SECOND LECTURE
Stuttgart, 12 July 1923
My
dear friends!
Perhaps deepening some of the questions of yesterday can be our
starting point today. Dr Rittelmeyer has already called our
attention to some difficulties which exist in understanding the
relationship of this Christian-religious Movement to
Anthroposophy. These difficulties are such that you actually
can't just through, one could call it a definition, try and
deal with it, but that it should actually be dealt with through
practical application, and then also through a certain study of
soul relationships in present-day humanity. The soul
relationships in present-day humanity have only really just
emerged in the course of the last three to four centuries and
far too little consideration has been given to exploring just
how difficult these soul relationships really are. Thus you
must already be clear about how, out of all the energy and best
of will impulses a religious movement can be formed, which can
also work powerfully and nonetheless in opposition to other
movements of our time where the hearts of people have gradually
become lost, if at the same time the needs of humanity were not
satisfied by the older, or relatively not so very old,
religious streams having become unavailable.
We
may not give in to the illusion that in reality it would be
possible to lead a religious movement separated from the rest
of cultural life, namely to be apart from what is called
scientific culture. You must be aware that an atheistic science
armed with the highest authority exists today. Now you would
probably say, sure, this atheistic science exists as a science,
but alongside that some or other contemporary science and those
involved there insist they are filled not with a contemporary
but an inner piousness; so that there are possibly people who
can live quite within this present day atheistic scientific
community who say: ‘This is another field but when I'm not
active in this field then I find myself in a religious
life.’
You
see, this separation between the scientific and the religious
elements which has been going on for centuries, this inner
separation can still not cope with such a strong and pure
Movement as yours — because a religious movement must,
just like a scientific movement, above all support the truth.
It can now seem even trivial when, after having spoken so much
about the content of a religious movement, we again return to
the elementary idea: the Movement must be truthful. We may not
undervalue how strong the present day untruthfulness, the inner
unconscious falsehood of civilisation has become. What the
first initiators of this Religious Movement felt at the time,
when they made the suggestion for founding this Movement, was
in reality precisely towards dealing with that inner,
unconscious untruthfulness of our present day.
You
see, out of the cultural historical discomfort the view has
gradually been developed that one must leave science to
science; the theologians need not bother with it. The
theologians had to create their own principles of truth from
which they developed ethical and religious content separated
from anything scientific and gradually introduced eternity and
religiosity while not bothering with what drove science. It is
exactly this detachment of the religious life placing itself
opposite cultural life which resulted in deep inner untruth.
Those who practice science as it is carried out today can only
be atheists if he or she is honest because the manner and way
thoughts regarding the world, as it is carried out in physics
and chemistry, give no possibility to rise up to any kind of
ethic ideal. There exists only one truth for the science of
today, namely: “The totality of the world is determined
by causes. The world of causality is however neutral towards
ethic and religious ideals, completely neutral. Right here we
must search for the truth and conclude there is no other way
than to remain with the verdict of astronomers: I have searched
through the entire universe and haven't found God anywhere, I
therefore don't need this hypothesis.” Something else is
not possible for science, if one is really honest.
On
the basis of such a scientific viewpoint depends how a question
such as: “Should we abandon everything moral and
ethical?” is answered in the following way: “If we
do this then humanity will fall into chaos and therefore it is
necessary to tame humanity from the outside with state laws or
equivalents.” We then have tamed people where the
principle of being tamed becomes nothing other than a higher
form of submission just like one applies to animals. Religion,
for people who thought like this, only had one entitlement and
that was to use it as a means to activate people into mutual
opposition. Religion was just a means to an end; only this was
allowed by those with a scientific way of thinking regarding
the present. A large part of those who undermined humanity like
this is as a result of not having an honest disgust for a way
of thinking which only takes the half, that is, the scientific
method of thought and incidentally invents the theory of how
humanity was tamed. When one speaks about religious and ethical
impulses with only this attitude then one must be completely
clear that all one can speak about are the taming rules. One
always steers towards deeper untruthfulness if one doesn't
confess these things. On the other hand, atheistic science
can't be stopped. Just think how forcefully today intentions
arise to establish human institutions solely and extensively
based on mere materialistically thought-out inherited
principles, for example laws set up for marriage where nothing
about inner heartfelt relationships are the decisive factor,
but rather, for example, that a doctor decides. These things
are argued away but in reality these things do not have an end.
For those who want to work from the basis of religious renewal
it is necessary to be clear to unite the focus of knowledge
simultaneously with the spirit into nature's wisdom, making the
spirit prevalent within the wisdom of nature so that right into
physics spirituality is alive. This need really be striven for
by the fact that the religious movement is based on
Anthroposophy. Still, this basis of Anthroposophy needs to be a
totally inward, truthful aspect. For this reason it is
necessary that the relationship between the Religious Renewal
and Anthroposophy is also represented in the correct way.
Isn't it true that Anthroposophy wants and can't be anything
other than a quest for knowledge? You must, also as far as your
relationship involves its followers, be fully aware that you
are working with a path of knowledge. The religious renewal is
even a religious movement with a corresponding religious
ritual. When both movements work out of their own impulses then
only mutual fructification can result. Basically this can never
cause trouble. One must, when one is clear about it, know that
on the whole, trouble can't appear when the conditions of the
time are considered. The Anthroposophical Movement can be seen
to have a difficult position because many people thirst for a
spiritualised world view and spiritualised knowledge but want
to come to their knowledge with more comfort and ease than what
Anthroposophy offers. People don't want such intensive inner
work which is necessary in Anthroposophy and as a result really
absurd points of view and thoughts pop up. It is like this
— you only need to remind yourselves about yesterday's
lecture — for those who really want to be involved with
Anthroposophy, a basic rethink is necessary which creates a
radical difference between Anthroposophists and those who have
no inkling of the existence of such rethinking and
transformative sensitivity.
What actually makes a community? A communal thinking and
feeling! One can hardly imagine that people who truthfully work
with the Anthroposophical impulse would not get such a feeling
of community, as it had never before been in the world. Such a
fundamental change in thinking has never existed before, even
in the Mysteries: then everything was quite similar to popular
thought. There is a strong bond where everyone calls and shouts
for community which often becomes evident among the youth,
surfacing basically as an absurd tendency. However, don't
forget we are not in a studio where we can make people out of
plasticine, but that people exist out there in all their
absurdities, which one need to refer back to, from which there
is no escape if one wants to do real work. It comes down to
taking these things profoundly and in all seriousness. One
tends not to think about all the various fields. Perhaps you
will understand me better if I give you a popular example.
In
the Waldorf School we now have 12 Classes and students of up to
the age of 18 or 19. They all want to be teachers. Now, the
first and foremost requirement in teaching and education lies
in the non-discussion of the teaching methods to the child, boy
or girl; these methods need to remain a mystery. The way things
are accomplished these days centre around the child in the
Waldorf School; revealing the pedagogical foundation and so on
to them as they are growing up until they sometimes know what
Waldorf pedagogy is better than the teacher. Yes, when things
are like this there can be no progress.
On
the other hand it is not acceptable today to dissect things in
an outer manner. Recently in a delegation meeting we spoke
about the method of how money could be acquired for the
reconstruction (of the Goetheanum). A hateful article appeared
as a result in a Geneva newspaper in a wild attack, how the
poor Swiss people were having a million Franks pulled out of
their pockets. Open secrets also don't work. It must come down
to the ability to inwardly depend on people, so that when basic
rules of secrecy are not given, that a form of tact develops
among the authoritative personalities, speaking about something
in a specific way and not, for instance, reveal the ground
rules of Waldorf pedagogy to a fifteen year old as one would to
a thirty year old person. This must gradually come out of it.
In fact all kinds of absurd added impulses come to the fore,
when things are not considered in depth or with enough
strength.
This is how the impulse for community building appears in the
Anthroposophical Movement. The Anthroposophical Movement is a
movement for knowledge. It is founded on the communality of
will, feeling and thought. Thus one can actually consider that
the Religious Movement would simply rise out of the foundation
of the Anthroposophical Movement, taken up in the way which was
once given to religious movements which had come out of
archetypal impulses and then developed further.
Before any religious movement existed among the
Anthroposophists, a substitute was looked for in all kinds of
esoteric circles which were however based solely on knowledge
and the aspect considered as ritualistic also was just there to
serve knowledge. As a result nothing from these circles could
be brought across into a movement for the renewal of
religion.
Had
things going on at that time, considered then as ritualistic,
had these things not been permeated with the pulse of
knowledge, they would have been conceived outwardly which is
not where they had their origin.
In
contrast it is namely so in religious movements, that the
ritual itself contains immediate content in each act of worship
so that those who for instance refuse to strive for knowledge
within the ritual, still through their participation in the
ritual shares in the ritual's life, because the ritual, in the
way it should work in this Religious Movement, is the speech of
the spiritual world, brought down into earthly form, making
participation in the ritual something quite positive.
Let
us contemplate the central focus of the ritual from this
viewpoint. When we look at the Act of Consecration we notice
the preparatory part being the Gospel reading. Now here is
another difficulty because it is really necessary to get a
better understanding of the Gospels than what currently exists.
It is really a matter of understanding that the Words of the
Gospels are to be taken up quite differently to any other
words, which have flowed from civilisation's development
through humanity. The Word of the Gospel, when it is taken as
the truth, contains within itself something which can be
described when one says: The person who reads the Words of the
Gospel out loud, speaks as the conduit for something which
comes down from the spiritual into the physical world in order
for the prepared part of the Gospel text to somehow enable the
entire congregation to establish a link to the spiritual
world.
Following this, the actual offering takes place, in three
parts: Revelation, Transubstantiation and Communion. A real
conception of this trinity is not possible if one is not clear
about the very moment when transubstantiation is fulfilled,
even for those who actually take part, when natural law and
ethical law flow together as one, so that quite a different
world order is opened up every time for the congregation, each
moment when a person is lifted up to the divine, and the
spiritual sinks down into the congregation. When one takes this
as reality then one must say, something is happening which is
completely independent to what one can recognise as
happening in it. Mere feeling is sufficient for what precedes
it. For knowledge, mere feeling is insufficient. For the
preparatory steps to transformation, it suffices to have
feeling, therefore actually it is a task, an activity involving
the congregation, when the priest celebrates the Act of
Consecration for the congregation. This is something which must
definitely be accepted and as a result you should never disturb
this harmony by asking the question: ‘Could any ritual which is
received today out of the spiritual world’ — and all our
rituals are received from the spiritual world are to some
extent ordained by God — ‘can it be changed or stopped?’
— You see, by somehow evaluating these rituals and come
to saying: ‘Yes, it should develop into another state where
people can have an invisible ritual’ — these questions
are unreasonable.
The
relationship must be thought of in this way: people are always
going to look for a ceremony followed by a sermon; in the
sermon the only enrichment flowing into it can come from
Anthroposophy, out of spiritual science. It will happen in
future that those who are knowledgeable in the topmost
degree in spiritual matters, will never reject keeping
community with those who attend the ritual. He or she has also
no other way of relating to the ritual than, I could call it, a
naive person. Therefore the question can't possibly be raised:
‘Do we carry the ritual for the present time and in future
substitute it by another?’ — Through our founding of the
ritual it is established and will continue; it is subject to
other rules than those that human beings validate when it is
asked: ‘Will there one day be an invisible ritual?’ The Ritual
is subjected to the immense cosmic world impulses which include
everything in its evolution which comes about in the world.
However, the changes of the future will be quite different to
changes that have happened in the past.
Take the Mass of the today's Roman Catholic Church. What is
present there is the synthetic confluence of all the
corresponding rituals of ancient times, deepened in a Christian
sense. This is the wonderful element within the Catholic Church
which has flowed together out of all the ancient mysteries.
However, at specific times in the development of Christianity
there came about — these times actually already began in
the third and fourth century — times during which there
was no understanding any more for what was woven into the
sacrifice of the Mass and so it became an empty formula,
propagating itself through tradition, one could say, out of
respect. Then, seemingly soon, people came with the courage of
non-understanding and started to improve all kinds of things.
Today, as a result, we have in the Catholic Mass sacrifice,
something which gradually, simply through the dying out of
language, has become fundamentally incomprehensible. It is
celebrated in the old language, without it possibly bringing
about understanding. One can regard this sacrifice of the
Catholic Mass as a corpse, which is something unthinkably huge
and powerful, yet still as a corpse possessing unbelievable
power. In totality the peculiar aspect of the Catholic Church
is how the priesthood is exceptionally educated philosophically
but theologically extraordinarily uneducated. The Catholic
theology has no liveliness, so that actually right up to the
greatest climaxes Catholic theology is something
extraordinarily uneducated. Since the Middle Ages it hasn't
undergone any further development. On the grounds of religious
needs of humanity, the teaching or sermon all fail to be
satisfying, yet by contrast this is not the case with the cult
because the cult has an extraordinary power of building the
community. This is what is given in which you can engender a
feeling of eternity through this new ritual, so that no
disharmony need to bear down on your souls. Some
Anthroposophists claim that parts of the prescribed ritual can
be left out. This question would actually not come about if one
has the right attitude. I really don't know out of what grounds
these ideas could have come. Because, take the case of the
funeral today; surely a religious community will ask for a
ritual? So you are called to the Consecration of Man for the
whole of humanity and not only with the attitude that it is
something temporary, it will be replaced by something else.
This is something eternal as far as something can be called
eternal on earth. This conflict which appears to be developing
among many of you, that Anthroposophy sees the ritual to some
extent as something less meaningful or that something else in
the future must represent the present Movement, this conflict
can only be based on a feeling of a misunderstanding. As soon
as you are clear that naturally Anthroposophy lies more on the
side of knowledge and that it must give itself over to that, as
far as the ritual is considered, then on the other side, people
who attend the ritual and also seek the knowledge aspect,
because of the strength of the intellect, and approach the
ritual from the basis of Anthroposophy — as soon as you
are clear about this then you can say to yourself in some way
this is only a kind of division of labour. If taken from this
basis, conflict should not arise at all.
Now
I would like to ask you, following on from these comments, to
express whatever you want because I know that much still lies
in the depths of your souls.
A
question is posed (which is not written down by the
stenographer) regarding the lecture given on the
31st December 1922 in Dornach.
A Saying:
The world's working approaches
As a material reflection to me
In the Heavenly Beings of the stars
I see, through Willing, their loving motion.
Penetrating me with life's water
Forming me through matter's power
The heavenly deeds of the stars
Within feeling I see their wise revolving.
Es nahet mir im Erdenwirken
In Stoffes Abbild mir gegeben
Der Sterne Himmelswesen
Ich seh' im Wollen sie sich liebend wandeln.
Es dringen in mich im Wasserleben
In Stoffes Kraftgewalt mich bildend
Der Sterne Himmelstaten
Ich seh' im Fühlen sie sich weise wandeln.
Rudolf Steiner: What I spoke about then is a kind of
cosmic communion. When this is performed meditatively, then
under the circumstances as things are today, they could offer
people a certain satisfaction. In this way a kind of communion
can be received. However that doesn't exclude those who receive
communion through their knowledge in this way, when they in
their entire soul constitution strive for it today, to also
receive communion in another way. The differences should not be
stressed because the two things are not contradictory. Do you
experience a stronger contradiction here than what you have
against the old, still truly understood, Catholic Church? There
they have the priest communion and naturally also the lay
communion — I don't want to say that all Anthroposophists
should be priests. You have those who can give and receive
communion and you have those who can receive communion but not
give it. When you grasp the difference you have to say to
yourself: ‘Those who give communion can't possibly, without it
adding some inner experience, take the communion anyhow like
the layman. He must experience something more in it.’ Therefore
the priest, when working with the communion, must also
experience something more, an inner communion, and this he does
have. Now, it comes down to strictly adhering to the difference
between the priesthood and the laity. Only these two classes
exist. Today one walks away from the developments in these
olden times, this past time is no longer here.
Today much which was only available to the Priests in olden
times is now to some extent also made available to the laity.
Our entire modern theology, all its literature is now
available. The same can be said to be valid in our case. You
can study theology as a layman. If you choose a way of
knowledge like Anthroposophy it is self-evident that the
thoughts of participants become familiar with such things as
would first and foremost been available for the celebrating
Priests in past times. Today it is different. We can't put up
boundaries. If we would have clung to old principles it would
be as if a religious movement existed and within that movement
would have been the priesthood who then would have
Anthroposophy to themselves, who would have to do everything on
the level of profane technicality, as demanded by the times ...
(gap in stenographer's notes). If you take that into
account you will understand that this communion which the
priest celebrates has developed from something which belongs to
the Anthroposophical Movement. However, there is no ground for
saying: ‘On the one hand we have the priestly, on the other we
have cosmic communion.’ Both come from the same foundation,
only differentiating in form. They can both stand independently
beside one another. So when you enter with profound feeling
into these things you will have no difficulties.
A Participant: In the report about the meeting of
delegates in February 1923 it is said that the ritualistic
element is something which comes from prenatal life. In the
course which we attended in Dornach, it is illustrated how our
ritual raises up the dead in their life after death.
Rudolf Steiner: This is something which is applicable to
all things created out of the spiritual world; the concepts
need to be grasped very precisely. To grasp concepts scholarly
dialectic needs to be entered into. However we haven't come
that far yet, neither in the area of Anthroposophy, nor in the
Religious Movement. You see, the way people work in the ritual,
to really engage, so that the human soul is involved, is in
order for this to lead to the Portal of Death and encounter
Christ — this is the one side of the cult. The other side
through which that takes place for the human being is like a
cosmic memory of what had been experienced prenatally. Let's
take an example in ordinary life to make this clear. What
meeting makes a great impression on a person today? To have had
an encounter, already during his youth, with a venerated
person. Now something else is added to this. It is something
different, when I depict it, which germinates in the mood of
soul towards the future; as a result of this he might approach
relationships in life in quite a different manner to the kind
of person he had been in his youth. When one partakes in the
ritual, one's next, future life is touched. This happens
because its origin lies in prenatal life. This works very
strongly on the human being.
A Participant: Does one accomplish more by meditating on
the Mass or when one celebrates the Mass? One can then come as
far as saying we don't need to read the Mass any more.
Rudolf Steiner: Logically that is not quite untrue, but
in fact it is not so. When the Mass is read and is then
experienced meditatively and thus has an effect on you, then
this effect, while depending on a more intense inner activity,
actually becomes stronger. However you are not always able to
call upon this inner activity. When you haven't read the Mass
for some days then its power becomes paralysed. It is true, if
one can, then it is good, but when it has had no preparatory
stages then these forces are paralysed. It is not true that the
inner meditated Mass is as strong as the read Mass, and it must
not somehow become an ideal for the Priest, to not read the
Mass. Then he could well say: ‘I refrain from working with my
congregants, I, alone, want to make progress.’ It is possible
to imagine this ideal (not reading the Mass but meditating) but
the power which the priest will need, when he wants to read the
Mass, this he must not allow to weaken as a result, by him
wanting to present such an ideal.
A participant: How does one bring people to the
Consecration of Man? Are we to only take people who emotionally
come from underdeveloped religious sentiments, to whom the way
of knowledge is closed? How should we approach participants if
we don't follow the route of thinking?
Rudolf Steiner: You don't just have the ritual, but also
in the broadest sense the sermon, lectures, or preaching in the
terminological sense. Nothing can be seen as a problem. Today's
younger intellectuals who work out of nothing don't want an
isolated intellectual aspect, but strive strongly towards
ritual.
What can enter here, which must from external sources form a
synthesis between the Religious Movement and Anthroposophy, I
now want to characterise. On the one hand today's intellect is
not enlivened without the ritual. The ritual firstly calls upon
the intellect. Today people stop believing they can think if
they don't have the ritual. Stopping thinking is a danger of
the time. On the other hand I don't see where the limitation
must lie when presenting a sermon and ritual. A limitation can
only exist where you create it artificially. They don't want to
learn about Anthroposophy, they say. That they can't handle
because they must! Of course one should not throw Anthroposophy
at them because then the problem arises with them saying: ‘We
don't want to learn about Anthroposophy.’
A participant: So I won't talk about the ether body, for
example?
Rudolf Steiner: That depends on the knowledge of the
congregation. I can easily imagine a congregation who relate
honestly to the ritual and still can have a need for knowledge.
I don't see why you shouldn't speak about the ether body.
A participant: There are actually people with a desire
for knowledge and who find their way to Anthroposophy through
the ritual. Can we find a possibility to satisfy people who
don't want Anthroposophy?
Rudolf Steiner: The question is actually: how will you
characterise someone who should be led by you, who will
actually be led by you in order for that person to be seen
quite separated from Anthroposophy? How must that person be? It
is like this: When one really grasps what a person is about,
when one really enters into true humanity, then people want
Anthroposophy, just as at all times the underlying soul is
being sought for. To not want Anthroposophy is only the case
with inhibited people. For forty years you could still find
elementally healthy people in the countryside, they uttered the
highest wisdom. (The following sentence was only partially
captured.) Under their pillows they use to hide something
— take Jacob Boehme for instance — this
is no longer found today. People who have become inhibited in
large cities don't come anywhere near such things. As a result
I can imagine that another way can be used, other than
anthroposophic. Your approach need not be from what is printed
in books but what you have experienced through books. For
example the concept of the etheric body is easy to bring across
to naive individuals. In some regions people called the little
substance left in the eyes upon waking, “night's
sleep”; the etheric is in there because it comes from the
etheric body's activity. Starting points are everywhere. You
satisfy people more when you become free of words and come from
experience itself.
A participant: Is it possible to find the difference
between cosmic communion and the ritual in order to formulate
it as sacramental?
Rudolf Steiner: That is something which is difficult to
say, because experience of real cosmic communication is already
sacramental. All of anthroposophic thought is something
sacramental, as I have expressed it already in my Theory of
Knowledge in the Goethian world view. Knowledge, when it is
true knowledge, strives towards sacrament. It depends more upon
us trying to bring things together than to find differences,
because in reality you bring yourself together with it.
A question is posed with reference to specific words in a
sentence from one of Rudolf Steiner's Dornach lectures of 1922
(indicated by a few connecting words by the
stenographer).
Rudolf Steiner: ‘Anthroposophy needs no religious
renewal’ — so you have correctly formulated the sentence.
What will it mean for Anthroposophy, whose foundation is in
itself, to need religious renewal? The reverse: ‘Religious
renewal needs Anthroposophy!’ What was said there in the
lecture, that Anthroposophy needs ritual, was actually directed
at Anthroposophists, not at the Movement for Religious Renewal.
Such things need to be said because many people believe they
need to orientate themselves out of principle, whether they
should choose to take part in the Religious Movement. There
were members of the Anthroposophic Movement who were much older
than Dr Rittelmeyer; when they asked if they should take part
in the ritual, one must say to them: ‘In the end you should
know this yourself, you must be able to consult Dr
Rittelmeyer.’ — One may not say that the only way to come
to anthroposophy is through the Religious Movement; that would
be very wrong. My lecture at that time was directed at
Anthroposophists. It is therefore self evident that the
Anthroposophists, as they have become lately, could be
consultants for the ritual. The opposite is deadly for
Anthroposophy: when you say one couldn't come to an
anthroposophic understanding (of Christ) if you do not come via
the ritual. It is necessary to stress that the lecture was
directed at Anthroposophists. The misunderstanding came about
by both sides making mistakes of omission in their
handling. There are many in the Religious Movement who doesn't
know what they should be doing.
Marie Steiner: Some Anthroposophists
created the saying: “Dr Steiner wants the Religious
Movement to replace the Anthroposophical movement”; that
was Dr Steiner's assessment. Similarly at the start of the
Threefold Movement it was also suggested it should replace the
Anthroposophical Movement. There have already been signs of
people believing that Anthroposophy should be disassembled.
Lecture cycles at the publishers were cancelled, and such
like.
Rudolf Steiner: These things appear in outer practice
and do not lead to inner difficulties.
A Participant pointed out that Rudolf Steiner had said
during the lecture on 30 December 1922 that there were many
people who are orientated towards knowledge but other people
with dull religious inclination (text here only copied in
key words by the stenographer).
Rudolf Steiner: Yes, that can't be denied, there are
people with a thorough orientation towards knowledge and others
with just a dull religious inclination. If I said that
Anthroposophy can't do anything with people who have dull
religious instincts, but only through something like the
Religious Movement, then it is true. However it does not mean
that the Religious Movement is applicable to only these kinds
of people, but it means these people can't do anything with
Anthroposophy. These people can only be reached through the
ritual, not through Anthroposophy. People with a dull religious
inclination are to be involved through the ritual and possibly
will become very thoughtful people in their next lives.
A participant: People say: ‘The Anthroposophists have a
university, you have a school for children.’ This is the kind
of thing we have to deal with.
Rudolf Steiner: Recently I saw a big poster which came
out of Austria with sheer nonsense on it, claiming how
concerned individuals reach the spiritual world, but on the
other side it said: ‘With my spiritual system I include all
things which are only approached one-sidedly by Anthroposophy
and Theosophy etc.’ With such things inner difficulties can't
be judged. Such people one may not take as tragic. You can't be
upset by this.
A participant: To prevent such things being proclaimed,
the leader of the branch needs to take action.
Rudolf Steiner: These are outer things. The leader of
branch is not involved with what members do outside the
branch.
A participant: It is said directly that the two paths
are contradictory. This frightens people and they stay
away.
Rudolf Steiner: This is not inner difficulty, it is
outer action of practical life. That these things happen cannot
be stopped. One can't characterise something in a trivial way
which is connected to the most serious profundity; for this is
needed clear formulation, with serious words which can possibly
appear as falsely expressed. What one or other branch leader
has to say is quite insignificant. Otherwise we have to regard
it as a task to only have branch leaders who are infallible.
Your spiritual tools are there to educate people.
Emil Bock: In a certain sense there was no confusion in
the beginning. We were looking for our field of work as
somewhere different from the Anthroposophic field. We probably
took the declarations of the opposition as our connecting point
which made us too separate from the Anthroposophic work. Some
of us also had no more time for it. As a result of these
difficulties arising among the Anthroposophists we realised we
could not speak from the side of Anthroposophists. As a result
of the course of events we had separated ourselves somewhat out
of the anthroposophical line. Now we ask you, please help us,
to find the true way in the anthroposophic work again, because
we have a strong desire not to fall away from the
Anthroposophic work and see how as a result we have attracted
the possibility to really contribute to the clarification of us
not being seen as Anthroposophists but as standing for
Religious Renewal. We do not want to be poor representatives of
Anthroposophy.
Rudolf Steiner: The danger was actually there from the
beginning. It all depends on the correct critical attitude
being maintained. It is possible through many things that
judgement is rectified. For several months already, Dr
Rittelmeyer is very actively involved in the Management
(Forstand) of the Anthroposophic Society. What he says is
highly recommended. It is already so that the strength of each
one of you becomes strongly recommended. I will never again, at
an occasion where social relationships are to be healed by the
ritual, participate without a representative of the Religious
Movement working with me. At burials I will no longer speak
alone, without a priest. The ritual needs to be celebrated by
the priest. In this way correct judgement must be built up. In
discussions misunderstandings arrive, but the facts speak for
themselves.
It
is important that the Religious Movement does not deny
Anthroposophy. You are mistaken if you believe you can make
progress without it. It is far better to be clear and stand
firm on the foundation of Anthroposophy. Everything must be
openly brought to light. You may not allow people to come to
the opinion that it has nothing to do with Anthroposophy. The
Waldorf School is completely related to Anthroposophy. Some
lecturer has said that the Waldorf School is quite nice if only
their basic views could be dropped.
It
is this which I want to stress: If Anthroposophy is the
foundation of the Waldorf School then we don't create an
anthroposophic sect education, but by going through
Anthroposophy we strive towards a general education of
mankind.
We
have the task not to clarify misunderstandings but simply to
speak the truth.
|