Lecture II
Berlin,
August 7, 1917
I should like to add supplementary
material to our recent considerations. The primary aim has been to show
what, in view of the fundamental character and direction of present-day
cultural life, is so urgently needed. Our studies also set out to show
that from spiritual knowledge there must flow into man's thinking, feeling
and willing the impulses needed at the present time. That spiritual
impulses are needed must be obvious to many from even a superficial
observation of present events.
Let me begin by illustrating
the fact that at every turn we encounter proof of the need for spiritual
insight. Many examples related to our recent studies could be chosen,
but I will take an article that appeared a few days ago in a Berlin
newspaper under the title: “Physiology of Politics.” We
must pay attention to symptoms of this kind for they indicate the nature
of contemporary man's thinking, feeling and willing. Provided one refrains
from entering into a one-sided controversy over such an article, seeing
it rather as characteristic of the present-day outlook, then a publication
of this kind can be enlightening.
The author of the article,
Max Verworn, as I have mentioned
before, is deemed one of the greatest authorities in his branch of science.
This famous professor of physiology sets out to show that politics ought
to be influenced by his way of thinking. This is understandable, indeed
it is almost a matter of course, for everyone naturally considers his
own thinking the best and therefore recommends its application to important
affairs of the time. However, the article leaves one with a peculiar
impression. First of all it brings home the fallacy that materialism,
even in its crudest form, has been eradicated from natural science.
Many who are firmly in the clutches of materialism, nevertheless believe
this to be the case. They may have absorbed one or two ideas considered
to be philosophical and so imagine materialism to be transcended. This
article, by a leading authority on natural science, demonstrates how
little materialism is overcome. A sentence like the following brings
it home: “The general concept of the animal kingdom includes as
a special example the concept of man, just as the animal kingdom is
itself a special example within the still more comprehensive concept
of the organic world.” This means that if we want to understand
man we must turn to the animal kingdom; to understand the animal we
must turn to the general concept of organism. Furthermore, this distinguished
authority finds it of utmost importance that mutual relationships in
political life should be studied the way one studies — that is
to say, the way professor Verworn studies — mutual relationships
in the animal kingdom. He considers himself to have made a remarkable
discovery, for he says: “No one can deny this fact (that man is
a special example of the animal kingdom) unless he is completely ignorant
of biological evolution. Man differs from the rest of the animal kingdom
merely through certain distinguishing features and through his cultural
achievements. Nevertheless he is and remains, an animal organism whose
total behaviour is subject to the general laws that govern animal species.”
Official science is of the
same conviction despite what is said, with more or less emphasis, to
the contrary. It is obvious that this way of thinking is prevalent in
every aspect of modern science even if theoretically some scientific
statements go beyond this view. Consequently it leads Verworn to say:
“No doubt our culture has evolved as a special instance of organic
evolution.” This means that organic development is supposed to
be the source of all man's cultural achievements. So we must study how
animals eat and digest, how they gradually develop, how the individual
cells in their organism interact. We must then transfer these ideas
to family life, to larger and smaller corporations and other bodies
within the greater body of the State. We then, according to Verworn,
have a proper foundation on which to build up a science of politics.
He says: “We shall arrive at sound ideas in this domain only when
we try to think of the political State (as he calls it) as a great organism.”
According to him the human organism is no different from the animal
organism. When investigated one will find that individual cells and
systems of cells in the organism are related and interdependent just
like the various corporate bodies within the State.
Verworn sees development
as a basic feature of the animal organism, but his view of development
is peculiar. He says: “Development is a factor common to all living
entities.” But what does he understand by development? According
to him development takes place when an organic entity adapts itself
to the conditions in which it finds itself. Thus development is the
result of something organic; i.e., something living adapting to its
environment. But at the very first hurdle he stumbles, for he says:
“A lower organism such as the amoeba is no doubt adapted from
the start for otherwise it would not be capable of life and would be
destroyed.” There is the catch! If the lower organism is adapted
from the first to its environment, and development is supposed to consist
in adaptation, then why does the amoeba evolve further when it is already
adapted?
You see from this example
that modern science disregards the basic principle of scientific investigation
when it comes to the exact application of concepts and ideas. If a sentence
such as the one Verworn makes in regard to development was taken seriously
the whole current concept of evolution would collapse. But he goes on
to make another statement based on the first: “A comparison of
the different stages of organization, in various organisms, shows that
increasing perfection is due to ever more elaborate and improved physiological
means for maintaining life within the most varied changes of environment.”
In other words, because the amoeba, the lowest organism, is already
adapted to the environment and therefore has no need to evolve further
Verworn conceives the idea that the reason it nevertheless does evolve
is in order to become ever better adapted. What is not explained is
where this impulse to better adaptation comes from. The impulse cannot
be inherent in the amoeba for Verworn says himself that if it were not
already adapted it would perish.
This is the kind of evidence
that is continuously brought forward. The public at large, though denying
it has blind faith in authority, is conditioned to accept patiently
such somersaults in ideas. These things are simply looked upon as signs
of great and reliable science. When such ideas are applied in physiology
they do no great harm in individual cases because what is investigated
in physiology can be verified under the microscope. Facts may be falsely
interpreted, the most extraordinary discoveries may be construed, but
mistakes will be corrected when the facts are put under the microscope.
It is in fact possible to be a great physiologist yet a dunce when it
comes to working out ideas. However, the harm becomes immense when someone
has the pretention to suggest that the concepts belonging to the realm
of physiology can be transferred to social and political life. In this
sphere false and misinterpreted ideas remain undetected as they no longer
refer to something physical which can be verified under a microscope.
Here concepts themselves are the guiding factor and if they are foolish
their application results in foolishness. These things must be recognized,
they lead to great tragedies in life.
In view of present-day
intellectual proficiency it is astonishing how much ignorance, how much
sheer lack of knowledge prevails among prominent scientific investigators
— thoughtlessness on the one hand, superficiality on the other
as demonstrated by claims such as those made by the famous authority
just mentioned. One asks in despair if a man in his position can really
be unaware that what he suggests has already been attempted not very
long ago. And then it was based on concepts that were equally obscure.
In three volumes by Schäffle,
the former Austrian prime minister, entitled “The Structure and
Life of the Body Social” [ Note 1 ] the
attempt is made to depict the State as a cellular organism. So the experiment
had been made already and had ended in failure. Schäffle also wrote
a book with the title: “The Lack of Prospect in Social Democracy”
[ Note 2 ] ; to which Hermann
Bahr, then a young man, wrote a rejoinder with the title: “The
Lack of Insight of Herr Schäffle.” [ Note
3 ]
This kind of ignorance results
in repeated attempts to try again what has already been tried and has
failed. Before acting on a general notion of this kind one would expect
some one like Verworn to acquaint himself with a work such as that by
Schäffle on the body social. It is interesting to ask: How does
Verworn come to entertain these ideas at all? The answer could be that
only a few decades earlier Virchow
spoke about the structure of the human organism and the animal organism
in general. Concerning the animal organism he said that it contains
various systems of cells which are related and which interact with one
another. But the relevant point is the way Virchow arrived
at this idea of interacting systems of cells: He coined a word; calling
the animal organism a “cell-State.” In other words, he takes
the idea of the State and compares the animal organism to it. Verworn
turns the idea around, he extracts the concept of the State and proceeds
to apply to it the whole evolution of the animal organism. — One
is reminded of the story of the ingenious Münchausen who pulls
himself up by his forelock.
That is just one example
of the superficiality that one meets at every turn. Here is someone
who conceives the notion of how a State functions and transfers this
notion to organisms. Someone else comes along and transfers his notion
of how an organism functions over to the State. The whole subject remains
obscure to the public in general who simply accept what is presented
and have no idea that concepts, belonging to quite a different realm,
are introduced. It is the kind of situation that is prevalent everywhere.
People, trying to gain a firm hold on life, turn to popular science
for guidance but do not find the security they long for. All that the
highly respected science has to offer are theories built on shaky foundations.
The most arbitrary notions are bandied about; statements are issued
and no trouble taken to verify their correctness first. If only they
were examined first one would realize the nonsense they often present.
Take this statement by Verworn: “All systems of cells are dependent
on others, which however does not mean that one kind of cell exercises
a power to suppress another kind. On the contrary, cell systems mutually
promote one an-other's specific quality in the interest of the social
whole and consequently in the interest of each individual cell.”
— Verworn is here referring to the human organism. Thus groups
of cells are supposed to be dependent on each other but in such a way
that it is to their mutual benefit. This arrangement is then held up
as a model for arranging the various departments within a State. The
notion is that, in order to function, brain cells; i.e., one kind of
cells, need the cooperation of blood cells, while the brain cells at
the same time place themselves at the service of the blood cells. One
wonders what the outcome would be were these notions introduced into
organizing a State. The whole idea is so preposterous that we need look
at one aspect only to realize the insanity of the whole idea.
Verworn visualizes individual
departments of State interacting the way that, according to him, individual
systems of cells interact in an animal organism. This, he maintains,
reveals the real concept of freedom. He continues: “A close study
of the direction evolution has taken in the case of the cell State in
the animal organism, provides us with guidelines for the direction we
should take in order to establish a corresponding system within the
social organism of the political State. It reveals to us among other
things the true idea of individual freedom, seen here in its natural
setting, free from all nonessential externalities with which it is often
associated.” — So, according to Verworn, because blood cells
are enjoying freedom in their interaction with brain cells, human freedom
can be discovered by studying their relationship! — As for the
nervous system, Verworn sees it as corresponding in the organism to
the administrative machinery of the State. Not only is the comparison
ridiculous, it is not even consistent for he overlooks that nerves lead
to sense organs, so where do we have the eyes and ears of the State?
When one works with spiritual
knowledge one is led to lofty, sublime concepts. They apply to the way
things are related spiritually; they therefore apply also to the spiritual
connections in man's animal-human organism. But when concepts are derived
one-sidedly from the human organism as such, especially as done in this
case, one simply gets nowhere. Yet in another statement Verworn carries
the absurdity even further when he says: “The level of greater
perfection of organic development in the animal cell-State is only reached
at a further stage through centralization. At this stage the function
of single cells and groups of cells is regulated and guided, according
to momentary needs, from a center which is able to assess the need on
the basis of information received.” Verworn suggests with these
childish ideas that the brain receives information from other groups
of cells and sends messages accordingly to the stomach, and so on.
And how, according to Verworn,
does civilization, does culture come about? He says: “Culture
is the sum total of all the ways and means created by man himself that
enables him to be fully conscious of his environment and adapt to whatever
occurrence happens in his life. Culture is nothing else than the totality
of all the values man has created for the preservation and advancement
of his life.” — To define culture in this way one must have
lost all capacity of observation and taken leave of one's reason as
well! Culture is supposed to be the sum total of values created by man
for the preservation and advancement of life! The intellect must indeed
have ceased to function for undoubtedly the culture created by man at
present consists mainly in instruments designed to destroy. Looking
at what culture has become in this domain it can hardly be described
as preserving and advancing human life. Had it been described as created
for oppression and destruction that would have been correct, at least
in regard to a part of culture. But statements like those brought forward
by Verworn one meets everywhere in modern science. Take the following
example: “The production of cultural values is a physiological
function not just in individuals but is to a large extent a specific
function of the political State. This is because there are many cultural
values which cannot be created by single individuals, as they are values
which serve the whole community they need the cooperation of many. The
political State as such is therefore an organism that produces cultural
values just like the individual. Moreover, as it is obvious that a close
relation exists between politics and physiology it is time that practical
results were gained from this fact. One should reckon with the reality
that a political State has a physiological basis, therefore information
should be derived from the living organism concerning all matters of
organization.” —Verworn would no doubt have said that information
should be derived from his knowledge of the human organism.
These things are symptoms
and must be brought to light. They delude the unhappy soul of man who
at present is longing to know how and where it belongs within the great
organism of the universe. It is nonsense of this kind that makes it
so extraordinarily difficult to reach any understanding, particularly
with people who are proficient in science. It would be an illusion to
imagine that someone like Verworn could begin to understand even the
most elementary aspects of spiritual science. While that is unthinkable
there is at least the possibility that spiritual science, through its
own power, will sustain more and more people so that eventually such
scientific folly with its colossal pretentions will be overcome. It
is no use trying to refute it and trying to be understood is hopeless.
All that can be done is for a sufficient number of people to become
aware of the danger threatening mankind if what today calls itself science
is allowed to lead the way and to insinuate itself into realms where
concepts become realities. This danger is a serious one of which one
ought to be well aware; it is all the more important because this kind
of superficiality, prevalent though it already is, will undoubtedly
increase. These things are staring one in the face and it is so much
to be wished that a sufficient number of people would look at them from
a deeper aspect as we have to some extent just done.
Very much depends upon these
things being evaluated rightly, but what happens is usually something
like the following: A speech by Virchow appears in print; how is it
received? Because Virchow is famous and regarded as a very important
person it is taken for granted — though of course no one is supposed
to suffer from blind faith in authority — that what such a famous
man says can be accepted without question, it must be Gospel truth.
Yet even if for once it was the truth one still ought to think through
and evaluate for oneself what has been said. Take another example: at
a meeting of scientists in Munich, Haeckel and Virchow discussed the
liberty that prevailed in spreading scientific theories. Virchow suggested
that conclusions should not be drawn indiscriminately from the theory
of evolution. Much of what he said in opposition to Haeckel
was justified. He was more particularly against Darwinism being introduced
without reservations into schools, where it would only serve to close
the minds to other views. In his speech Virchow said among other things
the following: “It is to my credit that I know my own ignorance.
It is important for me to know the exact extent of my ignorance of chemistry,
otherwise I should forever labor under uncertainty.” Of course,
it is commendable of Virchow to admit knowing nothing of chemistry.
However, the unfortunate consequence is that his followers refuse to
concern themselves with chemistry, simply saying they know nothing about
it. On the other hand they look upon those who confess to spiritual-scientific
knowledge as fools or visionaries. If only these people would let what
Virchow says about chemistry apply also to spiritual science, then they
would say: It is important that I know exactly to what extent I know
nothing about spiritual science. But this is not said; the same honest
attitude is not forthcoming. So you see, it is essential to recognize
the consequences even when what is said is correct.
Nonetheless there was much
of greatness in the 19th Century, but it is necessary to have a proper
understanding of this greatness. Many things which are now part of mankind's
general destiny, can be understood only in relation to what took place
in the 19th Century. Souls without a rudder, souls without a firm grip
on life who feel they do not belong, are numerous in our time. They
are for the most part souls who, out of an instinctive need, long for
something different from what traditional values can offer, souls who
have been searching without finding anything which could give them a
feeling of security, of belonging. So what is lacking, what is it that
man needs? — I will not say to give him security once and for
all, that is no more possible than it is possible for a single meal
to sustain the whole of life. It is perhaps better to ask: What does
man need to find a secure path through life? What he needs above all
is a consciousness of belonging within the world. Weakness and inner
discontent comes from the soul's feeling of isolation. Life's greatest
question is in fact: Where and how do I fit into the world? This is
putting it abstractly; but this abstract question expresses much of
immense significance concerning the deeper aspect of human destiny.
When man today turns to
natural science in order to reach a satisfying answer to the question:
Where, as man, is my place in the world? then at best the natural-scientific
world view will tell him where his physical body belongs within world
evolution as a whole. Today it is known, at least up to a point, where
man's physical body belongs in the evolutionary process. But the natural-scientific
world view has absolutely nothing to say about how man's soul, let alone
spirit, fits into world evolution. Compare for a moment the evolutionary
process, as described by spiritual science, with that described by natural
science. The natural-scientific theory of evolution leads to the animal
kingdom — how this is arrived at is a separate issue — spiritual
science leads us back through the different phases of earth evolution:
through the Ancient Moon evolution, the Ancient Sun evolution to the
Ancient Saturn evolution. It shows us that what lives within us as soul
and spirit were germinally present already within the Ancient Saturn
evolution. Nothing physically was then present, except conditions of
warmth. We are shown how we are related to the primordial warmth, pervaded
through and through by the individual beings of the Hierarchies who
are still about us. We are placed within a cosmos filled with soul and
spirit. That is the great difference.
Spiritual science shows
our soul and spirit to be part and parcel of a universal all which it
can describe in detail. Thus spiritual science alone can give the human
soul that without which it feels annihilated. The dissatisfaction and
insecurity felt by modern man reflect modern thinking. This thinking
disregards the soul and declares that only the human body exists within
the cosmic all. Another aspect is that the soul feels it has nothing
to relate to, and that prevents it from finding inner strength. To reach
inner strength of soul one must have attained concepts and ideas which
depict the cosmic all as containing man as a being of soul and spirit;
just as natural science depicts physical man as part of the physical
evolution of the universe.
The courage shown today
so admirable in regard to external issues must be extended to the inner
life. In this respect modern man is far from courageous. He draws back
from all aspects of spiritual reality with the consequence that so many
human beings experience inner dissatisfaction and insecurity. Very much
has to be done it is true, before distorted ideas give way to sound
ones. Nowadays there is, for example, still a preoccupation with atomic
theories, even though the earlier crude form has given way to ions and
electrons. The modern view is that everything consists of atoms. Many
are of the opinion that everything can be traced back to minute atomic
structures. Matter is thought to consist of the tiniest of particles;
i.e., atoms. And many scientists, in fact most, endow matter with force
so that the particles of matter are supposed to attract and repel one
another. At this point investigations come to an end. The 19th Century
will be seen as a significant period in mankind's evolution: the time
when the universe was explained as a structure of matter and force,
a view that has been given classical expression in innumerable works.
This example shows the extent
to which ideas must be readjusted before it is possible to evaluate
what is needed now. Let us hold on to the fact that there are those
whose speculations are mainly concerned with matter; they imagine that
the world consists of atoms. How does this view compare with what spiritual
science has to say? Certainly natural physical phenomena do lead us
back to atoms, but what are these atoms? They reveal what they are at
the moment the very first stage of spiritual perception has been attained.
At the stage of imaginative perception atoms reveal what they truly
are. I have spoken about this in various connections many years ago
in public lectures. Those who speculate on matter come to the conclusion
that space is empty and atoms whirl around in this empty space. Atoms
are supposed to be the most solid entities in existence. That is simply
not the case, the whole issue is based on illusion. To imaginative cognition
atoms are revealed as bubbles and the reality is where the empty space
is supposed to be. Atoms are blown up bubbles. In other words, in contrast
to what surrounds them they are nothing. You know that where bubbles
are seen in soda-water there is no water. Atoms are bubbles in that
sense; where they are the space is hollow, nothing is there. And yet
it is possible to push against it; impact occurs precisely because,
in pushing against hollowness, an effect is produced. How can nothing
produce an effect? Take the case of the space, practically empty of
air, within an air-pump; there you see how air streams into nothingness.
A wrong interpretation might imagine the empty space in the bulb of
the air pump as containing a substance that forced in the air. That
is exactly the illusion prevailing in regard to the atom. The opposite
is true: atoms are empty — yet again not empty. There is after
all something within these bubbles. And what is it? — This is
also something about which have already spoken — what exists within
the atom bubbles is ahrimanic substance. Ahriman is there. The whole
system of atoms consists of ahrimanic substantiality. As you see this
is a considerable metamorphosis of the ideas entertained by those who
theorize about matter. Where in space they see something material we
see the presence of Ahriman.
Force is another concept
which in particular occupies those who speculate about force in their
attempt to build up a world picture. Here again the very first stage
of spiritual cognition shows that where force is supposed to be active
there is in fact nothing. But where the force is thought not to be,
there something is at work. It is exactly as if two people walked side
by side and were observed by a third person. He looks towards them and,
as they are walking a little apart, he looks between them and describes,
not one or the other person, but the space between them. He is concerned,
not with the two persons but the emptiness between them. That is the
way those who theorize about force are looking at what is between the
reality. Where it is said that a force of attraction is operating there
is actually nothing, but to the left and the right there is the reality.
I would have to go into
many things were I to explain in detail what I have put forward simply
as facts. It is time such things were discussed, for clear ideas corresponding
to facts are needed. Otherwise it is not possible to refute such brilliant
nonsense as, for example, the theory of relativity which has made Einstein
a figure of renown. The theory of relativity seems so self-evident:
for example, when a cannon is fired at a distance the sound is heard
after a certain interval; if one moves nearer to the cannon the sound
is heard sooner. Now, according to the theory of relativity if one moved
with the speed of sound one would not hear it for one would go with
it. If one went even faster than the sound, then one would hear something
which is fired later, before one would hear what was fired earlier.
This idea is generally accepted today but it has no relation whatever
to reality. To go as fast as sound would mean to be sound and to hear
none. These quite distorted ideas exist today as the theory of relativity
and enjoy the greatest respect.
As it has already been said,
physicists draw lines to depict currents of force, but where the force
is supposed to be there is in fact nothing, whereas all around there
is something. There is Lucifer, the luciferic element is there. If we
want to depict what corresponds to actual reality we must place the
luciferic element where force is placed by those who theorize about
it. In the 19th Century someone wrote a book with the title “Force
and Matter” in which the world is presented as consisting of force
and matter. In the 20th Century we must substitute that title with “Lucifer
and Ahriman,” for Lucifer and Ahriman are identical with what
are described as force and matter. What can be described as force and
matter are really described by Lucifer and Ahriman. You may say: this
is dreadful! It is not dreadful for as I have often emphasized Lucifer
and Ahriman are only dreadful when they are not balanced against each
other. In mutual balance they serve the wise guidance of worlds. When
Lucifer is placed on one side of the scales and Ahriman on the opposite
side the balance between them must be achieved. It is a balance for
which we must constantly strive.
In our own being this balance
comes about in a remarkable way. You may remember my speaking about
the extraordinary way we are related to the whole universe through our
breathing. We draw a certain number of breaths per minute; if we count
the number of breaths inhaled in one day we arrive at a number which
corresponds to the days of a person's life, if he lives to the age of
seventy. It really is quite astonishing: we live the same number of
days as the number of breaths drawn in one day. And that is only one
detail of the mighty concordance of harmonies within the universe. One
of our breaths is related to the days of our life as one day of our
life is related to our whole earthly life and the whole earthly life
is related to a great Solar Year, the so-called Platonic Year, just
as one day of life is related to the whole life and one breath to one
day. Thus our breathing is in a wonderful inner relationship to the
whole cosmos. If in our cognition we could achieve a tempo that corresponded
to that of our breath then we would come into harmony with the whole
universe in a way that befits man. People in the Orient attempt this
through breathing exercises which are not suitable for Western man.
He must seek this harmony along a more spiritual path.
All the exercises described
in the book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment
are the spiritual correlate suited to the West, of that for which the
Orient longs: to bring the rhythm of the process of breathing into the
process of cognition. If our thinking had the same tempo as our breathing
many secrets of the universe would be disclosed to us. The universe
does disclose its secrets but unfortunately not to our cognition —
if one can use the word, unfortunately in this connection — but
to our dim feelings which are subject to many illusions. On the other
hand our cognition, our thinking by means of which we form mental pictures,
is too “short” when compared to the rhythm of the breath.
The swing of the pendulum in our thinking is too short. In our ordinary
normal external life, we are not able to enter, by means of thinking,
into the great rhythm of the cosmos. Our thinking is too small. By contrast
there is something in us which is too large: that is our will. In the
will the pendulum swings out too far; its amplitude is too strong.
Thus we live between our
thinking and our will. In thinking the swing of the pendulum is too
short, in the will it is too wide. That is the reason our thinking forms
mental pictures which must always be modified by others. The only way
we can gradually come to an insight is by adopting various standpoints.
As for the will, because it swings out too far the amount we are able
to catch hold of is always too small. The will must therefore flow together
with another will in order to reach its predestined goal. The will can
only achieve something in connection with another will; i.e., the will
of one incarnation together with the will of a former incarnation and
so on.
I am sketching these things
in merest outline; they all require elaboration. But my aim is to indicate
the kind of concepts spiritual science must bring to man; concepts that
will enable him to recognize where he belongs, now and in the future,
within the universe. Our ordinary thinking is too narrow. It does not
oscillate far enough compared with the wider oscillation of our breath.
However, thinking in itself is not the goal, only the path. All human
beings think, but they are not conscious of everything which passes
through their soul. A thought has not reached its goal by merely being
formulated, it must unite itself with our being. Thoughts which become
conscious pass over into memory; but we assimilate a great deal which
does not reach consciousness. Just think of all the experiences that
have passed through your soul, some you have thought about, others not.
Some you remember, others not, but all are within you; within your etheric
body. After death they separate themselves from us and pass over into
the world in general. There they become what we behold in the time between
death and a new birth. They enable us to perceive the reality around
us. Our thoughts unite themselves with what there constitutes our external
world. Just as here, in the physical world, we need light in order to
perceive so do we there need what separates itself from us. I have often
described this process of our thoughts separating themselves from us
after death to become our external world.
The content of our will
becomes our inner world, not that which we have merely wished; but will
that has become deed. What we have willed here, what we have imprinted
into the external world, the actions we have carried out become our
inner world in the time between death and a new birth, whereas our thoughts,
our inner life, become what illumines our external world. The outer
becomes the inner; the inner becomes the outer. It is important
to keep that well in mind.
To use a popular saying:
a great deal of water will have to flow under the bridge before official
science wakes up to the fact that force and matter should be termed
Lucifer and Ahriman, or come to realize that we tend towards one-sidedness
in two directions: our thinking, related to breathing, has a tendency
towards the luciferic; while our will, related to metabolism, has a
tendency towards the ahrimanic. We oscillate between Lucifer and Ahriman.
In the middle is the breathing process, the sphere of equilibrium, where
we partake of the great harmony of the universe. That is true science,
that is experienced, not abstract science.
And now let us turn from
spiritual science and compare it to the verse in the Old Testament where
it says. “And He breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living soul.” It is not said that power of will
or of thinking was bestowed upon man; it is the breath that is emphasized.
You can sense that this primordial revelation stems from a knowledge
very different from that of modern spiritual science. But you will also
sense the marvelous concordance, the marvelous agreement that exists
between the findings of spiritual science today and the content of this
and other great historical documents dealing with mankind's evolution.
It goes without saying that the revelations in the Old Testament were
not arrived at in the same way as the findings of modern spiritual science,
but for that very reason the agreement between them is all the more
significant. We shall see in the next lecture that this agreement applies
also to other historical documents such as the New Testament, especially
to the Mystery of Golgotha.
My aim today was to call
your attention to what is needed at present and also to point out how
very difficult it is to come to any understanding, especially in the
sphere of science, with people who hold on to outdated ideas which they
regard as infallible. As I once said: the infallibility of the Pope
may be questioned but the authority of a great many people is thought
to be infallible by those who labor under the illusion that they are
above taking things on authority.
Notes:
1 “Bau and Leben des
socialen Korpers”
2 “Die Aussichtslosigkeit
der Sozialdemokratie”
3 “Die Einsichtslosigkeit
des Herrn Schäffle”
|