimating how the truths which he
has described may be attained. For then people often say to him:
“What is true may be demonstrated; therefore, prove to us what
you assert.” Furthermore, they imply that the truth must be
something clear and simple, something which a. “modest”
intellect may comprehend; surely, they seem to say, it cannot be the
possession: of a chosen few, to whoa it is given by a “special
revelation!” And in this way the messenger of transcendental
truths is frequently confronted with people who reject him, because
— unlike the scientist, for example — he can produce no
proofs for his assertions, of such a nature as they can themselves
understand. Again, there are some who more cautiously reject these
matters, but who nevertheless, refuse any close connection with them
because, they think, they do not seem reasonable. Thereupon they
soothe themselves, though not entirely, by saying that we cannot know
anything of what lies beyond birth or death, of what we cannot
perceive with our senses.
These are
but a few of the conceptions and criticisms with which today the
messenger of a spiritual philosophy has to deal. But they are similar
to all those that compose the key-note of our time. And he who puts
himself at the service of a spiritual movement must recognise this
key-note quite clearly.
For his
own part, the mystic is aware that his knowledge rests upon
superphysical facts; just as facts, for example, form the foundation
of the experiences and observations described by a traveller in
Africa. To the mystic applies what Annie Besant has said in her
manual, “Death — and After?”
“A
seasoned African explorer would care but little for the criticisms
passed on his report by persons who had never been thither; he might
tell what he saw, describe the animals whose habits he had studied,
sketched the country he had traversed, sum up its products and its
characteristics. If he was contradicted, laughed at, set right, by
untravelled critics, he would be neither ruffled nor distressed, but
would merely leave them alone. Ignorance cannot convince knowledge by
repeated asseveration of its nescience. The opinion of a hundred
persons on a subject of which they are wholly ignorant is of no more
weight than the opinion of one such person. Evidence is strengthened
by many consenting witnesses, testifying each to his knowledge of a
fact, but nothing multiplied a thousand times remains
nothing.”
Here is
expressed the mystic's view of himself. He hears the objections which
are raised on every side, yet he knows that he has no need to dispute
them. He realises that his certain knowledge is being criticised by
those who have not experienced or felt as he himself has done. He is
in the position of a mathematician who has discovered a truth which
loses no value though a thousand voices are raised in opposition.
Here at
once will arise the objection of the sceptic: “Mathematical
truths may be proved to anyone,” he will say, “and though
perhaps you have really found something, I shall only accept it when
I have learnt of its truth by my, own observation.” Then he
considers himself to be in the right, because, as he thinks, it is
clear that anyone who acquires the necessary knowledge can prove a
mathematical truth, while the experiences professed by the mystic
depend upon the special faculties of a few elect people, whom he is
expected to believe blindly.
But for
him who rightly considers this objection, any justification for the
doubt immediately vanishes. For every true mystic will here speak
just like the very sceptics themselves. He will always emphasise the
truth that the way to the Higher Knowledge is open for anyone who has
acquired for himself the faculties by which he may win entrance. The
mystic asserts nothing which his opponents would not also be
compelled to assert, if they did but fully understand what they are
saying. They, however, in making an assertion, at once formulate a
claim which constitutes a direct contradiction of their own
assertion.
Sceptics
are not content to test the assertions of the mystic only when they
have acquired the necessary faculties, but rather judge him according
to their present faculties, and not with those which he is bound to
demand. He says to them; “I do not claim to be
‘chosen’ in the sense that you mean. I have merely worked
within myself, in order to acquire these powers through which it is
possible to speak of glimpses into superphysical regions. But these
faculties are dormant within everyone, only they must be
developed.” But his opponents then answer: “You must
prove your truths to us as we are now.” They will not meet his
demand that they should develop, first, the dormant powers within
them, but rather, without being willing to do so, insist that he
shall give there proofs. Nor do they see that this is exactly as if a
peasant at his plough should demand of the mathematician the proof of
a complicated problem without first undergoing the trouble of
learning mathematics.
All this
appears to be so simple that one almost hesitates to speak of it. And
yet it indicates a delusion under which millions of people at the
present time are living. If one explains it to them they always agree
with it in theory, since it is quite as obvious as that two and two
make four. Yet in practice they continually contradict it. One can
very soon convince oneself of that. Tue mistake has become second
nature with many; they practise it without any longer realising that
they do so, without desiring to be convinced of it, just as they
offend against everything which they would at all times allow to pass
for a principle of the simplest nature, could they only consider it
quietly. It matters not whether the mystic of today moves in a circle
of thinking artisans, or in a more educated circle, for wherever he
goes he meets with the same prejudice, the same self-contradiction.
One finds it in popular lectures, in all the newspapers and
magazines, and even in more learned works or treatises.
And here
we must recognise quite clearly that we are dealing with a sign of
the time which we cannot simply consider as mere incompetence, nor
expose as criticism, correct perhaps, but nevertheless not just. We
must understand that this symptom, this prejudice against the higher
truths, lies deep in the very being of our age. We must understand
clearly that the great successes, the immense advance, which
distinguish it, necessarily tend toward this mistake. The nineteenth
century especially had in this respect a dark side to its wonderful
excellences. Its greatness rests upon its discoveries in the external
world, and its conquest of natural forces for technical and
industrial purposes. These successes could only have been attained by
the observation of the senses, and afterwards by the employment of
the mind noon what the senses had thus perceived. The civilisation of
the present day is the result of the training of our senses, and of
that part of our mind which is occupied with the world of sense.
Almost every step we take in the street today shows us how much we
owe to this kind of training. And it is under the influence of these
blessings of civilisation that the habits of thought prevalent among
our fellowmen of today have been developed. They continue to abide by
the senses and the mind, because it is by means of these that they
have grown great. People were taught to train themselves to admit
nothing as true except those things that were presented to them by
the senses or the mind. And nothing is more apt to claim for itself
the only valid testimony, the only absolute authority, than the mind
or the senses. If a man has acquired by means of them a certain
degree of culture, he thenceforth accustoms himself to submit
everything to their consideration, everything to their criticism. And
again in another sphere, in the domain of Social Life, we find a
similar trait. The man of the nineteenth century insisted, in the
fullest sense of the word, upon the absolute freedom of personality,
and repudiated any authority in the Social Commonwealth. He
endeavoured to construct the community in such a way that the full
independence, the self-chosen vocation of each individual, should,
without interference, be assured. In this way it became habitual for
him to consider everything from the standpoint of the average
individual. The higher powers which lie dormant in the soul may be
developed by one person in this direction, by another in that. One
will make more progress, another less. When they develop such powers,
or when they attach any value to them, men begin to differentiate
themselves. One must also, if one admits their existence, allow to
the man who has progressed further, more right to speak on a subject,
or to act in a certain way, than to another who is less advanced. But
with regard to the senses and the mind, one may employ an average
standard. All have there the same rights, the same liberty.
It is
also noticeable that the present formation of the Social Commonwealth
has helped to bring about a revolt against the higher powers of man.
According to the mystic, civilisation during the nineteenth century
has altogether moved along physical lines; and people have accustomed
themselves to move on the physical plane alone, and to feel at home
there. The higher powers are only developed on planes other than the
physical, and the knowledge which these faculties bring has,
therefore, become alien to man. It is only necessary to attend
mass-meetings, if one wishes to be convinced of the fact that the
speakers there are totally unable to think any thoughts but those
which refer to the physical plane, the world of sense. This can also
be seen among the leading journalists of our papers and magazines;
and, indeed, on all sides one can observe the haughtiest and most
complete denial of everything that cannot be seen with the eyes, or
felt with the hands, or comprehended by the average mind. Once more
let it be said that we do not condemn this attitude. It denotes a
necessary stage in the development of humanity. Without the pride and
prejudices of mind and sense, we should never have achieved our great
conquests over material life, nor have been able to impart to the
personality a certain measure of elasticity: neither could we hope
that many ideals, which must be founded on man's desire for freedom
and the assertion of personality, might yet be realised.
But this
dark side of a purely materialistic civilisation has deeply affected
the whole being of the modern man. For proof it is not necessary to
refer to the obvious facts already named; it would be easy to
demonstrate by certain examples which are lightly underrated,
especially today, how deeply rooted in the mind of the modern man is
this adhesion to the testimony of the senses, or the average
intelligence. And it is just these things that indicate the need for
the renewal of spiritual life.
The
strong response evoked by Professor Friedrich Delitzsch's Babel and
Bible Theory fully justifies a reference to its author's method of
thinking, as a sign of the time. Professor Delitzsch has demonstrated
the relationship of certain traditions in the Old Testament to the
Babylonian accounts of the Creation, and this fact, coming from such
a source and in such a form, has been realised by many who would
otherwise have ignored such questions. It has led many to reconsider
the so-called idea of Revelation. They ask themselves: How is it
possible to accept the idea that the contents of the Old Testament
were revealed by God, when we find very similar conceptions among
decidedly heathen nations? This problem cannot here be further
discussed. Delitzsch found many opponents who feared lest, through
iris exposition, the very foundations of Religion had been shaken. He
has defended himself in a pamphlet, Babel and Bible, a Retrospect and
a Forecast. Here we shall only refer to a single sentence in the
pamphlet. It is an important sentence, because it reveals the view of
an eminent man of science regarding the position of man with respect
to transcendental truths. And today innumerable other people think
and feel just like Delitzsch. The sentence affords an excellent
opportunity for us to find out what is the innermost conviction of
our contemporaries, expressed here quite freely and therefore in its
truest form.
Delitzsch
turns to those who reproach him with a somewhat liberal use of the
term “Revelation,” who would fain regard it as “a
kind of old priestly wisdom” which “has nothing at all to
do with the layman.” In opposition to this he says:
“For my part, I am of opinion that while our children or
ourselves are instructed in school or at church as regards
Revelation, not only are we within our right, but it is our duty, to
think independently concerning these deep questions, possessing also,
as they do, an eminently practical side, were it only that we might
avoid giving our children ‘evasive’ answers. For this
very reason it will be gratifying to many searchers after Truth when
the dogma of a special ‘choosing’ of Israel shall have
been brought forward into the light of a wider historical outlook,
though the union of Babylonian, Assyrian, and Old Testament research.
... (A few pages earlier we are shown the direction of such
thoughts.) For the rest, it would seem to me that the only logical
thing is for Church and School to be satisfied as regards the whole
past history of the world and of humanity, with the belief in One
Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth, and that these tales of the Old
Testament should be classified by themselves under some such title as
‘Old Hebraic Myths.’”
(It may
be taken as a matter of course, we suppose, that no one will see in
the following remarks an attack on the investigator Delitzsch.) What,
then, is here said in naive simplicity? Nothing less than that the
mind which is engaged upon physical investigation may assert the
right of judging: experiences of superphysical nature. There is no
thought that this mind, without further preparing itself, may perhaps
be unfit to reflect upon the teachings of these
“Revelations.” When one wishes to understand what appears
as a “Revelation,” one cannot do so unless one brings to
bear upon it those forces out of which the “Revelation”
itself has come.
He who
develops within himself the mystical power of perception soon
observes that in certain stories of the Old Testament which were
called by Delitzsch “Old Hebraic Myths,” there are
revealed to him truths of a higher nature than those which may be
comprehended by the intellect, which is only concerned with the
things of sense. His own mystical experiences will lead him to see
that these “Myths” have proceeded out of a mystical
perception of transcendental truths. And then, in one moment, his
whole point of view is changed.
As little
as one can demonstrate the fallacy of a mathematical problem by
discovering who solved it first, or even that several people have
solved it — which would certainly be a valuable historical
discovery — just so little can one impugn the truth of a
biblical narrative by the discovery of a similar story elsewhere.
Instead of demanding that everyone should insist upon his right, or
even his duty, to think independently on the so-called
“Revelations,” we ought rather to consider that only he
has a. right to decide anything about the matter who has developed in
himself those latent powers which make it possible for him to relive
what was once realised by those very mystics who proclaimed the
“super-sensuous revelations.”
Here we
have an excellent example of how the average intellect, qualified for
the highest triumphs in practical sense-knowledge, sets itself up, in
naive pride, as a judge in domains, the existence of which it does
not even care to learn. For purely historical investigation is also
carried on by nothing but the experience of the senses.
In just
the same way has the investigation of the New Testament led us into a
blind alley. At all costs the method of the “Newer Historical
Investigation” had to be directed upon the Gospels. These
documents have been compared with each other, and brought into
relation with all sorts of things, in order that we might find out
what really happened in Palestine from the year 1 to the year 33; how
the “historical personality” of whom they tell really
lived, and what He can really have said.
Now a man
of the seventeenth century, Angelus Silesius, has already expressed
the whole of the critical attitude toward this kind of
investigation:
“Though Christ were
yearly born in Bethlehem, and never Had birth in you yourself, teen
were you lost for ever; And if within yourself it is not reared
again, The Cross at Golgotha can save you not from pain.”
Nor are
these the words of one who doubted, but of a Christian, strong in his
belief. And his equally fervent predecessor, Meister Eckhart, said in
the thirteenth century:
“There are some who
desire to see God with their eyes, as they look at a cow; and just as
they love a cow, so they desire to love God. ... Simple-minded people
imagine that God may be seen as if He stood there and they stood
here. But this is not so: in that perception, God and I are
one,”
These
words must emphatically not be directed against investigation of
“historical truth.” Yet no one can rightly understand the
historic truth of such documents as the Gospels, unless he has first
experienced within himself the mystical meaning which they contain.
All such comparisons and analyses are quite worthless, for no one can
discover who was “born in Bethlehem” but he who has
mystically experienced the Christ within himself; neither can anyone
in whom it has not already been erected, decide how it is that
“the Cross at Golgotha” can deliver us from pain. Purely
historical investigation “can discover no more concerning the
mystic reality than the dismembering anatomist, perhaps, can discover
the secret of a great poetical genius.” (See my book,
Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache,
Berlin, C. A. Schwetschke and Sohn, 1902, or its French translation,
mentioned on page 1.)
He who
can see clearly in these matters is aware how deeply rooted, at the
present time, is the “pride” of the intellect, which only
concerns itself with the facts of sense. It says: “I do not
wish to develop faculties in order that I may reach the higher
truths; I wish to form my decisions concerning them with the powers
that I now possess.”
In a
well-meant pamphlet, which is written, however, entirely in that
spirit of the age which we have already indicated (What do we know
about Jesus? by A. Kalthoff, Berlin, 1904), we read as follows:
“Christ, who symbolises the life of the Community, may be
discerned within himself by the man of today: out of his own soul the
man of today can create Christ just as well as the author of a gospel
created him; as a man he may put himself in the same position as the
gospel-writers, because he can reinstate himself into the same
soul-processes, can himself speak or write Gospel.”
These
words may be true, but they may also be entirely erroneous. They are
true when understood in the sense of Angelus Silesius, or of Meister
Eckhart, when they are referred to the development of powers dormant
in every human soul, which, from some such idea, endeavours to
experience within itself the Christ of the Gospels. They are
altogether wrong, if a more or less shallow ideal of the Christ is
thus created out of the spirit of an age that acknowledges the truth
of no perceptions but those of the senses.
The life
of the Spirit can only be understood when we do not wish to criticise
it with the lower mind, but rather to develop ourselves for it
internally. No one can hope to learn anything of the highest truths
accessible to man, if he demands that they shall be lowered to the
“average understanding.” To this it might be objected:
Why, then, do you, mystics and theosophists, proclaim these truths to
people who, as you declare, cannot as yet understand them? Why should
there be a Theosophical Movement which proclaims certain teachings,
when the powers which bring men to the perception of them ought first
to be developed?
It is the
task of this book to solve this apparent contradiction. It will show
that the spiritual currents of our day speak from a different basis,
in a different manner, from the science which relies entirely on the
lower intellect. Yet, in spite of this, the spiritual currents are
not less scientific than the science which is based upon physical
facts alone. Rather do they extend the field of scientific
investigation into the superphysical. We must close this chapter with
one more question, which will perhaps be asked: How can one attain to
superphysical truths, and, towards this attainment, of what help are
spiritual movements?
|