Lecture II
MEDITATION
20th January, 1924
ESTERDAY I had to show how
we can observe ourselves in two ways, and how the riddle of the world and
of man confronts us from both directions. If we look once more at what
we found yesterday, we see, on the one hand, the human physical body,
perceived — at first — in the same way as the external,
physical world. We call it the physical body because it stands before
our physical senses just as the external, physical world. At the same
time, however, we must call to mind the great difference between the
two. Indeed, yesterday we had to recognise this great difference from
the fact that man, on passing through the gate of death, must surrender
his physical body to the elements of the external, physical world; and
these destroy it. The action of external Nature upon the human physical
body is destructive, not constructive. So we must look quite outside
the physical world for what gives the human physical body its shape
between birth (or conception) and death. We must speak, to begin with,
of another world which builds up this human body that external, physical
Nature can only destroy.
On the
other hand there are two considerations which show the close relationship
between the human physical body and Nature. In the first place, the
body requires substances — building materials in a sense —
although this is not strictly accurate. Let us say, it has need of the
substances of external nature, or, at least, needs to take them in.
Again:
when we observe the external manifestations of the physical body —
whether it be its excretions, or the whole body as seen after death
— it is nevertheless substances of the external, physical world
that we observe. We always find the same substances as in the external,
physical world — whether we are studying the separate excretions
or the whole physical body cast off at death.
So we
are compelled to say: Whatever the inner processes going on in the human
body may be, their beginning and end are related to the external, physical
world.
Materialistic
science, however, draws from this fact a conclusion that cannot be drawn
at all. Though we see how man, through eating, drinking and breathing,
takes in substances from the external physical world and gives these
same substances back again, in expiration, in excretion or at death,
we can only say that we have here to do with a beginning and an end.
We have not determined the intermediary processes within the physical
body.
We speak so
glibly of the blood man bears within him; but has anyone ever investigated
the blood within the living human organism itself? This cannot be done
with physical means at all. We have no right to draw the materialistic
conclusion that what enters the body and leaves it again was also within
it.
In any
case, we see an immediate transformation when external, physical substances
are taken in — let us say, by the mouth. We need only put a small
grain of salt in the mouth and it is at once dissolved. The transformation
is immediate. The physical body of man is not the same, in its inner
nature, as the external world; it transforms what it takes in, and then
transforms it back again. Thus we must seek for something within the
human organism that is, at first, similar to external nature and, on
excretion, becomes so again. It is what lies between these two stages
that we must first discover.
Try to
picture this that I have said: On the one hand, we have what the organism
takes in; on the other, what it gives of including even the physical
body as a whole. Between these are the processes within the organism
itself. From the study of what the human physical organism takes in
we can say nothing at all about the relation of man to external nature.
We might put it this way: Though external physical nature does destroy
man's corpse, dissolving and dissipating it, man does, with his organism,
‘get even’ with Nature. He dissolves everything he receives
from her. Thus, when we commence with man's organs of assimilation, we
find no relationship to external nature, for this is destroyed by them.
We only find such a relationship when we turn to what man excretes. In
relation to the form man bears into physical life, Nature is a destroyer;
in regard to what man casts off, Nature receives what the human organism
provides. Thus the human physical organism comes eventually to be very
unlike itself and to resemble external Nature very much. It does this
through excretion.
If you think
this over you will say to yourself: There, outside, are the substances
of the different kingdoms of Nature. They are, today, just what they
have become; but they have certainly not always been as they are. Even
physical science admits that past conditions of the earth were very
different from those of today. What we see around us in the kingdoms
of Nature has only gradually become what it is. And when we look at
man's physical body we see it destroys — or transforms — what
it takes in. (We shall see that it really destroys, but for the moment
we will say ‘transforms’.) At any rate, what is taken in must
be reduced to a certain condition from which it can be led back again to
present physical Nature. In other words: If you think of a beginning
somewhere in the human organism, where the sub-stances begin to develop
in the direction of excretions, and then think of the earth, you are led
to trace it back to a similar condition in which it once was. You have
to say: At some past time the whole earth must have been in the condition
in which some-thing within man is today; and in the short space of time
during which something incorporated into the human organism is transformed
into excretory products, the inner processes of the organism recapitulate
what the earth itself has accomplished in the course of long ages.
Thus
we look at external Nature today and see that it was once something
very different. But when we try to find something similar to its former
condition we have to look into our own organism. The beginning of the
earth is still there. Every time we eat, the substances of our food
are transformed into a condition in which the whole earth once was.
The earth has developed further in the course of long periods of time
and become what it is today; our food substances, in developing to the
point of excretion, give a brief recapitulation of the whole
earth-process.
Now,
you can look at the vernal point of the zodiac, where the sun rises
every spring. This point is not stationary; it is advancing. In the
Egyptian epoch, for example, it was in the constellation of Taurus.
It has advanced through Taurus and Aries, and is today in the constellation
of Pisces; and it is still advancing. It moves in a circle and will
return after a certain time. Though this point where the sun rises in
spring describes a complete circle in the heavens in 25,920 years, the
sun describes this circle every day. It rises and sets, thereby describing
the same path as the vernal point. Let us contemplate, on the one hand,
the long epoch of 25,920 years, which is the time taken by the vernal
point to complete its path; and on the other hand, the short period
of twenty-four hours in which the sun rises, sets and rises again at
the same point. The sun describes the same circle. It is similar with
the human physical organism. Through long periods the earth consisted
of substances like those within us at a certain stage of digestion —
the stage midway between ingestion and egestion, when the former passes
over into the latter. Here we carry within us the beginning of the earth.
In a short period of time we reach the excretory stage, in which we
resemble the earth; we hand over substances to the earth in the form
they have today. In our digestive processes we do in the physical body
something similar to what the sun does in its diurnal round with respect
to the vernal point. Thus we may survey the physical globe and say:
Today this physical globe has reached a condition in which its laws
destroy the form of our physical organism. But this earth must once
have been in a condition in which it was subjected to other laws —
laws which, today, bring our physical organism into the condition of
food-stuffs midway between ingestion and egestion. That is to say, we
bear within us the laws of the earth's beginning; we recapitulate what
was once on the earth.
You see,
we may regard our physical organism as organised for taking in external
substances — present-day substances — and excreting them again
as such; but it bears within it something that was present in the beginning
of the earth but which the earth no longer has. This has disappeared
from the earth leaving only the final products, not the initial substances.
Thus we bear within us something to be sought for in very ancient times
within the constitution of the earth. It is what we thus bear within
us, and the earth as a whole has not got, that raises us above physical,
earthly life. It leads man to say: I have preserved within me the beginning
of the earth. Through entering physical existence through birth, I have
ever within me something the earth had millions of years ago, but has
no longer.
From
this you see that, in calling man a microcosm, we cannot merely take
account of the world around us today. We must go beyond its present
condition and consider past stages of its evolution. To understand man
we must study primeval conditions of the earth.
What
the earth no longer possesses but man still has in this way, can become
an object of observation. We must have recourse to what may be called
meditation. We are accustomed merely to allow the ‘ideas’ or,
mental presentations [Vorstellungen], whereby we perceive the world, to
arise within us — merely to represent the outer world to ourselves
with the help of such ideas. And for the last few centuries man has become
so accustomed to copy merely the outer world in his ideas, that he does
not realise his power of also forming ideas freely from within. To do
this is to meditate; it is to fill one's consciousness with ideas not
derived from external Nature, but called up from within. In doing so
we pay special attention to the inner activity involved. In this way
one comes to feel that there is really a ‘second man’ within,
that there is something in man that can really be inwardly felt and
experienced just as, for example, the force of the muscles when we stretch
out an arm. We experience this muscular force; but when we think we
ordinarily experience nothing. Through meditation, however, it is possible
so to strengthen our power of thinking — the power whereby we form
thoughts — that we experience this power inwardly, even as we
experience the force of our muscles on stretching out an arm. Our
meditation is successful when we are at length able to say: In my
ordinary thinking I am really quite passive. I allow something to happen
to me; I let Nature fill me with thoughts. But I will no longer let
myself be filled with thoughts, I will place in my consciousness the
thoughts I want to have, and will only pass from one thought to another
through the force of inner thinking itself. In this way our thinking
becomes stronger and stronger, just as the force of our muscles grows
stronger if we use our arms. At length we notice that this thinking
activity is a ‘tension’, a ‘touching’, an inner
experience, like the experience of our own muscular force.
When we have so strengthened ourselves within that our thinking has
this character, we are at once confronted in our consciousness by what
we carry within us as a repetition of an ancient condition of the earth.
We learn to know the force that transforms food substances within the
body and retransforms them again. And in experiencing this higher man
within, who is as real as the physical man himself, we come, at the
same time, to perceive with our strengthened thinking the external things
of the world.
Suppose,
my dear friends, I look at a stone with such strengthened thinking.
Let us say it is a crystal of salt or of quartz. It seems to me like
meeting a man I have already seen. I am reminded of experiences I had
with him ten or twenty years ago. In the mean-time he may have been
in Australia, or anywhere, but the man before me now conjures up the
experience I had with him ten or twenty years ago. So, if I look at
a crystal of salt or of quartz with this strengthened thinking, there
immediately comes before my mind the past state of the crystal, like
the memory of a primeval condition of the earth. At that time the crystal
of salt was not hexahedral, i.e. six-faced, for it was all part of a
surging, weaving, cosmic sea of rock. The primeval condition of the
earth comes before me, as a memory is evoked by present objects.
I now look
again at man, and the very same impression that the primeval condition of
the earth made upon me, is now made by the ‘second human
being’ man carries within him. Further: the very same impression
is made upon me when I behold, not stones, but plants. Thus I am led to
speak, with some justification, of an ‘etheric body’ as well
as the physical. Once the earth was ether; out of this ether it has
become what it is today in its inorganic, lifeless constituents. The
plants, however, still bear within them the former primeval condition
of the earth. And I myself bear within me, as a second man, the human
‘etheric body’.
All that
I am describing to you can become an object of study for strengthened
thinking. So we may say that, if a man takes trouble to develop such
thinking he perceives, besides the physical, the etheric in himself,
in plants and in the memory of primeval ages evoked by minerals.
Now,
what do we learn from this higher kind of observation? We learn that
the earth was once in an etheric condition, that the ether has remained
and still permeates the plants, the animals — for we can perceive
it in them too — and the human being.
But now
something further is revealed. We see the minerals free from ether,
and the plants endowed with it. At the same time, however, we learn
to see ether everywhere. It is still there today, filling cosmic space.
In the external, mineral kingdom alone it plays no part; still, it is
everywhere. When I simply lift this piece of chalk, I observe all sorts
of things happening in the ether. Indeed, lifting a piece of chalk is
a complicated process. My hand develops a certain force, but this force
is only present in me in the waking state, not when I am asleep. If
I follow what the ether does in transmuting food-stuffs, I find this
going on during both waking and sleeping states. One might doubt this
in the case of man, if one were superficial, but not in the case of
snakes; they sleep in order to digest. But what takes place through
my raising an arm can only take place in the waking state. The etheric
body gives no help here. Nevertheless if I only lift the chalk I must
overcome etheric forces — I must work upon the ether. My own etheric
body cannot do this. I must bear within me a ‘third man’ who
can.
Now this
third man who can move, who can lift things, including his own limbs
is not to be found — to begin with — in anything similar in
external Nature. Nevertheless external Nature, which is everywhere
permeated by ether, enters into relation with this ‘force-man’
— let us call him — into whom man himself pours the force
of his will.
At first
it is only in inner experience that we can become aware of this inner
unfolding of forces. If, however, we pursue meditation further, not
only forming our ideas ourselves, and passing from one idea to another
in order to strengthen our thinking, but eliminating again the strengthened
thinking so acquired — i.e. emptying our consciousness —
we attain something special. Of course, if one frees oneself of ordinary
thoughts passively acquired, one falls asleep. The moment one ceases
to perceive or think, sleep ensues, for ordinary consciousness is passively
acquired. If, however, we develop the forces whereby the etheric is
perceived, we have a strengthened man within us; we feel our own thinking
forces as we usually feel our muscular forces. And now, when we
deliberately eliminate, ‘suggest away’ this strengthened
man we do not fall asleep, but expose our empty consciousness to the
world. What we dimly feel when we move our arms, or walk, when we unfold
our will, enters us objectively. The forces at work here are nowhere to
be found in the world of space; but they enter space when we produce
empty consciousness in the way described. We then discover, objectively,
this third man within us. Looking now at external Nature we observe that
men, animals and plants have etheric bodies, while minerals have not. The
latter only remind us of the original ‘ether’ of the earth.
Nevertheless there is ether wherever we turn, though it does not always
reveal itself as such.
You see, if you
confront plants with the ‘meditative’ consciousness I described
at first, you perceive an etheric image; likewise if you confront a
human being. But if you confront the universal ether it is as if you
were swimming in the sea. There is only ether everywhere. It gives you
no ‘picture.’ But the moment I merely lift this piece of
chalk there appears an image in the etheric where my third man is
unfolding his forces.
Picture
this to yourselves: The chalk is, at first, there. My hand now takes
hold of the chalk and lifts it up. (I could represent the whole process
in a series of snapshots.) All this, however, has its counterpart in
the ether, though this cannot be seen until I am able to perceive by
means of ‘empty consciousness’ — i.e. until I am able
to perceive the third man, not the second. That is to say, the universal
ether does not act as ether, but in the way the third man acts.
Thus
I may say: I have first my physical body (oval),
[ 1 ]
then my etheric body, perceived in ‘meditative’ consciousness
(yellow), then the third man, which I will call the ‘astral’
man (red). Everywhere around me I have what we found to be the second
thing in the universe — the universal ether (yellow). This, to begin
with, is like an indefinite sea of ether.
| (rot — red; gelb — yellow) Click image for large view | |
Now the
moment I radiate into this ether anything that proceeds from this third
man within me, it responds; this ether responds as if it were like the
third man within me, i.e. not etherically, but ‘astrally’.
Thus I release through my own activity something within this wide sea of
ether that is similar to my own ‘third man’. What is this
that acts in the ether as a counter-image? I lift the chalk; any hand
moves from below upwards. The etheric picture, however, moves from above
downwards; it is an exact counter-image. It is really an astral picture,
a mere picture. Nevertheless, it is through the real, present-day man
that this picture is evoked. Now, if I learn, by means of what I have
already described, to look backwards in earth-evolution — if I
learn to apply to cosmic evolution what is briefly recapitulated in the
way described — I discover the following:
| (Astralleib — Astral body; Aethererde — Etheric earth; Erde — Earth) Click image for large view | |
Here is
the present condition of the earth. I go back to an etheric earth. I
do not find there, as yet, what has been released through me in the
surrounding ether. I must go farther back to a still earlier condition
of the earth in which the earth resembled my own astral body. The earth
was then astral — a being like my third man. I must look for this
being in times long past, in times long anterior to those in which the
earth was etheric. Going back-wards in time is really no different from
seeing a distant object — a light, let us say — that shines
as far as this. It is over there, but shines as far as here; it sends
images to us here. Now put time instead of space: That which is of like
nature with my own astral body was there in primeval times. Time has
not ceased to be; it is still there. Just as, in space, light can shine
as far as here, so that which lies in a long gone past works on into
the present. Fundamentally speaking, the whole time-evolution is still
there. What-ever was once there — and is of like nature with that
which, in the outer ether, resembles my own astral body — has
not disappeared.
Here
I touch on something that, spiritually, is actively present and makes
time into space. It is really no different from communicating
over a long distance with the help of a telegraph. In lifting the chalk
I evoke a picture in the ether and communicate with what, for outer
perception, has long passed away.
We see
how man is placed in the world in a quite different way from what appears
at first. And we understand, too, why cosmic riddles present themselves
to him. He feels within that he has an etheric body, though he does
not realise it clearly: even science does not realise it clearly today.
He feels that this etheric body transforms his food-stuffs and transforms
them back again. He does not find this in stones, though the stones
were already there, in primeval times which he discovers, there as general
ether. But in this ether a still more remote past is active. Thus man
bears within him an ancient past in a twofold way; a more recent past
in his etheric body and a more ancient past in his astral body.
When
man confronts Nature today he usually only studies what is lifeless.
Even what is living in plants is only studied by applying to them the
laws of substances as discovered in his laboratory. He omits to study
growth; he neglects the life in his plants. Present-day science really
studies plants as one who picks up a book and observes the forms of
the letters, but does not read. Science, today, studies all things in
this way.
Indeed,
if you open a book but cannot read, the forms must appear very puzzling.
You cannot really understand why there is here a form like this:
‘b’, then ‘a’, then ‘l’, then
‘d’, i.e. bald. What are these forms doing
side by side? That is, indeed, a riddle. The way of regarding things
that I have put before you is really learning to read in the world and
in man. By ‘learning to read’ we come gradually near to the
solution of our riddles.
You see,
my dear friends, I wanted to put before you merely a general path for
human thinking along which one can escape from the condition of despair
in which man finds himself and which I described at the outset. We shall
proceed to study how one can advance farther and farther in reading
the phenomena in the outer world and in man.
In doing
this, however, we are led along paths of thought with which man is quite
unfamiliar today. And what usually happens? People say: I don't understand
that. But what does this mean? It only means that this does not agree
with what was taught them at school, and they have become accustomed
to think in the way they were trained. ‘But do not our schools
take their stand on genuine science?’ Yes, but what does that mean?
My dear friends, I will give you just one example of this genuine science.
— One who is no longer young has experienced many things like
this. One learnt, for example, that various substances are necessary
for the process referred to today — the taking in of foodstuffs
and their transformation within the human organism. Albumens (proteins),
fats, water, salts, sugar and starch products were cited as necessary
for men. Then experiments were made.
If we
go back twenty years, we find that experiments showed man to require
at least one hundred and twenty grammes of protein a day; otherwise
he could not live. That was ‘science’ twenty years ago. What
is ‘science’ today? Today twenty to fifty grammes are
sufficient. At that time it was ‘science’ that one would
become ill — under-nourished — if one did not get these one
hundred and twenty grammes of protein.
Today science says it is injurious to one's health to take more than
fifty grammes at the most; one can get along quite well with twenty
grammes. If one takes more, putrefying substances form in the intestines
and auto-intoxication, self-poisoning, is set up. Thus it is harmful
to take more than fifty grammes of protein. That is science today.
This,
however, is not merely a scientific question, it has a bearing on life.
Just think: twenty years ago, when it was scientific to believe that
one must have one hundred and twenty grammes of protein, people were
told to choose their diet accordingly. One had to assume that a man
could pay for all this. So the question touched the economic sphere.
It was proved carefully that it is impossible to obtain these one hundred
and twenty grammes of protein from plants. Today we know that man gets
the requisite amount of protein from any kind of diet. If he simply
eats sufficient potatoes — he need not eat many — along
with a little butter, he obtains the requisite amount of protein. Today
it is scientifically certain that this is so. Moreover, it is a fact
that a man who fills himself with one hundred and twenty grammes of
protein acquires a very uncertain appetite. If, on the other hand, he
keeps to a diet which provides him with twenty grammes of protein, and
happens, once in a while, to take food with less, and which would therefore
under-nourish him, he turns from it. His instinct in regard to food
becomes reliable. Of course, there are still under-nourished people,
but this has other causes and certainly does not come from a deficiency
of protein. On the other hand, there are certainly numerous people
suffering from auto-intoxication and many other things because they are
over-fed with protein.
I do
not want to speak now of infectious diseases, but will just mention
that people are most susceptible to so-called infection when they take
one hundred and twenty grammes of protein [a day]. They are then most
likely to get diphtheria, or even small-pox. If they only take twenty
grammes, they will only be infected with great difficulty.
Thus
it was once scientific to say that one requires so much protein as to
poison oneself and be exposed to every kind of infection. That was
‘science’ twenty years ago! All this is a part of science;
but when we see what was scientific in regard to very important matters
but a short time ago, our confidence in such science is radically
shaken.
This,
too, is something one must bear in mind when we encounter a study like
Anthroposophy that gives to our thinking, our whole mood of soul, a
different direction from that customary today. I only wanted to point,
so to speak, to what is put forward — in the first place —
as preliminary instruction in the attainment of another kind of thinking,
another way of contemplating the world.
Notes:
1.
The drawings in this volume are reconstructions of those freely
drawn by Rudolf Steiner in coloured chalks on the blackboard. Some
were made progressively but as depicted here they are from the completed
sketches. Reproduction in colour is impracticable.
|