EVOLUTION IN THE ASPECT OF REALITIES
LECTURE 1.
23rd. October 1911. (Berlin)
INTRODUCTORY.
Now that we are once
more together after a long summer interval, we may say a few words as
to what concerns theosophical life during such an interval —
and in particular as to what it has brought to us, which is in no
wise without significance to the life limited to Central Europe. You
know that from the time we were last assembled here, before
separating for the summer, preparations were begun for the gathering
at Munich, which generally begins with a dramatic representation
carried out in the spirit of our theosophical movement; and in the
last few years we have been able to develop these dramatic
representations. Some time ago we began by having one such dramatic
representation before a course of lectures at Munich, last year two,
and this year we have been able to make the experiment of having
three. Naturally in many respects a risk is connected with this, but
thanks to the self-sacrifice and willingness of those able to take
part in this artistic endeavour, we have been able to make a
beginning in this direction. For this should not be regarded as
anything but a beginning — a beginning of something which will
indeed find its continuance as an important impulse of theosophical
life when none of us will any longer be able to be present in our
physical bodies. But there must always be a beginning to such things,
which extend far beyond the narrowest circle of our own personal
activity, and above all it is necessary that those who take part in
them, should be conscious of the fact that they are working at
something new, so that they may have the necessary humility as also
the necessary strength. We always connect these representations with
a course of lectures, which not only bring together various members
of own section but also many friends of our movement, who come to the
Munich gathering from every possible country in Europe. Two things
will be particularly striking this year to those who take the trouble
to look into the matter both from without and from within. The first
is the special manner in which we intend to carry theosophical life
into Art. For indeed it lies very near to our hearts that
theosophical life should be carried into all branches of life and
external existence. It appears to us very important to carry out in
Art the fact that Theosophy is not a merely abstract theory and
teaching, but that it can be carried out into our immediate life,
that it can, so to say, act practically. It is particularly
remarkable in the Munich representations that Theosophy does not try
to bring this about externally by all sorts of clever thoughts and
arguments, but that from its own life fresh vigour can be drawn for
the active life of Art. This can be observed by the inner
devotion and growing comprehension shewn by those of our theosophists
in Munich, who took part. It can also be observed in the fact that in
the year 1909 we had one representation, that last year we had two,
and that this year, in spite of great difficulty we were able to
prepare three representations. If you go into the matter itself you
will be able to perceive from such a work as The Soul's
Probation that occult perception may very well be turned to
account in artistic representation in the same way as the external
observation of life. I might say a great deal if I were to speak
about the inner core of this subject.
What particularly
struck us in Munich was the ever increasing thronging to our
gatherings, which made the lack of room greatly felt both for the
artistic undertakings as well as for the theosophical lectures. In
the lectures this lack of space was felt externally by the audience,
through the very uncomfortable heat in the room. Now of course it
would be quite easy to say, why not take a larger hall? But there is
difficulty even in this. Theosophy requires, as you all know, a
certain intimacy; and just as little as it would be possible to give
the old Greek Dramas in a circus, so it is with Theosophy. (In
certain districts this has certainly taken place, though nothing but
a lack of all understanding for Art could make it acceptable in
larger circles; on the other hand it is not to be wondered at when we
know how little artistic our age is, though we must be astounded that
such a thing should be thought possible). It might even be cultivated
in an ancient Greek theatre, but not in an enormous circus-like hall.
The Architectural Hall in Berlin appears to me the maximum size; and
instead of passing from that to a still larger one I should prefer to
repeat my lecture, rather than give it once only in a still larger
room. These things are so related to the inner, more intimate nature
of Theosophy that they may perhaps not be understood at the present
day, but they will be when everything that Theosophy included
passes out into the different departments of life.
Now as regards our
work in Munich, it is inevitable — if by means of all that may
be done in a small hall anything of a theosophical nature can be
attained — that our theosophical life should lead to our
creating an inner chamber for ourselves. This led to the thought of
constructing a large building in Munich which would really admit of
our possessing a house of our own for the requirements of the
lectures given there. The immediate future will prove what fortune
awaits us in this respect. For it is certain, if we are ever in a
position to carry out the idea of a building in Munich it must be
done soon, otherwise the fairest fruits of our work will be lost
— for the simple reason that the next few years will be the
best time possible for carrying out our work in the desired manner,
if only we have the proper room to do so. That this may have good
results if we are able to construct a Hall for ourselves, we have
seen, not only in small beginnings but in Stuttgart, where they have
now constructed the first Central European Lodge and house. And those
who were present at its opening were amply convinced of how important
it is to possess an inner chamber consecrated in the theosophical
sense, and how completely different it is to enter such a room when
compared with any other — quite apart from the separate details
to which I referred when I spoke about the significance of colour, of
the limitations of space and so on, as regards the cultivation of
occult knowledge in such a room. We have seen that the deepening for
which we are striving in the domain of Theosophy has already found
numerous ears, hearts and souls, and will apparently continue to find
more and more. We have seen, and indeed we have been obliged to see
over and over again, how easily in our day the longing may encroach
to make the convictions and knowledge of the spiritual world too
easy. I believe that when course after course of lectures is followed
and the thought, the deepening of feeling and the expansion of
knowledge in the separate domains of life — even of occult life
— is more and more required, that a great number of those who
have worked with us may have already discovered that precisely in
that current of theosophical life we call our own, we do not make
things too easy. When we consider the great store of lectures and
books accumulated as time goes on, on our table here, —
(sometimes quite appalling to me to see what has been brought
together in the course of the year, — but with which anyone
belonging to our movement must make himself intimately acquainted or
at any rate must study a little) — when we consider this, we
may truly say that we do not make it easy for anyone wishing to enter
the spiritual world. And yet, as the years go by it is more and more
evident that we are able to find our way to the ears, hearts and
souls of people — so far as we have been able to approach them.
Although through particular circumstances to which we need not now
refer, the Congress of the European Section in Genoa did not take
place, we on our part did not abandon our festival on this account.
It might have been thought when the Congress at the last minute fell
through — that we could not have held our festival, but it
became immediately evident how necessary it was to spend this time
elsewhere; so that the Lodge lectures were held at the time of the
Genoese Congress in Lugano, Locarno, Milan, Neuchatel and in Berne,
and we were able during this time to work on a ground upon which it
might have been difficult to work in the time approaching. When I
reflect for instance that in Neuchatel a Lodge was formed wanting to
call itself by the name of a great spiritual individuality, after the
name of Christian Rosenkreutz, and that this Lodge longed to hear
intimate things about him, upon which I shall shortly lecture here;
when I reflect that in order to speak about Christian Rosenkreutz at
all, in order to understand this singular individuality, all the
truths were necessary which we had collected in the course of the
year, and that yet there was an inner need to hear something more
intimate about this individuality; it must be said that we have
succeeded in deepening ourselves in a theosophical sense, although it
has not been made easy for those who work with us. Notwithstanding
this, how easy it really is made for those who truly wish to attain
this deepening. We may, without exaggeration say that we do make it
easy for them.
Reflect, for example
upon the fact, that I have again and again emphasised that in our
theosophical movement we have to look upon the occult ideal as the
basis of our whole theosophic life. There is in reality only one
occult truth. There cannot in reality be an Eastern and Western
occultism. That would be just as sensible as if we were to
distinguish an Eastern and a Western system of mathematics; yet some
one or other problem or question can, on account of human
peculiarity, be better attended to by occult research in the East or
in the West. Hence we must say that what relates to the great Figure
that for some years we have designated as the Christ is the result of
the occult research of the last century in the European esoteric
schools, the European sanctuaries of occultism. Nothing that has been
said in the course of years concerning the Individuality we call
Jesus of Nazareth, or about the two Jesus children, or the entrance
of Christ into the body of Jesus of Nazareth at the time marked by
the Baptism of John in [the] Jordan, or of the Mystery of Golgotha, or what
has recently been said in Carlsruhe about the Mystery of the
Resurrection — could possibly have been announced to-day,
were it not that the occult researches of the West had been fostered
from the middle of the twelfth century down to the present day. And
yet, we could not understand Christianity without possessing
these truths. We cannot really understand Christianity, for instance,
without understanding the resurrection, however great theologians we
may be. Anyone speaking after the manner of the modern theologian
cannot understand Christianity; for what could he make of the words
of St. Paul, ‘If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain and your faith also is vain.’ In short where there is no
understanding of the Resurrection, there can be no understanding of
Christianity.
But on the other hand,
we must also reflect that the external intellect, whether directed to
Theosophy or to natural science, has the peculiarity of not being
able to approach subjects such as the Resurrection. The modern
thinker says: I must draw a line through the whole structure of my
thought if I am really to believe in the Resurrection, and what is
described in the Gospel of St. John; — the consciousness of
many people lead them to say this. It is therefore necessary that
occultism should give its conclusions on these facts in the West.
It is precisely these facts relating to Christianity, to the Mystery
of the West, which the Eastern school of occult thought, in so far as
it can be known externally, does not possess. And why? The people in
Asia — with the exception of regions in Asia Minor — are
not interested in Christ, and never have been. They do not feel any
need to ask about His Being, for hundreds and thousands of years they
have done without it; so that in India and Thibet there are wonderful
occult teachings — for instance, about Buddha or the
Bodhisattvas — but no one was particularly interested in
meditating about the Being of the Christ, or in making occult
researches concerning, It. It is therefore impossible to
require of the Oriental school of Theosophy any knowledge of the
Christ.
When the Theosophical
movement first arose, H. P. Blavatsky, as we all know, accomplished
an enormous amount for it. How did she do this? Was it by forming the
three fundamental rules of our Society which are still on our card of
membership to-day? Certainly not by saying that there must be a
Society to cultivate universal love! For there are many such, and
every normally thinking person will look upon the cultivation
of universal love as something which must be extended. H. P.
Blavatsky accomplished so great a work because through her a great
number of occult truths have penetrated into the world, and any one
who studies Isis Unveiled, or The Secret Doctrine will
say that, notwithstanding everything that may be said against these
works they contain an immense number of truths. — Truths of
which, till now, no one in spiritual life had any conception, —
except those who had undergone initiation. We must admit that Madame
Blavatsky had an illogical, disorderly mind, and invented things,
putting them beside the communications of the Masters where they
should not be, (to go into this now would lead us too far) we know
she had an impetuous nature and often said what she should not, for
it is not right in occultism to speak in so impetuous a manner. Still
though we may say that it would be a good thing to take Isis
Unveiled and put it into systematic and logical order, or to take
five-sixths out of The Secret Doctrine and revise the
remaining sixth part in an orderly manner, yet in Theosophical life
we must follow the positive and admit that something powerful was
brought into occult life through her.
But how does the
matter really stand? It is that H. P. Blavatsky, at the time she
wrote Isis Unveiled, received a kind of Rosicrucian
inspiration? There are great Rosicrucian truths in Isis
Unveiled, which even included the errors of Rosicrucianism; the
significant thing is that it really is all Rosicrucian. I say
deliberately the errors of Rosicrucianism, for ancient Rosicrucianism
had not the possibility of an insight into the truths of
reincarnation and karma, did not possess these truths in the
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. These were
only revealed later to the West. Madame Blavatsky did not give an
extensive teaching of reincarnation and karma in Isis
Unveiled, indeed she took over all the faults of Rosicrucianism.
Then it came about by reason of things of which we have not time to
speak to-day, Madame Blavatsky fell away from the influences
coming from Rosicrucianism, and fell under those of Eastern
Theosophy. From this proceeded The Secret Doctrine, which
contains great truths concerning everything not Christian, —
but in respect to what is Christian, is the greatest nonsense. With
respect to all the religions and conceptions of the world with the
exception of Judaism and Christianity, — The Secret Doctrine
is very useful. But nothing relating to Judaism and Christianity
can be made any use of at all, because Madame Blavatsky entered a
domain in which these truths were not cultivated. The whole course
taken later by the theosophical movement is connected with this. It
became inadequate for the understanding of Christianity. Allow me to
make clear to you by an important example, in what way it is
inadequate.
The highest
individuality in Eastern occultism with the exception of the highest
Initiates who even in Orientalism do not speak differently from
ourselves — is that of the Bodhisattva. Such a
Bodhisattva was that individuality who, five hundred years before our
era, ascended to the next dignity, which is also understood in
Orientalism; we refer to that Bodhisattva who was the son of King
Suddhodana, and who in his twenty-ninth year became Buddha.
Becoming a Buddha, as everyone acquainted with Buddhism
understands includes the fact that the being in question, the being
who has become Buddha, no longer descends into physical life, can
never appear again on earth. The Bodhisattva became Buddha; he no
longer returns to earth in an ordinary body, in accordance with the
laws of reincarnation. But he has a successor. At the moment the
Bodhisattva received illumination and rose to Buddhahood, he
nominated a successor to become Bodhisattva. This next Bodhisattva
will now appear as man, a man towering above his fellows, until he
himself ascends to the dignity of a Buddha. Now every disciple of
Orientalism regards it as a truth that precisely five thousand years
after the illumination of Gautama Buddha under the Bodhi tree, the
next Bodhisattva will rise to the dignity of Buddha, and will appear
as Maitreya Buddha. That is, three thousand years after our time; so
that until then a Bodhisattva will live in the manifold incarnations
yet to come, he will descend again and again to the earth, but will
only ascend to the dignity of a Buddha three thousand years after our
time — and will then be a great teacher on earth. That is the
highest individuality to which the Eastern occult teaching leads. And
because Madame Blavatsky was in a sense caught by the Eastern school
of thought, her understanding of such things was limited by Eastern
conceptions. At the same time it was necessary to give to Europeans a
mode of understanding Christianity, but it was not possible really to
understand Christianity by means of Eastern conceptions. These only
lead up to the Bodhisattva and the Buddha individualities, with the
consequence that even the old clairvoyants could only see so far as
the individuality of a Bodhisattva. One of these was however, present
in an individuality who lived 105 years before our era, in Jesus ben
Pandira, who occupied a curious relation to the Essenes, who had
disciples — and among others him who prepared the
Matthew-Gospel. Such a Bodhisattva-Individuality, a follower of
Gautama Buddha, was incarnated in Jesus ben Pandira. Eastern
Theosophy speaks of this Bodhisattva-Individuality. And to the
clairvoyant vision of the East it would appear as though 105 years
after Jesus ben Pandira nothing particular happened in the world.
— H. P. Blavatsky, for instance, directed her vision to the
point of time in which Jesus ben Pandira lived: she saw that in him a
great Bodhisattva-Individuality was incarnated; but because her
occult vision was limited by her entanglement in Eastern Theosophy,
she could not perceive that 105 years later the Christ was there. In
short, she only knew of Christ what was said of Him in the West, and
from this she formed the idea that Christ had never lived at all,
that it was all a delusion, but that 105 years before our era there
lived a Jesus ben Pandira who was stoned and hanged upon a tree, and
who therefore was not crucified. This Jesus she now described as if
he had been Jesus of Nazareth. This is however, a complete confusion
of one with another. And concerning the true Jesus of Nazareth
nothing at all was said, but that he who was born 105 years before
was substituted for the Christ, and because it was wished to give him
a European name he was spoken of as Christ.
We however, must
adjudge that that school of thought is simply incapable of seeing
what the Christ-Being is. The moment we draw attention to such a
point as this we are naturally in an unpleasant position; that cannot
be denied. And why so? What I must say is that everyone who is
acquainted with one or other of the sciences knows that there are
points which can be disputed while others are indisputable; regarding
these latter, if a man holds a contrary opinion we are compelled to
say that he has not grasped the point in question. But if we say,
‘you do not understand this,’ we may be considered
extremely arrogant! This is the unpleasant position in which we find
ourselves when we cannot agree with those who speak of Jesus ben
Pandira as the ‘Christ.’ They are simply not advanced
enough to understand it. It is unpleasant to be obliged to say this,
but it is true. Therefore we cannot blame them when they speak of the
Being Whom they too acknowledge, as though He could again and again
appear in the flesh. For they have no conception of that Being
Who, as the Christ Being, could only appear once in the flesh!
— Now take Esoteric Christianity by Mrs. Besant, and
read it with more care than is usual in theosophical circles. You
will find an individuality described there who lived 105 years before
our era; the only mistake is that he is described as the Christ.
Suppose any person, — the authoress of this book for instance,
— were now to say that in the twentieth century the being she
described in Esoteric Christianity appeared in human fleshly
form. Nothing more could be said against this — from our
standpoint — than would be said to anyone in India who ventured
to say that the Buddha was about to reincarnate. He would be told
that he was an uneducated European in the following terms: ‘We
all know that Buddha can never appear again in the flesh; you
understand nothing of Buddhism.’ We Europeans must have
recourse to this too when anyone says that Christ will be incarnated
a second time. We must reply, ‘You do not understand, for the
true knowledge of the Christ-Being shows us that He is a Being Who
could only appear once in a fleshly body!’ Let us say that the
understanding of these facts belongs to a different level. Then there
can be no misunderstanding.
I ask, to what can we
reduce that which separates us from any Eastern theosophical school?
Do we deny that a man lived 105 years before our era, who was stoned
for blasphemy and hanged upon a tree? No, we do not deny this. Do we
deny that in this being a great Individuality was concealed? We
do not. Neither do we deny that this being may reincarnate in the
twentieth century. We admit that. Is there actually any point at all
concerning which we must deny what the other school asserts? Only
this: that we must say — ’You do not know the Being Whom
we all Christ: you call another by His Name, and we must reserve the
right to correct this.’ Otherwise it is only a question of
nomenclature. People are incorrect when they assert that what we
place at the starting point of our era never existed; for there we
place our two Jesus children, the Baptism of John in [the] Jordan, and the
Mystery of Golgotha! Of this they say nothing! We really must be
allowed the right to know something about that of which they are
ignorant! Otherwise the decree would go forth: ‘no one must
know what we do not know: everything we do not know is false.’
In this respect we take the stand of denying nothing; and if anything
be denied, it is by the other side.
In this way all
misunderstandings which otherwise arise can very easily be avoided.
Here we take the position that in our view there is no room for
misunderstanding, and none exists. Only we must have the right to
bring to bear on our theosophical life occult researches which
immeasurably deepen the problems of the West but which simply do not
exist in the East because nothing is known of such. So we see that in
one important point, if goodwill is present, it is not in the least
necessary that there should be any disharmony in the theosophical
movement. But for this, goodwill is certainly necessary —
goodwill not dependent on the denial of any truth that may have been
recognised as correct, for that would not be goodwill — but
denial of the truth. But in so far as we are logical, goodwill must
exist. For what is the cause of differences of opinion? Is it the
consideration of a subject from different standpoints or perhaps from
different heights? If that be the case the opponent would be unable
to give a logical reason for his opinion. And then comes the question
of understanding the subject and showing forbearance.
This, which must be
established so far as we are concerned, is what I had to notice
to-day, when for the first time we meet again. I referred to it as a
proof of how easy it is to see perfectly clearly into our movement if
desired. On this account we may say that we need oppose no one. We
can quietly wait till they oppose us. We can calmly go on working,
and we should not have mentioned these subjects to-day at all, if our
friends had not been confused by hearing it said that theosophists
are much at variance among themselves. As soon as things are enquired
into we may perhaps come upon a very awkward situation, and be
obliged to say, that the other side is not acquainted with certain
things. Thus perhaps we may be accused of pride, and sometimes we
must take that upon ourselves if we are conscious that we can really
be both humble and modest. This made it necessary last year to show
in occult work, such for instance, as my book The Spiritual
Guidance of Man and of Mankind, the progress that has taken place
since the thirteenth century. Such results as have been produced
since that time can hardly be observed in any other movement than our
own. Hence we may say that we have for once imposed upon our occult
movement the difficult task of examining into the most advanced
occult conclusions. And we may look upon it as a good result of our
summer work that at the founding of the Branch at Neuchatel, the need
arose to learn to know more intimately the great teacher of
Christianity, Christian Rosencreutz, in his various incarnations and
his own peculiar nature.
I myself brought
forward what has been said to-day so that each of you may know the
real facts of the case and may know what to reply if someone on the
opponents’ side should say, ‘Here it is said that that
Christ will incarnate again in the twentieth century — and
there it is said that He will only appear as a Spiritual Being. These
two are conflicting ideas!’ No, we must not allow it to be said
that these are two different ideas; we must emphasise, even on the
opposite side that the being spoken of there lived 105 years before
our era and was stoned. But when for instance, in the last book by
Mrs. Besant, The Changing World in which all these things are
mixed up and no attention is paid to the fact that the Name of Christ
was only usurped, when a complete contradiction is found in her own
books Esoteric Christianity and The Changing World
these are really things that we must point out, so that no one should
believe that in the new book by Mrs. Besant Christ is in question.
Otherwise she would have to say that she will draw a thick line
through Esoteric Christianity and that its contents are no
longer correct. For if they were correct a being is spoken of who
lived 105 years before our era — and not at the beginning of
our era, as we say of Christ Jesus.
The characteristic of
our movement is that we carry the result of our occult researches on
to the most modern times. Hence in a certain respect there is a sort
of detraction — although an unconscious one, when we are called
Rosicrucians not by ourselves but by outsiders. When we are thus
spoken of it reminds us of a nice little story of something that took
place in the market of a town in Central Germany. One man said that
he knew that another was a sluggard. ‘What?’ said
somebody, ‘He a sluggard? I am certain that he is a chemist,
not a sluggard I’ The same logic that says that if a man is a
chemist he cannot be a sluggard, would lead us to say the movement in
which we work is not ‘theosophical’ but
‘Rosicrucian.’ Why do we cultivate Rosicrucian
principles? Because there have been Rosicrucian Occult Sanctuaries,
and because we must accept the Rosicrucian results cultivated there
into our theosophical current, just as we have spoken without
prejudice about Brahmanism, Orientalism, ancient and modern
Christianity. I do not think that in many other theosophical branches
the subjects discussed have included, for instance, the Mexican
Divinities, Quetzalcoatl and Tezkatlipoka, as has been done here. And
so in addition to all the other subjects we have also included the
Rosicrucian occult results. That is quite natural unless we refuse to
admit what is occult. And if we have some good symbols derived from
Rosicrucianism, it is because such things are the best to work on the
minds and hearts of modern men. And we are precisely modern
theosophists because we do not refuse to admit the results of modern
research. Has anyone beard me commence any lectures, ‘My dear
Rosicrucian friends?’ It is precisely because we stand upon the
common ground of Theosophy that such things occur. For this reason it
is an unconscious detraction when our movement is given the name of
Rosicrucian as a designation. We must make allowance for these
things.
This winter it will be
our task to enter more deeply into the teachings and truths we have
already received. And so I should like in particular, in order to
prepare the ground presently to speak here upon Christian
Rosenkreutz, to speak on the threefold principles of man and their
true basis, in so far as man is able to take up the intellectual, the
aesthetic and the moral impulse. We must seek very deeply in the
occult subsoil for these things, and the teaching we have received
about Saturn, Sun and Moon evolution will precisely enable us to
consider man more deeply, as an intellectual, aesthetic and moral
being.
|