Reincarnation and Karma
From the Point of View of Modern
Scientific Thought
26th March, 1903
During the 17th
century the Italian Scientist, Francesco Redi, was looked upon
by the leading scientific circles as a dangerous heretic because
he asserted that the lower animals reproduced themselves. He
barely escaped the martyr's death of Giordano Bruno and Galileo.
For the orthodox scholars of that day believed that worms,
insects and even fish originated from inanimate mud. Redi did
not assert anything that has not since been universally
accepted, for instance, such a statement as “All that is
alive originates from some-thing alive.” He committed the
sin of acknowledging a truth two centuries before science had
discovered “incontestable proofs” thereof. Since
Pasteur's researches there can be no doubt that the former
belief in the origin of living organisms by spontaneous
generation was an illusion. The life-germs which entered such
inanimate matter escaped observation. Pasteur, however, tried an
experiment preventing the entrance of such germs into substances
in which generally small living beings originate — and not
a trace of life appeared. Life only originates from living
germs. Redi was perfectly right.
The
Anthroposophist of to-day finds himself in a position similar to
that of the Italian thinker. On the basis of his knowledge he
must make the same remark about the soul as Redi made
about life. He must must assert: Soul can only originate in
soul. And should natural science proceed along the lines which
it has followed since the 17th century the time will come when
out of its own perception it will represent the same view. For
— and this must be emphasised again and again — at
the root of the Anthroposophical conception which we hold to-day
lies the same disposition of thought as we find in the
scientific statement that worms, insects and fish do not
originate in mud but in life-germs. Anthroposophy maintains:
“Every soul originates in soul;” in the same sense
as the scientist says: “All life originates in life.”
[Note 1]
Now-a-days our
customs are different from those of the 17th century. But the
attitude underlying these customs has not undergone much change.
In the 17th century heresy was prosecuted by methods which no
longer appear humane; Anthroposophists to-day could not well be
threatened with being burnt alive. People are content to make
them harmless by declaring them to be visionaries and
muddle-heads. Ordinary everyday science dubs them fools. A new
execution by journalism has taken the place of the former
execution by the inquisition. Still, Anthroposophists hold their
ground; they comfort themselves with the knowledge that the time
will come when some Virchow perhaps will say: There was a time
— we are glad that time is past — when people
thought that the soul originated by means of spontaneous
generation, when certain complicated chemical and physical
processes took place within the skull But to-day for every
earnest investigator this childish conception must be swept
aside by the sentence: “Soul originates from Soul.”
And the chorus of “enlightened journalists,”
belonging to different parties — provided that at such a
time journalism is not reckoned as pure childishness —
will write: “That highly gifted Scientist X has manfully
raised the flag in favour of the enlightened Science of the Soul
and has completely routed the superstition of a mechanical
conception of nature, — the conception which was so
triumphant when Ladenburg, Professor of Chemistry at Breslau,
demonstrated it at the convention of Natural Scientists as late
as the year 1903.”
No one should
form the erroneous opinion that Anthroposophy is trying to use
Natural Science as a means of proving its truth. What
must be accentuated is that Anthroposophy has the same
Attitude as Natural Science. The Anthroposophist
accomplishes the same in the sphere of the soul as the Scientist
strives to attain in the sphere of what he can see with his eyes
and hear with his ears. Between real Natural Science and
Anthroposophy there can be no opposition. The
Anthroposophist explains that the laws which he advances for
soul-life apply adequately to external phenomena. He does that
because he knows that the human state of mind regarding
knowledge can only be satisfied when it realises that harmony
and not opposition exists between the different spheres of
existence. To-day, most people who trouble at all about truth
and knowledge are acquainted with certain scientific views. Such
truths come to man without his seeking; the literary supplements
of the newspapers set forth these laws for the cultured and
unlettered alike; how the perfect animals evolve from the
imperfect and what deep-rooted relation exist between man and
the anthropoid apes; and busy journalists do not tire in
impressing upon their readers what they ought to believe about
the “Spirit” in the age of the great
“Darwin.” They rarely add that you can find the
following sentence in Darwin's principal work: “I believe
that all the organic beings that have ever lived on earth are
derived from an archetype, into which life was breathed by
the creator.”
In this age it
is very necessary to point out again and again that
Anthroposophy does not take the inspiration of life or of soul
as lightly as Darwin and many of his followers, and that
Anthroposophical truths are not in opposition to the truths of
Natural Science. Anthroposophy does not want to use modern
Natural Science. as a crutch with which to attain to the secrets
of spiritual life; it only wants to say:— Recognise the
laws of spiritual life and you will find these higher laws
verified in a corresponding form if you descend to the region
where you can see with your eyes and hear with your ears. Modern
Natural Science does not contradict Anthroposophy, but is, in
itself, elementary Anthroposophy. Haeckel has only attained such
brilliant results in the domain of animal life because he has
applied to it those laws which psychologists have for a long
time applied to the soul. If he did not share with them that
conviction himself, it does not matter; he does not know the
laws of the soul and he knows nothing of investigations which
can be made in the sphere of soul-life, but that does not lessen
the importance of the results acquired in his domain.
Great men have the faults of their virtues. It is our task to
show that Haeckel, standing on the ground he knows, is nothing
but an Anthroposophist. It is also of assistance to the
Anthroposophist when he connects himself with modern scientific
knowledge; the things pertaining to external nature are palpable
and it is therefore easy to demonstrate their laws. There is no
difficulty in realising that plants change when they are
transplanted from one region to another. It is not difficult to
conceive that certain animals lose their eye sight when they
live in dark caves for some time. And by demonstrating those
laws which are at work in such processes as these, you can
easily pass on to the less self-evident ones which we find in
soul life, which are more difficult to understand. When he calls
Natural Science to his aid the Anthroposophist merely wishes to
illustrate, he wishes nothing else. He has to prove that in the
sphere of Science Anthroposophical truths are to be found again
in a corresponding form, and that Natural Science can be naught
but elementary Spiritual Science; and he has to make use of
scientific conceptions to lead on to those of a higher
nature.
The objection
may be raised that any inclination towards the conceptions of
modern Natural Science might lead Spiritual Science into a
precarious position, because those conceptions themselves rest
on a very uncertain basis. That is correct. There are scientists
who accept certain ideas of Darwinism as incontestable truths,
and there are others who already speak of a crisis in Darwinism.
Some find “the omnipotence of natural selection,”
“the struggle for existence,” a comprehensive
explanation for the evolution of organisms; others look on
“the struggle for existence” as if it were a nursery
ailment of modern scientific teachings and speak about the
“impotence of natural selection.” If these special
points of contention were at all important, Anthroposophists
could do nothing better than to take no notice of them for the
present and to await a more hopeful time to harmonise Spiritual
and Natural Science. But that is not the point at all. The point
is rather that there is a certain attitude, a certain way of
thinking, which underlies the researches of Natural Science of
the day and certain large lines of thought, and that these are
acknowledged everywhere, though the ideas of different thinkers
and scientists concerning various questions differ widely. It is
true that Ernst Haeckel's and Virchow's ideas on “the
Origin of Man” differ greatly. But the Anthroposophist
would be glad if authoritative people had as clear ideas on
certain large aspects of soul-life as their opponents have on
those points which, in spite of all contention, appear to them
as being perfectly certain. To-day neither Haeckel's nor
Virchow's partisans seek the origin of worms in inanimate mud;
neither the former nor the latter doubted the sentence:
“All life originates from life” in the sense
described above.
We have not yet
reached that point in psychology. There is no lucidity on
any point which could be compared with these fundamental
scientific convictions. He who wants to explain the form and
habits of life of a worm knows that he must go back to the egg
of the worm and to the ancestors of the worm, he knows in what
direction he must search, even if a difference of opinion exists
on everything further or if it were contended that the time had
not yet come to put forward certain thoughts on this or that point.
Where could we find a similar clearness in Psychology? That the soul
[Note 2]
possesses spiritual attributes, in the same way as the worm has
physical ones, does not bring it about — as it certainly
should — that the one subject of research be approached
with the same attitude of mind as the other. Our age is under
the influence of habits of thought the result of which is that
numbers of those who occupy themselves with these things refuse
to examine into such a demand in a manner adequate to the
matter. Certainly, when it cannot be avoided, it is admitted
that the psychic attributes of man as well as the physical must
come from somewhere. Conjectures are made as to how it comes
about that the souls of a number of children are different, from
one another, though they have grown up and been educated under
the same circumstances. Even twins differ in essential qualities
though they have always lived in the same place under the care
of the same nurse. Occasionally it is mentioned that the
“Siamese Twins” were said to have been very
uncomfortable during the latter part of their life because of
their opposite sympathies during the North-American Civil War. I
do not, however, mean to assert that careful thought and
observation have not been brought to bear upon such phenomena,
or that no work worthy of notice exists on this subject; but
ordinarily, the attitude of such work to the Soul is like what
the attitude of a Scientist would be towards what is alive if he
were simply to declare that life originated from lifeless
clay.
Without doubt it
is justifiable if you go back to the physical ancestors to
explain the lower qualities of the soul, and to speak of
heredity in the same way as is done regarding the physical
characteristics. But one has made up one's mind to close one's
eyes to the most essential thing if one adopts the same line
with respect to the higher qualities of the soul, the really
spiritual in mans One has accustomed oneself to look on these
higher qualities of the soul not only as a development but as a
higher degree of the lower. And therefore one thinks an
explanation could satisfy, which follows the same lines usual in
contemplating the psychic traits of animals. It cannot be denied
that the observation of certain psychic functions in the higher
animals may easily lead to such a conception. We need only
remark that dogs give proof of a remarkably faithful memory;
that horses which notice the loss of a shoe may go of their own
accord to a forge where they are usually shod; that even animals
which are shut up in a room may open the latch of the door. And
other astonishing facts could be cited. True, Anthroposophists,
as well as other people, will readily admit any development of
the qualities possessed by animals. But is that a reason to wipe
out all difference between the lower characteristics of soul
which man shares with animals and the higher spiritual qualities
which he alone possesses? No one can do so except one who is
quite blinded by the dogmatic prejudices of a Science that
insists on clinging to gross matter. Take the fact proved by
accurate observation, that animals, even the highest, cannot
count, and therefore cannot learn arithmetic. Even in the
Schools of Ancient Wisdom the significant statement was made,
that man differed from the animals in being able to count.
Counting is the simplest, the most trivial of the higher
faculties of the soul. And therefore it shall here be mentioned
as the extreme limit where animal-soul merges into spirit-soul,
that is, into the higher human. Naturally, it is very easy to
raise objections to this. It may be observed that the last word
on this point has not yet been said, and that one may eventually
succeed in teaching certain intelligent animals to count!
Secondly, it might be mentioned that the human brain, compared
to that of animals, has perfected itself; and that this is the
reason why it is able to produce higher degrees of
soul-activity. One may admit over and over again that the person
making these objections is correct; but one finds oneself in the
same position towards them as towards those people who, when
confronted with the fact that “life originates in
life,” reply again and again: But in the worm the same
chemical and physical laws obtain as exist in clay, only in a
more complicated manner. Whoever wishes to unveil the secrets of
nature in a matter-of-course way, and by means of trivialities,
can try to do so. There are people who consider that that
particular stage of reasoning power to which they have attained
at the moment is the highest possible, and into whose mind it
never seems to enter, that somebody else could himself make
their trivial objections if he did not realise their
futility.
We find no
objection to the statement that all higher functions in the
world are only improvements of those lower functions found in
the clay. But as now-a-days nobody with the slightest insight
will affirm that worms originate in clay, neither will any clear
thinker bring the spiritual soul into the same scheme of thought
as the animal soul. Just as we must remain in the domain of the
living to explain the origin of a living being, so must we
remain in the sphere of soul-spirit to understand the origin of
soul-spirit.
There are facts
which can be observed everywhere and which numbers of people
pass by without specially thinking about them. Then someone
comes along and out of a fact accessible to every one discovers
a most important truth. Galileo is said to have found the
important law of oscillation while watching the swinging of a
church lamp at Pisa. Many men had previously seen church lamps
swinging without having formed the above conclusion. The point
is to combine the right thoughts with the objects you
observe.
Now there is one
fact which is accessible to all and which, rightly understood,
throws a clear light on the character of the soul-spirit. It is
the simple truth that every human being has a biography, but an
animal has none. Many will, indeed, say: Cannot one write the
history of a cat or of a dog? Doubtless one can — but
school children are sometimes required in their tasks to narrate
the fortunes of a pen! The point is that the biography of an
individual human being has the same essential significance as
the description of the whole species in the case of the animal.
Just in the same sense in which, in the case of a lion, the
description of the lion species interests me, so in the
individual human being I am interested in his biography. I have
not exhausted the description of Goethe and Schiller and Heine
when I describe them as members of the human species, as I would
have when I have described a lion as a specimen of his kind. The
individual man is more than a specimen of the human species. He
has the same racial characteristics as his physical ancestors in
the same way as the animal; but where the genus-characteristics
cease, there begins for man that which determines his special
position and his mission in the world. And where this begins all
possibility of an explanation according to the laws of
physical-animal heredity ceases. The form of Schiller's nose and
the colour of his hair, perhaps also certain qualities of
temperament, may be traced back to his ancestors, but, his
genius cannot be traced in this way. And, of course, that does
not apply only to Schiller; it also applies to plain Mrs.
Miller, for example! In her, too, if you will only observe, you
will find a soul-spirit. which cannot be traced back in the same
way to her parents or her grandparents as are her nose or her
blue eyes. Goethe did, indeed, say: “My stature and my
serious views of life I get from my father: my happy disposition
and my pleasure in inventing stories, from my mother.”
Consequently, therefore, there is nothing original in him! But
in spite of that, nobody would try to derive Goethe's talents
from his father and mother and be content with this explanation,
in the same way as we derive the form and habits of life of the
lion from his ancestors. This is the direction which psychology
has to take if it wants to place side by side with the
scientific assertion: “Everything that is alive originates
from the living,” the corresponding statement,
“Everything psychic can only be explained as originating
in soul.” We will follow this line of thought further and
show how the laws of Reincarnation and Karma are a scientific
necessity from this point of view.
It appears very
strange that so many pass by the question as to the origin of
the soul, simply because they are afraid that they might enter
upon an uncertain sphere of knowledge. Let them hear what the
great scientist Carl Gegenbauer, said of Darwinism.
“Even if the direct assertions of Darwin were not quite
right, they had yet led to discoveries which would not have been
made without them. Darwin drew attention in an illuminating way
to the development of one form of life from another, and this
has spurred people on to find the connection between such forms.
Even those who contest the errors of Darwinism ought to realise
that this very same Darwimism has brought clearness and
certainty into the study of animal and plant evolution,
and that by its means, Darwin has thrown light into dark regions
of Nature's workings. His errors will rectify themselves. If he
had not existed, we should not have been able to benefit by the
valuable results of his. researches.” And the same as the
above must be granted to the Anthroposophical teachings as
regards the spiritual life by one who fears insecurity in this
teaching; even if they were not quite correct they would of
themselves lead to light on the riddles of the soul. To them
also will be owed clearness and security. And as they relate to
our human destiny, to our highest aims, the gaining of this
clarity and security should be the most important concern of our
life. In this sphere the striving for knowledge is at the same
time a moral necessity, an absolute moral duty.
David Friedrich
Strauss wanted to give the world aa.sort of bible for the
“enlightened” man of modern days, when, in 1872, he
published his book: “Ancient and Modern Faith.” The
revelations of Natural Science were to form the basis for this
modern faith, and not the revelations of the ancient faith which
in the opinion of this Apostle of Enlightenment has become
obsolete. This new bible was written under the influence of
Darwinistic ideas. And it originated in a person who said to
himself: “Anyone who, like myself, wishes to be considered
as holding enlightened views, has ceased to believe, long before
Darwin's time, in ‘Supernatural Revelation’ and its
miracles. He has come to the following conclusion:— Nature
is governed by necessary immutable laws, and such events as the
bible relates as miracles would be disturbances, interruptions
of those laws. And such disturbances are impossible. We know
from the laws of nature that a dead man cannot be made alive
again; therefore Jesus cannot have raised Lazarus from the
dead.” But our enlightened friend says further: “Our
explanation of nature showed a hiatus. We were able to
understand how inanimate phenomena can be explained by immutable
natural laws; but how the multifarious varieties of plants and
animals and man himself originated we were unable to form any
natural idea. It is true, we believed that here as well as
elsewhere only an immutable law came into consideration; but
what law this was, or how it worked, we did not know. However
hard we tried, we could not find any reasonable objection to the
opinion of Karl von Linne, the great Natural Scientist of the
13th century, who said that there existed as many species of
animals and plants as had originally in principle been
created. Did we not have as many miraculous creative acts
before us as we have species of plants and animals? What use
would our conviction be to us, that God, — by a
supernatural interference with the order of nature, — by a
miracle, — was unable to raise Lazarus from the dead, if
we are obliged to admit numberless supernatural facts in other
cases? But now Darwin comes and proves to us that plant and
animal species originate according to immutable laws of nature
(adaptability and the struggle for existence) just as do the
inorganic forms. Our hiatus in the evolution of nature has been
bridged over.”
From out of the
frame of mind which arose from such convictions David Friedrich
Strauss wrote as follows in his “Ancient and Modern
Faith”: “It was no use for us philosophers and
critical Theologians to decree the exit of the miracle; for the
decree was without effect, as we were not able to dispense with
miracle, not able to indicate a power of nature which could
replace it in situations where it has hitherto been considered
indispensable. Darwin has proved this power of nature, this
method of nature, he has opened the door through which a happy
posterity will cast miracle out, never to return. Everybody who
knows what is bound up with miracle will extol him as one of the
greatest benefactors of mankind.”
A victorious
feeling lives in those words. And all those who feel like
Strauss may reveal the following prospect in a “modern
faith.” Once upon a time inorganic particles of matter by
means of their intrinsic forces have clustered into balls in
such a way as to turn into living matter. The latter developed
by necessary laws into the simplest and lowest living beings. In
accordance with no less necessary laws these changed into worm,
fish, snake, marsupial and at last into the ape. And as Huxley,
the great English Scientist, has proved, there is much more
similarity between the human being and the higher species of ape
than there is between these and the lower ones, who is to
contradict the belief that man himself evolved, according to the
same laws of nature, from the higher species of ape? Further, do
we not find that which we call higher human spiritual activity,
what we call morality in an imperfect condition already in
animals? Can we doubt that animals, when their form grew more
perfect, when it evolved into the human form, merely on the
basis of physical laws, also developed their rudimentary
intellect and morality up to human perfection?
This seems
plausible. Although everybody will have to admit that our
knowledge of nature is by no means sufficient to conceive how
that which has been described above works out in detail, yet
more and more facts and laws will be discovered and the
“modern faith” will then have yet firmer
supports.
The researches
and reflections of later days have, however, by no means
supported this theory; on the contrary, they have contributed
all sorts of things to shake it; yet it continues to live on in
ever-growing circles, and is a great hindrance to any other
conviction.
No doubt can
exist on the one point; if David Friedrich Strauss and his
followers are in the right, all talk of higher spiritual laws of
existence is absurd. One would simply have to build up the
“new faith” on that basis which these personalities
affirm is the result of a knowledge of nature.
A remarkable
fact presents itself to anyone who looks without prejudice at
the reasoning of the followers of the new creed; and this fact
comes up very irresistibly when we observe the thoughts of those
who have preserved a little impartiality towards the assertions
of the orthodox exponents which are made with such assurance.
For these are hidden nooks in the creed of these “New
Believers,” and if one reveals that which is to be found
there, the true facts of modern science appear in a clear light,
but the opinions of the “New Believers” about man
begin to fade away.
(Note. There
are many people who are anxious to gather information on
Anthroposophical tenets quickly, and they will find it very
inconvenient when scientific details are shown them in such a
light as to form a basis for Anthroposophical system. They
say, “We should like to know something about
Anthroposophy, and you tell us about scientific facts which
every educated man knows.” This shows that our
contemporaries object to serious thinking. In truth, those who
speak in such a way know nothing of the bearings of their
knowledge. The Astronomer knows nothing of the logical results
of his theories, nor does the professor of Chemistry, and so
on. And there is no heir for them but to be modest and to
listen quietly when it is shown them how, because of their
superficial way of thinking, they know nothing at all on the
subjects which they proudly believe to have completely
mastered. Even Anthroposophists consider it often unnecessary
to look for scientific confirmation of the tenets of Karma and
Reincarnation. They do not know that this is the task of the
sub-race of Europe and America, and that without this
scientific foundation the members of these races are
not really able to come to an Anthroposophical
understanding. Those who only want to repeat what they have
heard from the great Eastern Teachers cannot become
Anthroposophists within the European-American civilisation.)
Let us shed some
light on a few of these nooks. Above all, let us look at the
personality who is the most important and venerable of the
“New Believers.” On page 489, Vol II of the 4th
English edition of Haeckel's “History of Creation,”
he writes: “The final result of a comparison between
animal and man is that between the most highly developed
animal-souls and the lowest developed human souls there exists
only a small quantitative difference but no qualitative
difference; this difference is much less than the difference
between the lowest and the highest human souls or than the
difference between the highest and lowest animal-souls.”
On account of this the “New Believer”
declares:— “We must explain the difference between
the lower and the higher animal-souls by necessary and immutable
laws; and we study these laws. We ask ourselves: How is it that
animals with higher types of souls have evolved form those with
lower kind of souls? We search in nature for conditions by means
of which the lower can become the higher. We find, for example,
that animals coming from other dwelling-places into the caves of
Kentucky become blind. We understand that dwelling in darkness
has destroyed the sense of sight. In those eyes the physical and
chemical processes characteristic of seeing no longer take
place. The stream of nourishment which was formerly used for
this activity now flows to other organs. Animals change their
shape. In this way new species of animals can evolve as long as
the transformations which nature causes to take place are strong
and varied enough. And what happens in such a case? Nature
effects changes in certain beings and these changes also appear
in their offspring. They are said to be hereditary. And thus the
origin of new species of animals and plants is
explained.”
(Note. Many
may object to the above exposition on the grounds that Natural
Science in its present form contradicts the theosophical
teachings. For example:— in H.P.Blavatsky's
“Secret Doctrine” there is to be found another
theory of derivation than the one represented by Haeckel. This
will be explained on another occasion. We do not intend to
point out in this lecture how the “new faith”
stands as regards the “Secret Doctrine” but only
how it ought to stand in relation to itself if it
understood the premise s from which it starts.)
And so the new
believer gaily proceeds with his explanations. The difference
between the lowest human soul and the highest animal soul is not
so very great. Therefore certain conditions of life, into which
higher animal souls have been placed, caused changes which
transformed them into lower human souls. Any miraculous creation
of the human soul has thus (according to Strauss) been for ever
thrown out of the temple of the new faith and man has been
linked to the animal world through “eternal,
necessary” laws. The “new believer” retires
content to peaceful slumber; and now he refuses to go a step
further.
Honest thinking
must disturb him in his slumber. For honest thought must keep
alive round his couch of repose spirits which he himself has
evoked. Let us examine more closely Haeckel's sentence:
“The difference (between highest animal and man) is much
smaller than the difference between the highest and lowest human
souls.” And the “new believer” acknowledges
this. Is he therefore justified in drowsing away into peaceful
slumber, as soon as — according to his opinion — he
has explained the development of the lowest human being from the
highest animals? (Note, — and thus done away with only the
smallest gap that has to be explained).
No, he is not,
and if he feels so, then he denies the whole basis on which he
has built up his convictions. What would a “new
believer” answer if anybody came and said: I have proved
how fish evolve from lower living creatures, and that is enough.
I have proved that everything evolves — therefore higher
species than fish will probably have evolved in the same manner.
No doubt our “new believer” would reply: Your
general ideas about evolution are insufficient; you must also
explain how mammals evolve, for there is a greater difference
between the mammals and the fish than between the fish and the
next lower animal.
What would
follow if the “new believer” really remained true to
his principles. He would have to say: The difference between the
highest and lowest human souls is greater than the one between
these latter and highest animal souls; therefore I must admit
that there are causes in the universe which work. changes within
the lower human soul, transforming that soul as much as those
causes recorded by myself transform lower animals into higher
ones. If I do not do so, the difference existing between higher
and lower human souls remains unexplained — a miracle. For
it is true that the “new believers” who think
themselves so enlightened, on account of their having done away
with miracle in the realm of physical life, remain believers,
even worshippers, of miracle within the realm of psychic life.
And the only distinction between them and the miracle believers
is that while they have no idea that they have fallen prey to
the same dark superstition, these, whom they despise so deeply,
confess their belief honestly.
Now we will
carry our light into another nook of the “new
Belief.” Dr. Paul Topinard has very well compiled
in his Anthropology the results of modern doctrine on the origin
of man. At the end of his book, he recapitulates briefly, how
the higher animal forms according to Haeckel have developed
during the various earth-periods. “At the beginning of the
earth-period, which the geologists have called the Laurentine,
the first globules of protoplasm formed themselves out of some
elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, by accidental coincidence
under conditions which probably only presented themselves during
that period. Out of these the Monera, the smallest imperfect
living beings grew by spontaneous generation. After that they
split up and multiplied, grouped themselves so as to form organs
and at last produced (after a series of transformations which
Haeckel fixes as nine) some vertebrate animals something like
the Amphioxus Lanceolatus (lancet fish). We can skip the details
of further evolutions of animals species along the same lines,
and add at once the end of Topinard's statements. “During
the twentieth earth-period, the Anthropoid (man-like ape) exists
practically during the whole of the Miocene period; in the
twenty-first, you find the anthropoid who does not yet have
speech or adequate brains. In the twenty-second, at last, man
appears as we know him, at least in his less perfect
forms.” And flow, after Topinard has expounded what is
supposed to be the “scientific basis of the modern
faith.,” he makes an important confession in a few words.
He says: “Here the enumeration is cut short. Haeckel
forgets the twenty-third degree in which a Lamark and Newton
shine.” A corner is here shown in the confession of the
“new believer” where he points as clearly as
possible to facts regarding which he denies his confession. He
will not carry up into the realm of the human soul those
principles by the aid of which he tries to explain the rest of
nature. If he did so, if he entered, with the conception gained
in external nature, into the region which Topinard calls the
twenty-third degree, he would then have to continue: As I deduce
the higher animal species from the lower, through evolution, so
I deduce the higher soul-species through evolution from the
lower. I cannot understand Newton's soul unless I imagine it as
evolving from an earlier psychic being.
And this psychic
being can never be looked for in physical ancestors. If`you
sought it there, you would act against the spirit of
Natural Investigation. Could the Scientist ever think of letting
one race of animals evolve from another if they were as unlike
each other in the physical sense as Newton was to his ancestors
in a psychic sense? One thinks of one animal species
evolving from another which is only one degree below it.
Consequently Newton's soul must have proceeded from one which
was like it, but in psychic development was one degree power.
The soul in Newton comprises his biography. I reconsider Newton
from his biography, as I recognise a lion from the description
of his species. And I understand the species of the lion when I
conceive that it has evolved out of one which in comparison is
lower. Therefore I understand what is comprised in Newton's
biography when I conceive that it has evolved out of the
biographical characteristics of a soul which is similar to it,
or as a soul related to it. Therefore Newton's soul existed in
another shape already just as the lion species existed already
in another form.
If you think it
out clearly, this conclusion is unavoidable. It is only because
these “new believers” have not the courage to
continue their line of thought that they never come to this
logical conclusion. But from this conclusion the reappearance of
the being comprehended in the biography is assured. Either you
must let the whole scientific theory of evolution drop or you
must acknowledge that it has to be extended to the development
of the soul as well. There are only two ways: either
every soul is created by a miracle, as the animals
species would have to be created by a miracle if they had not
evolved one from another; or the soul has developed and was
there previously in another form, just as the animal species was
there in another form.
Some of the
thinkers of the day who have preserved a little clearness and
logic are a living example of these facts.
It is true they
are as unable to familiarise themselves with the at present
unusual idea of the evolution of the soul as the above-mentioned
“new believers.” But they have at least the courage
to acknowledge the only possible remaining point of view: the
miracle of the creation of the soul. One reads in the work on
Psychology by Professor Johannes Rehmke of Griefswald, one of
the clearest thinkers of the day, “The idea of creation ...
appears to us ... to be the only one capable of explaining
the mystery of the origin of the soul.” Rehmke reaches the
point at which he admits a conscious universal Being, of whom he
says, “Being the only condition for soul to originate, He
would have to be called the Creator of the Soul.” Thus
speaks a thinker who is not willing to drowse into spiritual
slumber, after having grasped the physical processes of life and
who yet lacks the capacity to admit the conception that every
soul must have evolved out of its previous form of existence.
Rehmke has the courage to believe in miracle; he cannot have the
courage to admit the Anthroposophical view of the reappearance
of the soul, or of reincarnation, and miracle is his means of
escape.
Thinkers in whom
the scientific tendency begins to develop logically arrive of
necessity at this view. Julius Baumann, Professor of Philosophy
at Göttingen, writes in his pamphlet, “Modern
Christianity and real Religion,” in one of the thirty-nine
statements, in a sketchy summary of exact scientific religion,
the following (twenty-second statement) "... Just as ... in
inorganic nature physical and chemical elements and forces do
not perish, but only alter their way of combination, so must we
admit the same, according to scientific methods, with reference
to the organic and organic-spiritual forces. The human soul as a
formal unit, as a connecting ego, returns in new human bodies
and in this way can go through all the stages of human
evolution.”
People who have
the courage to believe the full scientific creed of the present
day must have such opinions. This is not to be misunderstood as
if we meant that the most eminent among the new believers were
— in the usual sense of the word — devoid of
courage. Courage, extraordinary courage, is necessary to
maintain scientific opinions against the opposing forces of the
19th century. (Note. The writer of this lecture cannot be
accused of not recognising the great merits of these “new
believers,” for he greatly appreciates their merits in
connection with the spiritual development of the time, and has
expressed his sense of their great worth in his book,
“Welt and Lebensanschauungen im neuzehnten
Jahrhundert.”) But this courage is somewhat different from
the higher which is connected with logical thought, and such
logical thought is not exercised by the scientists of the day
who wish to build up a universal philosophy out of the knowledge
gained in their own particular domain.
Does it not seem
hopeless, that during a lecture given in Breslau by Albert
Ladenberg, Professor of Chemistry, at the last convention of
Natural Scientists, the statement can be found: “Do we
know a substratum of the soul? I know of none,” And that
afterwards the following words could be spoken by the same man:
“What is your opinion on immortality? I believe, as
regards this question, more than any other, the wish is the
father to the thought, for I know of no scientific corroborated
fact, upon which we can establish our belief in
immortality.” What would the learned gentleman say if he
were confronted by a man who said: “I know nothing of
chemical facts; and therefore I deny chemical laws, for I do not
know a single scientific corroborated fact which would confirm
these laws.” The professor would naturally say: "Your
ignorance as to chemical laws has nothing to do with us; study
chemistry first and then speak about it.” Professor
Ladenburg knows no substratum of the soul; therefore he should
not importune the world with the result of his ignorance,
Just as, in
order to understand certain animal forms, the scientist refers
back to those from which they have developed, so must the
psychologist, when speaking of soul-forms. The shape of the
skull of higher animals is explained by the scientists as a
transformation of the skull of lower animals. One should explain
all that belongs to the biography of a soul out of the soul from
which proceeded the soul one has in view. Later conditions are
the results of earlier ones. Later physical conditions
are the result of former physical ones, and in the same way the
later psychic are the results of previous psychic
conditions.
This is the
purport of the law of Karma which says: my present capabilities
and everything I do in my present life does not exist apart as a
miracle, but is the result of previous forms of my soul's
existence and is the cause of future ones.
An observer of
human life who does not know this far-reaching law or who does
not wish to recognise it, is continually confronted by
life-riddles. We will take one example among many. We find it in
Maurice Maeterlinck's “Buried Temple,” a book which
speaks of such riddles as they appear in a caricatured form to
present-day thinkers, because they are not familiar with Karma,
or the great laws of cause and effect in spiritual life. Those
who have fallen victim to the narrow dogmas of the “new
believers” have no interest in these riddles, one of which
Masterlinck presents; he says: “If I jump into icy cold
water to save my neighbour's life or if I fall into it while
trying to throw him in, the consequences of the chill will be
the same in both cases, and no power in heaven or earth outside
myself and humanity will increase my sufferings because I have
committed a crime, or reduce my pain because I have done a
virtuous action.” Certainly, the results in question seem
to be the same in both instances when observed by one confined
only to the purely physical facts; but can this observation be
regarded as a complete one? If anyone asserts this, he is in
about the same position as the thinker who observes that two
boys have been taught by two different masters, and yet sees
nothing else; he sees that in both instances the teachers give
the same numbers of lessons daily to the children and attain
about the same results. If he went deeper into the facts he
would perhaps perceive a great difference in the two instances
and would find an explanation for the fact that one boy turns
out incompetent, while the other one grows up to be a capable
man. And if anyone who is willing to enter upon psychic
spiritual considerations were to look upon the above
consequences for the souls of the men in question, then he would
have to admit that what happens here cannot be considered
entirely by itself. The effects of the cold are psychic
experiences, and if they are not to be considered as miracles
they must be looked upon as causes and effects taking place in
the life of the soul. The result of the deed will come from
other causes in the case of the rescuer and the criminal; or
they will have different effects in the one and in the other
case. And, if I cannot find these causes and effects in the
present life of these men, if during the present life things
seem equal for both, I must look for the compensation in their
past or expect to find it in the future. I go to work in exactly
the same manner as the Natural Scientist works in the region of
external facts. He explains the loss of eyesight of certain
animals living in the dark caves of Kentucky as due to
former experiences, and he presumes that present
experiences will result in future formations of new races and
species. Only that man has an inner right to speak of
development in the realm of external nature who also admits this
development in the spiritual-psychic realm.
Now it is clear
that this recognition, this extension of the principles of
Natural Science to realms beyond physical nature is more than
mere knowledge. For it changes knowledge into
life. It not only enriches the knowledge of man but it
gives him strength to live his life. It shows him whence he
comes and whither he goes; and will disclose to him this
whence and whither beyond birth and death if he steadfastly
follows the direction in which this knowledge points; he knows
that his actions become part of a stream which flows from
eternity to eternity. Higher and higher the point of view rises
from which he regulates his life. Man appears as if wrapped in a
heavy mist until these conclusions dawn upon him, for he has no
conception of his true being, he knows nothing of its origin nor
of its aims. He follows the impulses of his nature without
having any insight into these impulses. And yet he must own to
himself that perhaps he would follow very different ones if
knowledge were to be a light on his path. The feeling of
responsibility in regard to life always grows under the
influence of such conclusions. But if man does not develop this
feeling of responsibility in himself then he denies, in the
highest sense of the word, his humanity. Knowledge without
aiming at the ennobling of mankind is only gratification of a
higher kind of curiosity. To raise knowledge till you can grasp
the spiritual so that it may become the ruling power of your
whole life, that is in the highest sense — duty.
And therefore it is every man's duty to seek understanding as to
the whence and whither of the soul.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Notes:
Note 1. The above had to be
said distinctly, for careless readers are plentiful now-a-days, and
the careless are always ready to read some nonsense or other into
the exposition of a thinker, however careful he may be to
explain his meaning accurately. For that reason I will now
particularly mention that I should never dream of attacking
those who study the problem of spontaneous generation based on
scientific hypotheses. But even though it may be possible that
somehow or other, “inanimate substances” should
unite to form living albumen, we cannot hence conclude that,
if rightly understood, Redi's conception is wrong.)
Note 2. The followers of
Wundt's school may be very shocked when I speak of the “Soul”
in such an old-fashioned manner while they cling to the words of their
master who has again announced recently that we must not speak
of “soul” because nothing remained of this
supernatural substance after “the mythologising of the
phenomena had vanished into the transcendental,” except
“a connected series of “processes.”
Well, the
wisdom of Wundt reminds one of the assertion that you may not
speak of a “lily” because you are only dealing
with colour form, processes of growth, etc. (Wundt, Natural
Science and Psychology Leipzig. 1903).
|